[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 55 (Wednesday, April 21, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2261-H2264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND NATO'S INVOLVEMENT IN YUGOSLAVIA AND KOSOVO
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for
60 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, supporters of internationalism celebrated
NATO's 50th anniversary with the Senate's 1998 overwhelming approval
for expanding NATO to include Eastern European countries. This year's
official inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic made all
NATO's supporters proud, indeed. But in reality, NATO now is weaker and
more chaotic than ever.
In the effort to expand NATO and promote internationalism, we see in
reaction the rise of ugly nationalism. The U.S. and NATO policy of
threats and intimidation to establish an autonomous Kosovo without true
independence from Serbia, and protected by NATO's forces for the
foreseeable future, has been 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.
Without the Soviet enemy to justify the European military machine,
NATO had to find enemies and humanitarian missions to justify its
existence. The centuries-old ethnic hatreds found in Yugoslavia and the
militant leaders on all sides have served this purpose well. Working
hard to justify NATO's policy in this region has totally obscured any
objective analysis of the turmoil now raging.
Some specific policy positions of NATO guaranteed that the ongoing
strife would erupt into a full-fledged and dangerous conflict. Once it
was determined in the early 1990s that outsiders would indict and try
Yugoslavian war criminals, it was certain that cooperation with western
negotiators would involve risks. Fighting to the end became a practical
alternative to a mock international trial. Forcing a treaty settlement
on Serbia where Serbia would lose the sovereign territory of Kosovo
guaranteed an escalation of the fighting and the forced removal of the
Kosovars from their homes.
{time} 1730
Ignoring the fact that more than 500,000 Serbs were uprooted from
Croatia and Bosnia with the encouragement of NATO intervention did
great harm to the regional effort to reestablish more stable borders.
The sympathy shown Albanian refugees by our government and our media,
although justified, stirred the flames of hatred by refusing to admit
that over a half million Serbs suffered the same fate and yet elicited
no concern from the internationalists bent on waging war. No one is
calling for the return of certain property and homes.
Threatening a country to do what we the outsiders tell them or their
cities will be bombed is hardly considered good diplomacy. Arguing that
the Serbs must obey and give up what they see as sovereign territory
after suffering much themselves as well as face war crimes trials run
by the West makes no sense. Anyone should have been able to predict
what the results would be.
The argument that, because of humanitarian concerns for the refugees,
we were forced to act is not plausible. Our efforts dramatically
increased the refugee problem. Milosevic, as he felt cornered by the
Western threats, reacted the only way he could to protect what he
considered Serbia, a position he defends with international law while
being supported by unified Serb people.
If it is the suffering and the refugees that truly motivate our
actions, there is no answer to the perplexing question of why no action
was taken to help the suffering in Rwanda, Sudan, East Timore, Tibet,
Chechnya, Kurdish, Turkey, and for the Palestinians in Israel. This is
not a reason; it is an excuse.
[[Page H2262]]
Instead, 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, how many children's death has U.S. policy caused
by our embargo and bombing for 9 years of a 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 the ruthless leaders, and spread the war.
This policy of intervention is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and
promoted illegally by our President without congressional authority, as
is required by the Constitution.
The United States Government has in the past referred to the Kosovo
Liberation Army leaders as thugs, terrorists, Marxists, and drug
dealers. This current fight was initiated by Kosovo's desire for
independence from Serbia.
The KLA took on the Serbs, not the other way around. Whether or not
one is 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 United Nations.
But my sympathies do not justify our taxing and sending young
Americans to fight for Kosovo's independence. It is wrong legally and
morally; and besides, the KLA is not likely to institute a model nation
respecting 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 determined to defend a
questionable group of local leaders, the KLA, bent on secession. This
action will not go unnoticed and will provide the philosophic framework
for the establishment of a Palestinian state, Kurdistan, and
independent Tibet, and it will encourage many other ethnic minorities
to demand independence.
Our policy of intervention in the internal affairs of other nations,
and their border disputes is not one that comes from American tradition
or constitutional law. It is a policy based on our current leaders'
belief that we are the policemen of the world, something we have
earnestly and foolishly pursued since World War II and in a more
aggressive fashion since the demise of the Soviet Union.
Interventionism is done with a pretense of wisdom believing we always
know 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.
Instead of being lucky enough on occasions to pick the right side of
a conflict, we instead end up supporting both sides of nearly every
conflict. In the 1980s, we helped arm, 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.
The United States, along with the United Nations, in 1992 supported
an arms embargo against Kosovo essentially making it impossible for the
Kosovars to defend themselves against Serbia. Helping the Albanian
Muslims is interpreted by some as token appeasement to the Arab oil
countries unhappy with the advantage the Serbs got from the arms
embargo.
This balancing act between three vicious warring factions was doomed
to fail and has only led to more instability and the spreading of the
war in the region.
