[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7081-7084]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 7082]]

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.
  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

[[Page 7083]]

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.
  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

[[Page 7084]]

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 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.

                          ____________________