Kosovo is a sobering example of how the international community can
provide “security for the people.” According to “Our Global
Neighborhood,” the report of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global
Governance, “security of people must be regarded as a goal as important
as the security of states.” This expansion of responsibility is a major
departure from the historic role the U.N. has played in the world. There
is neither authority, nor justification for this expansion; there is
simply the tragic reality of it.

Columnist George Will recently reported that he could find no
international treaty or law that authorized NATO’s adventures in
Yugoslavia. He also pointed out that such an intervention in a civil
uprising was specifically prohibited by the NATO Charter. The troops now
bombing Milosevic’s army were not authorized by the U.N. Security
Council as a “Peacekeeping” operation. American soldiers are fighting
another undeclared war in which America’s interests have never been
defined. Why? Because the international community has decided to expand
its responsibility to provide “security for the people.”

The U.N. was created, supposedly, to promote world peace. Over the
years, the term “security” has undergone a rather dramatic overhaul in
its meaning at the U.N. Originally, “security” meant “common security,”
which envisioned every nation with adequate military might to deter
aggression. Then came “collective security,” which resulted in
multilateral agreements such as NATO in which participating nations
agreed not to initiate aggression against one another, and to respond
collectively to aggression on any participant by a non-participant. Next
came “comprehensive security,” which envisioned abandoning national
military capacity as the basis for security, and replacing it with
mutual “disarmament, cooperation, demobilization, and demilitarization.”

The 1994 Annual Report of the United Nations Development Program
introduced the concept of “security for the people.” The concept
includes “safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease, and
repression, as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruption in
the patterns of daily life.” Milosevic’s expulsion of Albanians from
Kosovo certainly disrupted the security of the Albanian people. But the
Albanians’ struggle for independence threatened the security of
Yugoslavia. This is precisely the kind of internal civil strife in which
NATO’s Charter prohibits its involvement.

We are seeing the “international community” assume unto itself the
authority to accept the responsibility of providing “security for the
people,” even when it requires aggression upon a sovereign nation. The
Commission on Global Governance recommended this kind of international
action within the sovereign borders of nations to provide security for
the people. The Commission report says, “The security of people has been
violated on a horrendous scale without external aggression or external
threat to territorial integrity or to state sovereignty. To confine the
concept of security exclusively to the protection of states is to ignore
the interests of people. …”

Nothing in the U.N. Charter or the NATO Charter authorizes this
expansion of responsibility of the international community.
Nevertheless, we’re seeing the international community provide “security
for the people” every night on the six o’clock news.

But wait! The Commission on Global Governance also says that in order
to provide security for the people, the international community must
also assume responsibility for the “security of the planet.” The report
says that “The unprecedented increases in the scale and intensity of
human activity … [is] impinging on the planet’s basic life support
systems. Actions must be taken to control human activities. …”

The Commission’s report
is 410 pages of specific
recommendations to control human activity to provide “security for the
planet.” Among the immediate “threats” that must be met are:
overpopulation, climate change, biodiversity loss, ozone depletion,
rapid economic expansion, and the capacity for war. The report says the
“production and trade in arms should be controlled by the international
community.” It also says that “military force is not a legitimate
political instrument except … under U.N. auspices.”

The current conflict in Yugoslavia — when seen in the context of the
Commission on Global Governance report — should strike fear in the
heart of every American. The ill-defined “international community” is
taking action without approval of the U.N. Security Council because
members of the Council could not agree that the action was lawful under
the U.N. Charter or that it was the appropriate response. Nevertheless,
the “international community” has taken action. What is to stop the
“international community” from taking whatever action it deems necessary
against any nation that it determines to be a threat to the security of
the people or the security of the planet?

The “international community” can do nothing without American
support. What is most frightening is the fact that America is providing
all the support the international community needs to “control human
activity.” Where human activity is controlled, there is no such thing as

But what about the “ethnic cleansing” that is going on in Kosovo —
should America not put a stop to it? That is a question that should be
answered by Congress, not the president. If America is attacked, or
seriously threatened, the President is required to respond immediately,
and then seek approval and support from Congress through a declaration
of war. Yugoslavia poses no threat to America. The President has no
constitutional authority to order U.S. citizens to bomb a sovereign
nation without a declaration of war from Congress.

The stories coming out of Kosovo are horrible, reminiscent of
Hitler’s rampage. Should America stop it? Only Congress should so
decide. Should Congress decide to stop Milosevic, then he should be
stopped — using whatever force it takes, without waiting for the
international community’s blessing. The President has by-passed
Congress and the
Constitution in a dictatorial act that jeopardizes American troops to
advance his global agenda.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.