BEHIND THE HEADLINES

U.S. Soldier Refuses to Submit to U.N. Authority

U.S. Army Specialist Michael New was scheduled to join a United Nations "peacekeeping" force in Bosnia early this month, but Specialist New decided to risk the possibility of court martial, dishonorable discharge, and a prison term rather than wear the UN insignia on his uniform.

When Michael New joined the U.S. Army and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, no mention was made of the United Nations. No one said anything about swearing allegiance to a would-be world government or being subject to service under its alien command. That's why Michael New balked when he was ordered to wear the UN insignia. Up to that point, he had been a typical American soldier, subject to the command of American military officers and possessed of all the rights of an American citizen -- and that's what he wanted to remain.

Specialist New demanded to know how a UN emblem on his uniform would affect his status as a soldier in the U.S. Army. Would he still be in the service of the United States, or would he be considered to be in the service of the United Nations instead? If taken prisoner during the UN's "peacekeeping mission," would he be treated as an American POW or as a UN hostage? Michael New's superiors refused to answer those crucially important questions.

The Army was in "a difficult position," remarks Dennis Cuddy, former professor of U.S. history at the University of North Carolina, and the author of a popular pamphlet on the New World Order. If the UN insignia on his uniform would have no effect on Michael New's status as an American soldier, then why was it so important for him to wear it? If the insignia merely identifies a UN operation, then why didn't American soldiers serving in Korea wear UN emblems on their uniforms?

Taking a pass on those prickly posers, the Army argued that President Clinton as commander-in-chief had lawfully ordered American soldiers to wear the UN insignia, and that's the end of that. The alleged lawfulness of the order presumably derives from a classified Presidential Directive of May 3, 1994, in which Clinton asserted his authority "to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander." Cuddy says that "one reason New has asked for an explanation of how his status would change if he wore UN insignias is to determine if this order actually is lawful." Cuddy contends that it is unconstitutional, and that Army Specialist Michael New is "correct to refuse to wear UN insignia over his American uniform."

Why all the fuss about a silly little emblem? Dennis Cuddy argues that obscuring the national identities of troops participating in a UN peacekeeping mission and forcing them all to sport UN insignia indicates "a change of command or authority." Once the United Nations has troops that it can truly call its own, it will have become what its founders wanted it to be -- "a de facto world government."

Behind The Headlines is produced by America's Future, a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to the preservation of our free enterprise system and our constitutional form of government. For a free transcript of this broadcast, write: America's Future, 7800 Bonhomme, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.

Michael New

The United Nations wants to be a truly autonomous world government, but first it needs to have its own authority, and its own military force. U.S. Army Specialist Michael New's refusal to don the UN uniform was a challenge that could not be ignored.

The court martial and conviction of U.S. Army Specialist Michael New for refusing to wear the UN uniform on a so-called "peacekeeping" mission to Macedonia was a necessary step on the road to the New World Order. Had New not been punished, the other 550 servicemen in his unit might have had second thoughts about donning UN helmets, trading their U.S. identification cards for UN I.D. cards, and marching off to Macedonia to serve as pawns in a conflict of no consequence to America. How would the UN ever put together an army of its own if every soldier in the world insisted on maintaining allegiance to his homeland?

To justify the order regarding the wearing of UN uniforms, Specialist New's commanding officer made vague references to the following phrases: "UN guidelines," "National Command Authority," "UN Charter," "Domestic Law," "Commander in Chief," and "UN Security Council Resolutions." But Specialist New was not convinced. He argued that the order to alter his uniform violated U.S. Army regulations against wearing any unauthorized insignia, decoration, medal, or uniform. "I am not a UN soldier," New protested. "I am an American soldier."

