Return to the
Record directory
Project FREEDOM
Opening Page
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: April 21, 1999
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND NATO’S INVOLVEMENT IN YUGOSLAVIA AND KOSOVO
————
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
[Page: H2261]
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.
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 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.
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 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.
[Page: H2264]
END