Instead of pretending to be everything to everyone, while shifting
alliances and blindly hoping for good to come of it, we should
reconsider the advice of the Founders and take seriously the strict
restraints on waging war placed in the Constitution.
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 against the
people. Taxes, conscription and inflation have been used as tools of
the state to pursue wars not popular with the people. Government size
and authority always grows with war, as the people are told that only
the sacrifice of their liberties can save the nation. Propaganda and
threats are used to coerce the 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.
But 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 by an enhanced local police force, but by a
national police force with military characteristics.
Even the war against national disasters led by FEMA, usurps local
authority while imposing restraints on movement and controlling
recovery efforts that should be left to local police, private
insurance, and voluntary groups.
Our overseas efforts to police the world implies that with or without
success, resulting injuries and damage imposed by us and others will be
rectified with U.S. tax dollars in the form of more foreign aid, as we
always do. Nation building and international social work has replaced
national defense as the proper responsibility of our government.
What will the fate of NATO be in the coming years? Many are fretting
that NATO may dissolve over a poor showing in Yugoslavia, despite the
50th anniversary hype and its recent expansion. Fortunately for those
who cherish liberty and limited government, NATO has a questionable
future.
When our leaders sanctioned NATO in 1949, there were many patriotic
Americans who questioned the wisdom and the constitutionality of this
organization. It was by its charter to be strictly a defensive
organization designed to defend Western Europe from any Soviet threat.
The NATO charter clearly recognized the Security Council of the United
Nations was 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 acknowledgment, and
the fears expressed by Robert Taft and others in 1949 were certainly
justified.
United States and NATO, while deliberately avoiding a U.N. vote on
the issue, have initiated war against a sovereign state in the middle
of a civil war. A Civil War that caused thousands of casualties and
refugees on both sides has been turned into a war with hundreds of
thousands of casualties and refugees with NATO's interference. The not-
so-idle U.S. threats cast at Milosevic did not produce compliance. It
only expanded the violence and the bloodshed.
The foolishness of this policy has become apparent, but Western
leaders are quick to justify their warmongering. 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 convenient to ignore the
evil Croates and the Kosovars, and it certainly was easy to forget the
United Nations', NATO's, and the United States' policies over the past
decade that contributed to the mess in Yugoslavia.
It was soon apparent that bombing was no more a successful diplomatic
tool than were the threats of dire consequences if the treaty,
unfavorable to the Serbs, was not quickly signed by Milosevic. This
drew demands that policy must be directed toward saving NATO by
expanding the war. NATO's credibility was now at stake and how could
Europe, and the United States war machine, survive if NATO were to
disintegrate.
[[Page H2263]]
Hopes as expressed by Ron Brown and his corporate friends were not
extinguished by the unfortunate and mysterious Air Force crash while on
their way to Bosnia to do business deals. Nobody even bothers to find
out what U.S. policy condones business trips of our corporate leaders
in a war zone on an Air Force aircraft. Corporate interests and the
military-industrial complex continues to play a role in our Yugoslavian
war policy. Corporate America loves NATO.
Most politicians and the public do not know what NATO's real mission
is, and today's policy cannot be explained by reading its mission
statement written in 1949. Certainly our vital interests and national
security cannot justify our escalation of the war in Yugoslavia.
The excuse that we are the only superpower is hardly a moral reason
to justify bombing nations that are seen as uncooperative. Military
strength gives neither a right to bully nor a monopoly on wisdom. This
strength too often, when held by large political entities, is used
criminally to serve the powerful special interests.
The Persian Gulf and Yugoslavia obviously are much more economically
intriguing than Rwanda and Sudan. There are clearly no business
benefits for taking on the Chinese over its 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
behind 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 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 government to enjoy stability
without excessive and brute force, as was used in the Soviet system.
But eventually the natural tendency towards instability, as occurred in
the Soviet Empire, will bring about NATO's well-deserved demise. NATO,
especially since it has embarked on a new and dangerous imperialistic
mission, will find 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, it can also be said that, in numbers, there is confusion as
differences become magnified.
Nationalism is alive and well even within the 19-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/U.N. system.
{time} 1745
The smaller the unit of government, the better it is for the welfare
of all those who seek only peace and freedom. NATO no longer can hide
its true intent behind an anti-communist commitment.
Some have wondered how a 1960s generation administration could be so
proned to war. The 1960s were known for their rebellion against the
Vietnam War and a preference for lovemaking and drugs over fighting,
even Communists. In recent months four separate sovereign nations were
bombed by the United States. This has to be some kind of a record.
Bombing Belgrade on Easter has to tell us something about an
administration that is still strangely seen by some as not having the
determination to fight a real war. There is a big difference between
being anti-war when one's life is at risk as compared to when it is
someone else's. That may tell us something about character, but there
is more to it than that.
