|
Ron's Paul's Freedom Report
A publication of the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
VOLUME 3, NO. 3 APRIL 1999
The following is adapted from remarks delivered by Rep. Paul on the Floor of the House of Representatives on April 21, 1999.
NATO's War
No Tears When We Say Goodbye
Supporters of internationalism celebrated NATO’s 50th anniversary early in 1998, when the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved expanding membership in this defense alliance to include Eastern European countries. This year’s official induction of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic made all NATO supporters proud indeed. In reality, however, NATO is now weaker and more chaotic than ever. Expanding NATO to promote internationalism has spawned the rise of an ugly nationalism.
The U.S.’s and NATO’s use of threats and intimidation to establish an autonomous Kosovo, although one without true independence from Serbia but protected by NATO forces for the foreseeable future, has proven to be a recipe for disaster. This policy of nation building and interference in a civil war totally contradicts the mission of European defense set out in the NATO Charter.
However, without the Soviet enemy to justify the European military machine, NATO had to find enemies and humanitarian missions to perform. The centuries-old ethnic hatreds found in Yugoslavia and the militant leaders on all sides have served this purpose well. Hard work to justify the NATO/Clinton policy in this region has totally overshadowed any objective analysis of the turmoil now raging.
Specific policy positions of NATO virtually guaranteed that the ongoing strife would erupt into a full-fledged and dangerous conflict.
1. The determination in the early 1990s that outsiders would indict and try Yugoslavian war criminals made it certain that cooperation with Western negotiators would involve risk. Fighting to the end became a practical alternative to the specter of mock international trials.
2. Forcing a treaty settlement on Serbia, where Serbia would lose its sovereign territory of Kosovo, guaranteed an escalation of the fighting and forced removal of the Kosovars from their homes.
3. Ignoring the fact that more than 500,000 Serbs were themselves uprooted from Croatia and Bosnia, with the encouragement of NATO intervention, did great harm to the regional effort to reestablish stable borders. No one is calling for the return of Serbian property and homes. In contrast, the sympathy shown Albanian refugees by our government and media, however justified, only fans the flames of hatred, because Serbs who suffered the same fate have been ignored by the internationalists who are bent on waging war.
Threatening to bomb a country’s cities unless that country does what we tell them is hardly good diplomacy. Arguing that the Serbs must give up what they see as sovereign territory, after suffering so much themselves, as well as face war-crime trials run by the West, makes no realistic sense. Anyone should have been able to predict what the results have been.
The argument that we were forced to act out of humanitarian concerns for the refugees is not plausible. Our efforts dramatically increased the refugee problem. In the face of Western threats, Milosovec reacted in the only way he could to protect what he considers to be Serbia — a position he defends, backed by international law and a united Serbian people.
If it’s suffering and refugees that truly motivate our actions, there is no rational answer to the perplexing question of why no action was taken over the suffering in Rwanda, Sudan, East Timor, Tibet, Chechnya, Kurdish Turkey, and the Palestinians in Israel. Humanitarian concern is not the reason; it’s a transparent excuse.
We give massive foreign aid to the likes of China and Russia, countries that have trampled on the rights of ethnic minorities. How many refugees and children’s deaths has the U.S. caused through its nine years of embargo and bombing of defenseless, poverty-ridden Iraq? Just as our bombs in Iraq have caused untold misery and death, so have our bombs in Serbia killed the innocent on both sides, solidified support for ruthless leaders on both sides, and spread the war on both sides.
The United States Government has in the past referred to the Kosovo Liberation Army leaders as “thugs, terrorists, Marxists, and drug dealers.” This current conflict was initiated by Kosovo’s desire for independence from Serbia — the KLA took on the Serbs, not the other way around.
Being sympathetic to Kosovo’s secession is not relevant. I, for one, prefer many small independent governments pledged not to aggress against their neighbors over the international special-interest authoritarianism of NATO, the CIA, and the UN. But my sympathies do not justify our taxing and sending young Americans to fight for Kosovo’s independence. It’s legally and morally wrong. Besides, the KLA is not likely to establish a model nation with respect for the civil liberties of all its citizens.
