Another United Nations War?

Ron Paul ^ | February 28, 2003 | Ron Paul, M.D., and a Republican member of Congress from Texas

[exodus]

Another United Nations War?

By Ron Paul, M.D., and a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
February 28, 2003

President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of "The New World Order," a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received UN authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this UN authority was adequate, and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War therefore was clearly a UN, political war fought within UN guidelines, not for U.S. security – and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the active fighting. Although this is referred to as the second Persian Gulf War, it’s merely a continuation of a war started long ago, and is likely to continue for a long time even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power.

Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of UN expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved.

Our 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties, and over a trillion dollars in today’s dollars spent. Korea is the most outrageous example of our fighting a UN war without a declaration from the U.S. Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of control. And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United States and North Korea!

As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the UN was not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam is now essentially non-communist, and trade with the West is routine. We didn’t disarm Vietnam, we never counted their weapons, and so far no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two countries, not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well – even after many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them into compliance with Western demands.

But in this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The administration now says it would be nice to have UN support, but it’s not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty. But no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a UN prerogative, and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress.

Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interest is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it’s ironic that we’re making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support. But the argument for unilateralism and national sovereignty cannot be made for the purpose of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. That doesn’t make any sense. If one wants to enforce UN Security Council resolutions, that authority can only come from the United Nations itself. We end up with the worst of both worlds: hated for our unilateralism, but still lending credibility to the UN.

The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U. S. Congress. Those who believe, and many sincerely do, that the United Nations serves a useful function, argue that ignoring the United Nations at this juncture will surely make it irrelevant. Even with my opposition to the United Nations, I can hardly be pleased that its irrelevancy might come about because of our rush to war against a nation that has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us. From my viewpoint the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostilities to all of Asia or even further.

With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations, and exclude ourselves from the entangling, dangerous, complex, and unworkable alliances that come with our membership in the United Nations.

[elfman2 on another computer]

"the point is such a large scale war, series of wars if you will and long term occupations are of such grave consequence that they should be openly debated in congress and in the country. To do otherwise is way too similar to the Roman Senate giving up the republic."

But of course if we spelled out a 20 point plan for regime change by various methods, or whatever form it would take, we would be unable to complete it. Our opposition would unite against us and develop a counter strategy, and the cost to counter that would be unacceptable to our population or that of the world. Many say we already said to much just by naming the axis of evil.

So in the end, the choice is the kind of ambiguous and flexible series of campaign in pursuit of eliminating international terrorism, or appeasement. Our nation and western civilization are unprepared for anything more ambitious.

[elfman2 on another computer]

If we had embarked on an overt and virtually irreversible declaration of war 6 months ago as we began deploying our forces and equipment, Saddam would have spent the last 6 months deploying and perhaps using WMDs. This little trick that has a few like yourself all rattled was probably the only way to successfully pursue this war. Sorry for the inconvenience and the lose ends.

[jammer]

Rattled isn't the term. Had Clinton done it, many more would have insisted on a declaration of war. I just find many (not you) are inconsistent. Okay, for the sake of argument, let's grant that what you say is true about WMD. How about we declare war, formally, now?

[elfman2 on another computer]

"How about we declare war, formally, now?"

Another 2-3 weeks of debate, the additional restrictions on our behavior with enemy combatants (rather than POWs), and the inability to use this strategy next time. That’s still a very big price, and for what? Peace of mind from the minority with constitutional concerns. It won’t win over new converts. For every one that has his concerns relieved, there’ll be another that sees this as a sign of weakness or gets more scared by the declaration. I don’t see the playback for all the damage it would do.

[elfman2 on another computer]

This kind of flexibility’s needed in the war on terrorism. Unlike past wars, our enemy’s nationless, concealed, ruthless, duplicitous and dispersed. We’ve probably applied forces in a dozen or more nations since 9/11and we’ll probably use them in that many more. Our enemy has counted on us being unable to nimbly pursue them and getting bogged down in domestic and international politics. The Bush administration has decided that the ambiguity and stress from side stepping some of that is worth the rewards.

[inquest]

Since Iraq has violated its agreements with us, international law gives us considerable leeway regarding how we deal with treaties with them. And the fact remains, the resolution Congress passed was either a declaration of war in the constitutional sense, or it wasn't. If it was, all the same rules of warfare would apply just as if it had stated "Declaration of War" in explicit terms. One can't get out of treaty obligations just by calling something by a different name.

