[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4402-4403]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      ANOTHER UNITED NATIONS WAR?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, 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 U.N. authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He 
forcefully stated that this U.N. 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 U.N. political war fought 
within U.N. 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 act of 
fighting. Although this is referred to as the Second Persian Gulf War, 
it is 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 U.N. 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 $1 trillion in today's dollars spent. Korea is the most 
outrageous example of our fighting a U.N. 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 U.N. 
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 
did not 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.
  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 U.N. support, but it 
is 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 
U.N. 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 interests is correct, and we do have a right to 
pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it is ironic that we are making 
this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that

[[Page 4403]]

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 U.N. security resolutions. That does 
not make any sense. If one wants to enforce U.N. 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 United Nations.
  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 hostility 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 
alliances and complex, unworkable alliances that comes from our 
membership in the United Nations.

                          ____________________