The Washington Times, the conservative paper in the nation's capital, has run a long article about why the United States is participating in the peacekeeping action in East Timor. It notes that some critics of Clinton's foreign policy contend that the Clinton Administration "has failed to set clear guidelines for when U.S. military intervention is required." But the paper failed to note that these guidelines are in U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution, which were clearly violated in the cases of East Timor and Kosovo.
Because of a media black-out, the American people are not being given a true picture of the transformation of the U.S. military into what the Times concedes is a "global sheriff." The Constitution and the War Powers Act outline how U.S. troops are supposed to be deployed abroad. But none of those conditions, which involve a threat to the United States and Congressional authorization, has been met. Instead, Clinton has simply decided, on his own, to send the troops. On CNN, in a story about Clinton's policy of intervention, correspondent David Ensor claimed, "Sending troops into combat is a decision that the Commander-in-Chief can make, alone." That's true in practice but it's not defensible on legal or constitutional grounds.
In a statement, Clinton announced that U.S. troops were participating in the East Timor operation not because of any law or resolution passed by Congress, but because of a resolution passed by the U.N. Security Council. He said the troops were going in at the invitation of the government of Indonesia and that Australia was going to lead the force. Then the president said, "The United States is prepared to contribute to this operation, and we are discussing with our Australian allies and the Congress an appropriate U.S. role."
Notice how Congress was listed as the final body to consult. The U.N. and the Australians were first and second. Clinton said he was discussing the deployment with Congress, but there was no indication that Congress would be asked to approve the action as required under the Constitution or the War Powers Act. Clinton's reference to sending in the troops at the invitation of the government of Indonesia was also significant. This makes it far different from the Kosovo operation. Clinton didn't wait for the invitation of Yugoslavia to send troops into its province of Kosovo. He invaded the country in violation of the NATO Treaty and the U.N. Charter.
In Rwanda, where one million people died in 1995, the U.S. didn't intervene at all. In a story on CNN, correspondent Christiane Amanpour quoted U.N. chief Kofi Annan as saying that "the international community made a grave mistake by not intervening in Rwanda..." Amanpour said this statement reflects Annan's position in favor of international intervention to stop human rights abuses.
There's only one problem with that: Annan was director of U.N. peacekeeping at the time and he refused to authorize U.N. peacekeepers to intervene to stop the genocide. The Clinton Administration didn't even call it genocide. This is a foreign policy driven not by the law or the Constitution but by the personal motives and politics of the president. (30)
America’s Survival, P.O. Box 146, Owings, MD 20736 www.usasurvival.org |