Since you've made such a point of challenging my ability to know what I'm talking about, perhaps you could provide your evidence to show that Congress avoided the term "Declaration of War" specifically so it could avoid its obligations under the Geneva Convention?

[elfman2 on another computer]

" One can't get out of treaty obligations just by calling something by a different name"

We more or less just did.

The Bush administration specifically asked Congress not to declare war. I looked that up for someone several months ago who was under the assumption that Congress just wimped out. I found a report of it on Google Groups search from shortly after 9/11. There were probably a host of reasons that a declaration of war was not desired. I don’t have time for more research today.

[u-89]

"if we spelled out a 20 point plan for regime change ... Our opposition would unite against us... and the cost... would be unacceptable to our population "

This remark could be rightly applied to the socialist makeover our country has gone through over the last century. If liberals were honest about their plans the public would not accept it. Therefore those who know better best move society along by deception towards their lofty goals for the dumb people's own good. Of course you meant that statement in a wartime context and I am not naive regarding warfare but what is planned by our leaders is much grander than mere war.

"Many say we already said too much just by naming the axis of evil."

Well being that I believe in TR's advice of speaking softly but carry a big stick I have been appalled by the verbose bellicosity of this administration overall. That said the world's diplomatic circles well understood what the president meant when right after 9/11 when he stated "you are either with us or with the terrorists" and the excess verbiage since then I assume is for public consumption.

"Our nation and western civilization are unprepared for anything more ambitious."

This goes back to the first quote of yours above. The question is not just the war against the perpetrators of 9/11 or Islamic terrorism in general but the Bush Doctrine (declared foreign policy objectives) has to be included in this debate. If you take this doctrine plus what we know of this upcoming war and what was outlined in the speech the other night what we have is a world order that is declared to exist, not yet to be created. The world community is not invited to join - there is no opting out- they are all considered under this authority. The US is declared as the supreme leader of the world and no challenge will be tolerated, no move contrary to what we see as our interests will be tolerated and threats are what we claim they are and are not up to foreign interpretation. We will strike with our military to enforce compliance. Basically the old order of respecting national sovereignty is out the window. Nothing from now on is none of our business - the world is our business. That is pretty amazing stuff and deserving of a debate - but I am not sure who or what our representives represent anymore as few seem to think of the constitution, their local constituents or their home state in the old Republic sense of the meaning so congressional action would be no more than a rubber stamp. That leaves the debate to "we the people" though it will have no effect as our fate has been sealed long ago. Well at least we can kick the idea around on forums like this for fun. Been nice debating with you.

cordially,

[William Terrell]

The US constitution created the three branches of the national government and specified the powers for each. A "power" is the ability to authorized action and then act. Every act on the part of the federal government is an act of the people of the US. And every act is governed by the constitution.

The fact that there exists a, and only one, power in the constitution to bring about war, that is, armed conflict with another nation, means it must be used for an armed conflict to be authorized.

If the Congress authorized the executive to "take action" then the enacting clause damn well will be 1-8-11. Otherwise that "authorization" is illegal, and void, because that is the only place in the constitution that authorizes any branch to take the nation to war. If Congress made that authorizaton under 1-8-11 then it doesn't matter if they call it a "declaration of war" or not, it is one.

So, did that "authorization to take action" use the powers of 1-8-11? If it didn't then it is a violation of the separation of powers. I don't think it did, because there is too much scrutiny and too much complaining about no declaration among those who investigate these things closely.

Frankly, Congress pulling a extraconstitutional power out of it ass frightens me, and it should frighten you, too.

[Sci Fi Guy]

It is communist, and people there are still being tortured and killed for the crime of being Christian (among other things).

[elfman2 on another computer]

A parallel comes to mind - the Cold War, in which we had fairly similar objectives, strategies and methods.

Objective CW: Contain Communism until it was not a threat.
Objective WOT: Eliminate terrorist resources until they’re not a threat.

Stategy CW: Multifaceted denial of opportunities by leveraging political, technological, economic and military advantages
Strategy WOT: Same

Methods CW: Politicking for the hearts and minds of the world while aggressively engaging in Machiavellian tactics without public debate.
Methods WOT: Same

So you can probably see that I don’t recognize the Bush Doctrine as uniquely undemocratic or of unprecedented magnitude. But I do find it puzzling that more hasn’t been done to define terrorism, recognizing that all asymmetrical aggression is not "terrorism". I think if a more narrow definition were promoted more aggressively, we could win greater international support, but maybe that’s premature.