Many who were opposed to the Persian Gulf and Vietnam Wars are now
strongly supporting this so-called just and humanitarian war to punish
those who are said to be totally responsible for the Yugoslavian
refugee problem. The fact that Serbia is not Communist in the sense of
North Vietnam may play a part for some in making the decision to
support this war but not the war in Vietnam. But the Persian Gulf War
was not at all about communism, it was about oil.
Some from the left, if strongly inclined toward internationalism,
supported the Persian Gulf War, but for the most part the opposition
came from those who chose not to support a president of the opposite
party, while today, supporting one's own party's position to bomb the
Serbs becomes politically correct.
The same can be said of those who are opposed to the Yugoslavian war.
Where they supported the Persian Gulf War, this administration has not
garnered their support for partisan reasons. The principle of
interventionism, constitutionality and morality have not been applied
consistently to each war effort by either political party, and there is
a precise reason for this, over and above the petty partisanship of
many.
The use of government force to mold personal behavior, manipulate the
economy and 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 is okay to fight Communists overseas but not Serbs; it is okay to
fight Serbs but not Arabs. The use of force becomes completely
arbitrary and guided by the politician's good judgment. And when it
pleases one group to use constitutional restraint, it does, but forgets
about the restraints when it is not convenient.
The 1960s crowd, although having a reputation for being anti-war due
to their position on Vietnam, has never been bashful about its bold
authoritarian use of force to mold economic conditions, welfare,
housing, medical care, job discrimination, environment, wages and
working conditions, combined with a love for taxes and inflation to pay
the bills. When in general the principle of government force to mold
society is endorsed, using force to punish Serbs is no great leap of
faith, and for the interventionists is entirely consistent. Likewise,
the interventionists who justified unconstitutional fighting in
Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Libya and the Persian Gulf, even
if they despise the current war in Yugoslavia, can easily justify using
government force when it pleases them and their home constituency.
Philosophic interventionism is a politician's dream. It allows
arbitrary intervention, domestic or international, and when political
circumstances demand opposition, it is easy to cite the Constitution
which always and correctly rejects the use of government force, except
for national self-defense and for the protection of life, liberty and
property.
Politicians love interventionism and pragmatism, the prevailing
philosophy of our age, a philosophy based on relative ethics. 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 grab the political moral high ground while rejecting
the entire moral foundation upon which the law rests, natural rights,
rejection of force and the requirement politicians be strictly bound by
a contract for which all of us take an oath to uphold.
What does this hodgepodge philosophy here in the Congress mean for
the future of peace and prosperity in general and NATO and the United
Nations in particular? Pragmatism cannot prevail. Economically and
socially it breeds instability, bankruptcy, economic turmoil and
factionalism here at home. Internationally it will lead to the same
results.
NATO's days are surely numbered. That is the message of the current
chaos in Yugoslavia. NATO may hold together in name only for a while,
but its effectiveness is gone forever. The U.S. has the right to
legally leave NATO with a 1-year's notice. That we ought to do, but we
will not. We will continue to allow ourselves to bleed financially and
literally for many years to come before it is recognized that
governance of diverse people is best done by diverse and small
governments, not by a 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.
Our more immediate problem is the financing of the ongoing war in
Yugoslavia. On February 9 of this year I introduced legislation to deny
funds to the President to wage war in Yugoslavia. The Congress chose to
ignore
[[Page H2264]]
this suggestion and missed an opportunity to prevent the fiasco now
ongoing in Yugoslavia.
The President, as so many other presidents have done since World War
II, took it upon himself to wage an illegal war against Yugoslavia
under NATO's authority, and Congress again chose to do nothing. By
ignoring our constitutional responsibility with regards to war power,
the Congress implicitly endorsed the President's participation in
NATO's illegal war against Yugoslavia. We neither declared war nor told
the President to cease and desist.
Now we have a third chance, and maybe our last, before the war gets
out of control. We are being asked to provide all necessary funding for
the war. Once we provide funds for the war, the Congress becomes an
explicit partner in this ill-conceived NATO-inspired intervention in
the civil war of a sovereign nation, making Congress morally and
legally culpable.
Appropriating funds to pursue this war is not the way to peace. We
have been bombing, boycotting and killing thousands in Iraq for 9 years
with no end in sight. We have been in Bosnia for 3 years, with no end
in sight. And once Congress endorses the war in Yugoslavia with
funding, it could take a decade, billions of dollars, and much
suffering on both sides, before we put it to an end.
Bellicosity and jingoism associated with careless and illegal
intervention can never replace a policy of peace and friendship
whenever possible. And when it is not, at least neutrality. NATO's
aggressive war of destruction and vengeance can only make the situation
worse. The sooner we disengage ourselves from this ugly civil war, the
better. It is the right thing to do.
____________________