The Army was in "a difficult position," remarks Dennis Cuddy, former professor of U.S. history at the University of North Carolina, and the author of a popular pamphlet on the New World Order. If the UN insignia on his uniform would have no effect on Michael New's status as an American soldier, then why was it so important for him to wear it? If the insignia merely identifies a UN operation, then why didn't American soldiers serving in Korea wear UN emblems on their uniforms? Why all the fuss about a silly little emblem? Cuddy argues that obscuring the national identities of troops participating in a UN peacekeeping mission and forcing them all to sport UN insignia indicates "a change of command or authority." Once the United Nations has troops that it can truly call its own, it will have become what its founders wanted it to be -- "a de facto world government."

"Michael New is an American hero," proclaims Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland. "A twice decorated soldier, Michael New took the extraordinary step of jeopardizing a brilliant military career to defend our Constitution." Now, if only our Congressmen will show such courage. Bartlett and more than 60 of his colleagues are co-sponsoring a bill that would make it unlawful to require a member of the U.S. Armed Services to wear insignia, indicia, or headgear affirming allegiance to, or affiliation with, the United Nations. But why stop there? Why not take the one step that really would prevent American soldiers from being transferred to the command of an international force? Why not withdraw from the United Nations altogether, while we still can?

Behind The Headlines is produced by America's Future, a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to the preservation of our free enterprise system and our constitutional form of government. For a free transcript of this broadcast, write: America's Future, 7800 Bonhomme, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.

Troubled by the Issues

When it comes to covering political campaigns, the members of the media have a way of focusing on the personalities of the candidates and ignoring the issues. Maybe it's because they don't want us to think about what's really at stake.

Michael New

The case of Army Specialist Michael New is a lot more complicated than it looks. It involves considerably more than the mere question of a soldier disobeying a commanding officer.

"The case of Michael New appears simple at first glance," says Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland. "A soldier disobeys a direct order and is court-martialed, convicted, and given a Bad Conduct discharge." There's a lot more to it than that, however. "Michael New is the first American soldier prosecuted for declining to wear the uniform and badge of another government," observes Congressman Bartlett. "What is at stake is nothing less than whether we are a nation ruled by men, or one ruled by laws."
        Bartlett points out that Michael New is a decorated soldier who previously served in a United Nations peacekeeping mission. He participated in "Operation Southern Watch" in Kuwait in 1993 -- albeit "under an American commander wearing his American uniform." Bartlett notes that Michael New also agreed to go to Macedonia, as commanded, "but questioned his additional orders to wear a United Nations uniform including a blue beret and shoulder patch, to rely solely upon a United Nations identification card, and to serve under the overall command of a foreign officer." New concluded that these orders would unlawfully "transfer his allegiance to the United Nations."
        As it happens, quite a few of our Congressmen agree with Michael New that these orders were illegal. Roscoe Bartlett addresses the issues one by one. First, the uniform: "Altering the Army Battle Dress Uniform with any foreign badge is prohibited under Army uniform regulations." Second, the UN I.D. card: "No American soldier, prior to the Macedonia mission, had ever been required to carry and rely upon a UN identity card." Third, the question of foreign command: "The president as commander-in-chief does not have the authority to deploy American soldiers to serve under foreign command."
        A number of Congressmen also believe that the mission itself is unlawful. The deployment of U.S. troops to Macedonia was "authorized and always explicitly defined as a 'Chapter VII' peace enforcement operation under the UN Charter," observes Bartlett. "American military participation in Chapter VII UN Operations always requires prior congressional approval under Section 6 of the United Nations Participation Act and under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution." Bartlett concludes that "Mr. Clinton's order to deploy American combat troops to Macedonia beginning in July 1993 was illegal and inconsistent with U.S. statutes and the Constitution."
        Roscoe Bartlett believes that "Americans should be grateful for Michael New's moral courage to obey his conscience and our Constitution." The Congressman has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives called "The American Hero Restoration Act," which urges President Clinton to overturn the conviction of Michael New and "restore his place of honor in our military." Bartlett says it's time to affirm that "American soldiers enlist in our all-volunteer military to fight for and defend the United States, not the United Nations."

Behind The Headlines is produced by America's Future, a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to the preservation of our free enterprise system and our constitutional form of government. For a free transcript of this broadcast, write: America's Future, 7800 Bonhomme, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.