As far as I understand, there is no greater objective than to cripple international terrorism by making the world inhospitable to it. And in recognition of its roots, that means bullying many small nations into submission and reforming the governments of several of significant world status. Again, that sounds pretty familiar, similar to the objectives, strategy and methods of the cold war, and I think that there were concerns then regarding national sovereignty and public debate.

Nevertheless, I agree that it’s interesting that all this was set into motion without significant public input, and challenges to it have barely risen above the background noise. It’s been good discussing this with you as well. I think you’re and interesting read.

[William Terrell]

While the constitution clearly assigns the power to declare war to Congress, it does NOT limit the use of the Armed forces to declared wars, nor does it state anywhere, that hostilities can be engaged ONLY after Congress declares war.

Within our own nation, in time of emergency or insurrection, the Congress does not have to declare war. But armed conflict with foreign powers is not within our own nation.

Is the use of military force constitutionally restricted to declared wars? No.

You're right. It can be used within our own country in times of emergency.

Is Congress constitutionally obligated to declare war each and everytime the need to engage US Armed Forces arises? No.

Oh? Congress can declare war generally and leave it to the executive to decide when? That is tantamount to violation to the separation of powers. The separation of powers doctrine is about keeping a single head from wielding all powers of state.

It either keeps all powers separated into the various branches or it doesn't. There is no part here and part there. If one power can be legitimately transfered, then they all can by implication. If one branch's power is de facto in the hands of another, it doesn't matter if in some labored way it was made de jure, it actually does what the framers of our constitution preached against and materially (not just philosophically) brings about the dangers of a totalitarian form of administration.

I was taught this in every civics class I had in school many years ago. Weren't you?

Is the definition of "war" limited to "...armed conflict with another nation..." as stated by you? No, as proven by The Civil War.

The war was not a "civil war". The south didn't attempt to attack the national government and take it over; they withdrew from it and formed a new nation with the consent of the people and electorate. That it was two nations fighting, no matter how the people on both sides thought about one another, made it not an internal emergency.

Regardless of the rhetoric, the fact is, the south left the union and formed a new nation with a constitution. They were conquered by the North in a war. Their nation was declared "illegal" only after they were conquered

Can the definition of "war" include armed conflict with multi-national paramilitary organizations such as terrorists? Yes.

We're talking about Iraq. Iraq is a aggregate people operating as a sovereign nation, only it has a very dangerous leader. Links to terrorism are only one of the list of national security reasons given by the president. I think Saddam is a threat to us. Let's kick his ass. But let's do it by the book lest the book cease to have meaning.

Can Congress grant authorization to use force to the Commander In Chief pending international developments? Yes, under the War Powers Act.

"Act" means legislation. Which would mean Congress granted themselves the power to transfer their power to declare war to the executive, or "grant authorization to use force to the Commander In Chief pending international developments".

Is the War Powers Act constitutional? Yes, it was penned under the authorization granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.

" 18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

If this can be used to make law that transfers constitutional powers between branches, it can be used to do anything whether constitutionally approved or not. This is just the empowerment clause to use their powers, including clause 11, not to use any other power that they might imagine.

Surely you were taught in school that the branches can only exercise the powers that were specifically granted to them by enumeration, and none other.

[inquest]

I think you'll find that the Geneva Convention will still apply to whatever military action we're about to take against Iraq, as it did in the last war with them.

But in any case, if it's true that the reason Congress hasn't explicitly declared war is that the authorization they passed has a different legal meaning than a declaration of war, then that's proof positive that Congress isn't following the Constitution. There's simply no way around that.

[elfman2 on another computer]

"then that's proof positive that Congress isn't following the Constitution"

No it isn’t. You’re just making this stuff up as you go along. I don’t have time for this.

[inquest]

I'm not making up anything, just applying logical principles. I'll break it down piece by piece:

-The Constitution is a legal document - a body of law

-The term "declare war", which appears in the Constitution, must have a legal meaning

-If Congress passes a resolution that has a different legal meaning from a declaration of war, then they are not declaring war within the meaning of the Constitution

-If Congress hasn't declared war within the meaning of the Constitution, then under the Constution the President has no power to fight one, since the Constitution doesn't give him such power

You're trying to twist the law into something other than what it clearly says.