[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11173-S11174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCONNELL:
  S. 2106. A bill to amend the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 
to prohibit the placement of members of the United States Armed Forces 
under the command, direction, or control of the United Nations, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


   the united nations participation act of 1945 amendment act of 1996

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for several months, I have tried 
to get a straight answer from the administration on the legal 
justification for the deployment of U.S. troops under United Nations' 
command in Macedonia. While the soldiers have a mission, I do not 
believe they have a clear, legal mandate.
  The question of our involvement in Macedonia was first brought to my 
attention by Ron Ray, a constituent of mine who was representing 
Michael New. Apparently, Michael New asked his commanding officer to 
provide some explanation as to why an American Army specialist was 
being asked to wear a U.N. uniform and deploy to Macedonia under the 
U.N. flag.
  In a recent hearing with Ambassador Madeleine Albright, usually one 
of the more plain spoken members of the President's foreign policy 
team, we reviewed the procedures for deploying American troops under 
the United Nation's flag. She offered the view that while there were 
clear guidelines defining chapter VII deployments, using chapter VI to 
justify a mission had evolved as a matter of U.N. custom and tradition.
  Since 1948, 27 peace operations have been authorized by the United 
Nations Security Council. In addition to being authorized by a specific 
chapter of the United Nations Charter, U.S. troop deployments must be 
authorized consistent with U.S. legal requirements spelled out in the 
United Nations Participation Act.
  In July 1993, President Clinton wrote the Congress stating, ``U.N. 
Security Council Resolution 795 established the UNPROFOR Macedonia 
mission under a chapter VI of the U.N. Charter and UNPROFOR Macedonia 
is a peacekeeping force under chapter VI of the Charter.'' But this 
assertion is not substantiated by the record of resolutions and reports 
passed by the United Nations.
  Between 1991 and the end of 1995, the United Nations passed 97 
Security Council resolutions related to the former Yugoslavia. In 
addition, 13 reports were issued by the U.N. Secretary General relative 
to the mandate of the UNPROFOR Macedonia operation. None of these 
resolutions or reports mention a chapter VI mandate for Macedonia. In 
fact, there are 27 resolutions which specifically refer to UNPROFOR, 
which includes Macedonia, as chapter VII. It is worth pointing to just 
one of

[[Page S11174]]

these resolutions which states that the United Nations Security Council 
was ``Determined to ensure the security of UNPROFOR and its freedom of 
movement for all its missions (i.e., Macedonia) and to these ends was 
acting under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.''
  In spite of the record, the administration continues to insist that 
Macedonia is a chapter VI operation. When I asked them to document this 
determination, I was provided the following guidance by the Acting 
Assistant Secretary of State:

       The U.N. Charter authority underlying the mandate of a U.N. 
     peace operation depends on an interpretation of the relevant 
     resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. As a matter of 
     tradition, the Security Council explicitly refers to a 
     ``Chapter VII'' when it authorizes an enforcement operation 
     under that Chapter. The absence of a reference to Chapter VII 
     in a resolution authorizing or establishing a peacekeeping 
     operation thus indicates that the operation is not considered 
     by the Security Council to be an enforcement operation. 
     Neither does the Security Council refer explicitly to 
     ``Chapter VI'' in its resolutions pertaining to peacekeeping 
     operations. This practice evolved over time as a means for 
     the Security Council to develop practical responses to 
     problems without unnecessarily invoking the full panoply of 
     provisions regarding the use of force under Chapter VII, and 
     without triggering other Charter provisions that might impede 
     Member States on the Security Council if Chapter VI were 
     referenced.

  In essence what this explanation means is U.S. troops can be deployed 
in harm's way as a matter of U.N. tradition rather than U.S. law. It 
means U.S. soldiers are deployed in a combat zone with an absence of 
reference to the actual legal mandate because the U.N. Security Council 
does not want to refer explicitly to chapter VI due to a reluctance to 
inconvenience member states on the Security Council.
  Mr. President, let me try to add a little clarity to just what the 
Acting Assistant Secretary means when stating the administration does 
not want to invoke a ``panoply of provisions regarding the use of 
force.'' In simple English, when a chapter VII mission is authorized by 
the U.N., U.S. law requires the operation to be approved by the 
Congress. In simple terms, the State Department is using a chapter VI 
designation to avoid having to come to the Congress to justify the 
financial and military burden the United States has assumed in 
Macedonia.
  When the State Department calls a panoply of provisions problem, I 
call surrendering U.S. interests to U.N. command. This is not the first 
time Congress has been circumvented. I had hoped the administration had 
learned from our experience in Somalia. I had hoped the tragic loss of 
life would help the President understand the value and importance of a 
full congressional debate and approval of the merits of deploying 
American soldiers overseas into hostile conditions. Apparently, the 
lesson is lost on this administration. When the U.N. calls, we send our 
young men and women to serve.
  Mr. President, I have taken the time to review the circumstances of 
our military involvement in Macedonia, in order to explain why I am 
introducing legislation today which assures U.S. troops will not serve 
under U.N. commanders and will not be forced to wear a U.N. uniform. 
Our soldiers sign up to serve and pledge allegiance to their Nation--
not the United Nations. This bill will protect them as they fulfill 
both their oath and responsibilities.
                                 ______