The biggest irony of this entire mess is to see the Interventionists, whose goal is one-world government, so determinedly defending a questionable group of local leaders bent on secession (the KLA). This action will not go unnoticed. It will provide the philosophic framework for the establishment of a Palestinian state, Kurdistan, an independent Tibet, and encourage many other ethnic minorities to demand independence.
Our policy of intervention in the internal affairs of other nations does not come from the American tradition or constitutional law. It is a policy based on our current leader’s belief that we are the policemen of the world. Although this globalist view is something we have earnestly and foolishly pursued since World War II, we have become even more aggressive since the demise of the Soviet Union. Intervention is based on a false sense of wisdom and virtue. Interventionists tell themselves we always discern the good guys from the bad guys and that we will ignore the corporate and political special interests always agitating for influence. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Playing Both Sides Against the American Taxpayer
This policy of intervention is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and promoted illegally by our President without the congressional authority required by the Constitution.
Instead of occasionally being lucky enough to pick the right side of a conflict, we end up supporting both sides of nearly every conflict. In the 1980s, we armed and allied ourselves with the Iraqis against Iran. Also in the 1980s, we supported the Afghan “freedom fighters” which included Osama Bin Laden. Even in the current crisis in Yugoslavia, we have found ourselves on both sides.
In 1992, along with the United Nations, the United States supported an arms embargo against Kosovo that essentially made it impossible for the Kosovars to defend themselves against Serbia. Helping the Albanian Muslims now is interpreted by some as token appeasement to the Arab oil countries that are unhappy with the advantage the Serbs got from our arms embargo. This balancing act between three vicious warring factions was doomed to fail and has only led to more instability and spread war in the region.
Instead of trying to be everything to everyone, and then having to shift alliances while blindly hoping for good to come of it, we should reconsider the advice of the Founders and take seriously the strict constitutional restraints on waging war.
Not much long-term good can come of a foreign policy designed to meddle and manipulate in places where we have no business or authority. It cannot help the cause of peace. Unfortunately our policies usually backfire and do more harm than good. When weaker nations are intimidated by more powerful ones, striking back very often can be done only through terrorism — a problem that will continue to threaten all Americans as our leaders incite those who oppose our aggressive stands throughout the world.
War has been used throughout history to enhance the state at the expense of the people. Taxes, conscription, and inflation have been used as tools of the state to pursue unpopular wars. Government size and authority always grow with war, because citizens are told that only the sacrifice of their liberties can save the nation. Propaganda and threats are used to coerce people into this careless giving up of their liberties. This has always been true with military wars, but the same can be said of the war mentality associated with the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War Against Illiteracy, or any other “war” proposed by some social do-gooder or intentional mischief maker.
When a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this “War Against Terrorism” as well.
Extensive preparations are already being made to fight urban and domestic violence, not with an enhanced local police force, but by a national police force with military characteristics. Even the war against national disasters that is led by FEMA usurps local authority by restricting movement and controlling recovery efforts that should be left to local police, private insurance, and voluntary groups.
Our overseas efforts to police the world carry the additional burden that, with or without success, resulting injuries and damage caused by us and others will be rectified with U.S. tax dollars in the form of foreign aid. We always do this. Nation building and international social work have replaced national defense as the proper responsibility of our government.
The Future of NATO
Fortunately for those who cherish liberty and limited government, NATO has a questionable future. Many are fretting that NATO may dissolve as a result of a poor showing in Yugoslavia, despite the 50th anniversary hype and NATO’s recent expansion.
When our leaders sanctioned NATO in 1949, there were many patriotic Americans who questioned the wisdom and the constitutionality of this organization. It was chartered to be strictly a defensive organization, designed to fortify western Europe against Soviet threats. The NATO charter clearly recognized the Security Council of the United Nations as responsible for “the maintenance of international peace and security.”
Likewise, the legislative history and congressional testimony maintained NATO could not usurp from Congress and the people the power to wage war. We have drifted a long way from that acknowledgement. The fears expressed by Robert Taft and others in 1949 were certainly justified.
While deliberately avoiding a UN vote on the issue, the United States and NATO have initiated war against a sovereign state in the middle of a civil war. NATO’s interference has turned a civil war with thousands of casualties and refugees on both sides into a multi-nation war with hundreds of thousands of casualties and refugees. The not-so-idle U.S. threats cast at Milosovec did not produce compliance; they only expanded violence and bloodshed.
As the foolishness of this policy became painfully obvious, Western leaders scrambled to justify their war-mongering. It was not “peace” or “liberty” or “national security” they sought as they sent the bombs flying — it was to “save face” for NATO. Without the Soviets to worry about, NATO needed a mission, and stopping the “evil Serbs” fit the bill. It was easy to ignore the evil Croates and Kosovars, and it certainly was convenient to forget the UN’s, NATO’s and the U.S.’s policies over the past decade that contributed to the mess in Yugoslavia.
Unfortunately, there had been a huge miscalculation. It soon became apparent that bombing would no more be a successful tool than had been the threats of dire consequences if the treaty, so unfavorable to the Serbs, were not quickly signed by Milosovec. This realization spawned demands that policy be shifted toward “saving NATO” by expanding the war. NATO’s credibility was now at stake, and after all, how could Europe (and the U.S. war machine) survive if NATO were to disintegrate?
Hopes riding with Ron Brown and his corporate friends on their way to Bosnia to do business deals were not dashed by the unfortunate and mysterious Air Force crash. Isn’t it strange that nobody questions what U.S. policy condones business trips of our corporate leaders into a war zone on Air Force aircraft? Corporate interests and the military-industrial complex continue to play a role in our Yugoslavian war policy. Corporate America loves NATO.
Most politicians and the public do not know NATO’s real mission. Today’s policy is not explained by reading its 1949 mission statement. Vital interests and national security cannot justify our escalation of the war in Yugoslavia. The excuse that we’re the only super power is hardly a moral reason to justify bombing nations that are simply uncooperative.
Military strength gives neither a right to bully nor a monopoly on wisdom. Too often, when this strength is held by large political entities, it is used criminally to serve powerful special interests. The Persian Gulf and Yugoslavia are obviously much more economically intriguing than Rwanda and the Sudan. There are clearly no business benefits to taking on the Chinese over policy toward Tibet. Quite the contrary, we do business with China and subsidize her to boot.
In spite of the powerful political and industrial leaders’ support for NATO (and the budgets of 19 Western countries), NATO’s days appear numbered. We shall not weep when NATO goes the way of the Soviet Empire and the Warsaw Pact. Managing a war with 19 potential vetoes makes it impossible for a coherent strategy to evolve. Chaos, bickering, bureaucratic blundering, waste, and political infighting will surely result.
There is no natural tendency for big governments to enjoy stability without excessive force, as was used in the Soviet Empire. But eventually, the natural tendency toward instability, even under the authoritarian Soviet system, brought its well-deserved demise. Especially now that it has embarked on a new and dangerous imperialistic mission, NATO will find that using brute force to impose its will on others is doomed to fail.
It has been said that in numbers there is strength, but in politics numbers lead to confusion because differences become magnified. Nationalism is alive and well within the nineteen-member NATO group.
When nationalism is non-militaristic, peace-loving, and freedom-oriented, it is a force that will always undermine big-government planners, whether found in a Soviet system or a NATO-UN system. The smaller the unit of government, the better it is for the welfare of those who seek only peace and freedom. NATO no longer can hide its true intent behind an anti-Communist commitment.
Not-So-Strange Bedfellows
Some have wondered how a Sixty’s Generation administration could be so prone to war. After all, the 1960s were known for rebellion against the Vietnam War and a preference for lovemaking and drugs over fighting (even Communists). But in recent months, four separate sovereign nations have been bombed by the United States (This has to be some kind of a record!).
Bombing Belgrade on Easter tells us something about an administration that, strangely, is still seen by some disbelievers as not having the determination to fight a real war. But there’s a big difference between being anti-war when it might save your own skin, compared to when it’s someone else’s life put at risk. That tells us something about character, but there’s more to it than that.
Many who opposed the Persian Gulf and Vietnam Wars now strongly support our so-called “just and humanitarian” war to punish those said to be responsible for the Yugoslavian refugee problem. The fact that Serbia, although Communist, is not a “poster boy” for Communism (as North Vietnam was) may play a part in the decision of some who protested over Vietnam but support this war. Be that as it may, that other war in the Persian Gulf was not at all about Communism; it was about oil.
Some from the Left, if strongly enough inclined toward internationalism, did support the Persian Gulf War. But for the most part, the opposition to that war came from the Left and those who chose not to support a president of the opposite party — Democrats objected to George Bush’s war. Today, Democrats supporting their own party’s position to bomb the Serbs are politically correct.
Something similar can be said of those opposed to the Yugoslavian War. If they supported the Persian Gulf War, those who object to this administration’s war do so largely for partisan reasons. The principles of interventionism, constitutionality, and morality have nothing to do with it — they have not been applied consistently to either war effort by either political party. There’s a precise reason for this, over and above the petty partisanship of many.
The use of government force to mold personal behavior — or manipulate the economy — or interfere in the affairs of other nations — is an acceptable practice endorsed by nearly everyone in Washington, regardless of party affiliation. Once the principle of government force is acknowledged as legitimate, varying the “when,” and “to what degree” becomes the only issue.
It’s okay to fight communists overseas if you are a Republican, but not Serbs. It’s okay to fight Serbs if you’re a Democrat, but not Arabs. The use of force becomes completely arbitrary, its endorsement partisan and guided by the politician’s “good judgment.” When it pleases one group to use constitutional restraint, it does, but the same group forgets about restraints when it’s not convenient.
Although they have a reputation for being anti-war due to their position on Vietnam, the Sixties crowd has never been bashful about its bold authoritarian use of force to mold economic and social conditions through welfare, housing, medical care, job discrimination, environment, wages, and working conditions. This is combined with a love of taxes and inflation to pay the bills.
When the principle of government force to mold society is generally endorsed, using force to punish Serbs is no great leap of faith, and for the inerventionists, it’s entirely consistent. Likewise, even if they despise the current war in Yugoslavia, the interventionists who justified unconstitutional fighting in Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Granada, Libya, and the Persian Gulf easily justify using government force when it pleases them and their constituency.
Philosophic interventionism is a politician’s dream — it allows arbitrary interventions, domestic or international. When political expediency requires opposition, a politician can always fall back and cite the Constitution, which correctly rejects the use of government force, except for national self defense, and the protection of life, liberty, and property.
Politicians love interventionism and pragmatism (the prevailing philosophy of our age, which is based on relative ethics). After all, no rigid adherence to law, or morality, is required. Even the Constitution can be used in this delicate debate of just when and for whom we “go to war.” The trick is to politically grab the moral high ground, while disregarding the entire foundation of principles upon which the law rests — natural rights, rejection of force, and the requirement that politicians be strictly bound by a contract all take an oath to uphold.
What does this hodgepodge philosophy here in Congress mean for the future of peace and prosperity in general, and for NATO and the United Nations in particular?
First, pragmatism cannot prevail. Economically and socially, it breeds instability, bankruptcy, economic turmoil, and factionalism here at home. Internationally, it leads to the same results.
Second, NATO’s days are numbered. That is the message of the current chaos in Yugoslavia. NATO may hold together in name only for awhile, but its effectiveness is gone forever.
Finally, the U.S. has the right to legally leave NATO with one year’s notice. We ought to do that; but we won’t. We will continue to allow ourselves to bleed financially and literally for many years to come.
Eventually, we will recognize that governance of diverse people is best done by diverse and small governments. We will reject one-world government dependent on the arbitrary use of force, determined by politically correct reasons, and manipulated by the powerful financial interests around the world.
|
