What happens when the U.S. Constitution and the UN Charter collide?

by William Norman Grigg

from The New American

Toward the end of the recent movie *Braveheart* - fictionalized account of William Wallace, who fought for Scottish independence from England - the hero is arraigned before a royal court on charges of treason, Wallace protests that he had never sworn allegiance to the English King; the Crown's representative blithely replies that this doesn't matter - the foreign ruler is his sovereign, and resistance to royal power is treason.

Army Specialist Michael New, an American soldier currently stationed in Germany, confronts a similar predicament. In August, New learned that his unit is scheduled to be deployed in Macedonia as part of a United Nations "peacekeeping" contingent. This assignment is one in which American soldiers are required to wear UN insignia and serve under a foreign UN commander. When New expressed his willingness to serve with his buddies, but his unwillingness to wear the uniform of a foreign power, he was informed by his superiors that he may face a court-martial for "disobeying a legal order."

Refusing the Blue

"Our mission heading states that we will be in Macedonia to observe, monitor, report, and 'make the UN presence known'" New told The New American. "I have a problem with that, because I am *not* UN. I explained this to my lieutenant and told him, 'Sir, I don't think I should have to wear a UN arm band or a UN beret. I'm enlisted in the US Army; I am not a UN soldier. I have taken no vow to the UN; I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America from enemies foreign and domestic. I regard the UN as a separate power...Where does my oath say that I have to wear UN insignia?'" According to New, the lieutenant responded, "Well, soldier, you enlisted in the Army, and that oath you took was to obey orders from your chain of command and we're saying - wear it!'"

According to a Pentagon "Information Paper" made available on September 1st, Spec. New has been instructed by his battalion's Command Sergeant Major "to do some research about the United Nations, its history and objectives before refusing to participate in the preventive deployment[in Macedonia]." It was because New is well acquainted with the principles and ambitions of the United Nations that he refuses to wear the uniform of the organization. The Pentagon briefing paper attempted to portray New's action as a refusal to deploy with his unit in Macedonia. However, New has served a six-week stint in a UN-related deployment in Kuwait - under American commanders and in an American uniform. He recalls:

"I told my superiors that I am an American soldier and will serve as a medic where I am sent and will seek to help my fellow soldiers. But I am not going to wear that uniform. I believe they [the UN] are a foreign power no different from a foreign government. For the same reason I won't wear [the UN insignia], I would not wear a Russian uniform or salute a Russian flag."

Colonel Ronald D. Ray(USMC, Ret.), a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense who is providing legal counsel to the New family, pointed out to the New American magazine that New's rejection of the UN uniform "is more than just a fashion statement. He has been the victim of a bait-and-switch: He was recruited to serve the Red, White, and Blue, not the United Nations flag." Furthermore, "As a U.S. soldier, New would be entitled to a protected status as a POW; as a UN soldier, if he were captured he would be a 'UN hostage.'"

Colonel Ray was involved in the effort to free Lieutenant Colonel Rich Higgins, an American Marine who was abducted and hanged by Hezbollah terrorists while he was involved in a UN "peacekeeping" mission in Lebanon in 1988. Ray recalls that "the position of our State Department was that they would seek release of 'all of the hostages' without making a special effort to secure the release of this American officer. He wasn't an American POW; he was simply another UN hostage, and this redefinition of his status proved fatal." Ray points out that New appreciates the fact by accepting the UN uniform, he would be "placing himself in an unknown status."

To support this contention, Colonel Ray cites a former Vietnam POW, Navy Captain Red McDaniel, who has written:

"U.S. law provides no specific guidelines concerning U.S. military involvement in conflicts under UN command. Thus under the present status of U.S. and international law, the U.S. government has no way to protect its military personnel captured during UN operations from physical and mental torture, inhumane treatment, incarcerations and even execution."

His Allegiance

But New's paramount objection to this requirement that he don UN insignia is one of sacred principle: His sworn allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution. Daniel and Suzanne New, Michael's parents, explained their son's position in a letter to Army Chief of Staff Dennis Reimer:

"Michael New did not take an oath to defend the United Nations or its Charter. Instead, he took an oath which he understood to be exclusive to the United States of America. It was his understanding that joining the U.S. Army would subject him to the American government exclusively, subject only to Constitutional limitations."

To illustrate their son's predicament, the News cited the soldiers' oath of service, which includes a pledge to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic [and] bear true faith and allegiance to the same...without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion...so help me God." They contrasted this solemn asseveration with the UN's oath of service, which requires the affiant "to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interests of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization."

New's parents inquired of General Reimer, "Are we to understand that the U.S. Army has 'mental reservations,' or some 'purpose of evasion' when it administers the oath of service to soldiers? By what authority can the U.S. Army transfer my son's allegiance without his permission?"

Following an August 28th meeting with a Judge Advocate General attorney in Germany, Spec. New told The New American magazine that his status remained ambiguous. "Any charges that they have given to me, as I have gone up the chain of command, have not been direct. I have been told that I risk being 'chaptered out' of the Army, and that it could lead to a court-martial for disobeying an order, but no specific orders have been given to me yet."

According to Daniel New, on September 5th Michael was summoned to a meeting of his superiors and was "walked through the entire chain of command by his lieutenant colonel. He was told, 'At this end, there's the Commander in Chief, and at the other end there's Specialist New.' The lieutenant colonel was sympathetic but insistenet, and it appears that they are preparing the groundwork for a legal case."

Doing What Is Right

Spec. New remains resolute, however. "If they kick me out of the Army, if they send me to jail, I want to know, in my mind, after all this is over, I did what I thought was right in the eyes of God. So if I'm in jail, I'll be there knowing that I did what's right." He reports that he has received quiet support from many of his comrades, and that some of them "seem to have thought about" the conflict between their oaths of service and the demand that they serve under UN authority and in UN uniform, but are intimidated into silence:

"I think it shocked them that I spoke up...There have been some - a few whose names I can't give, because they're great soldiers - who have said, "Look, I understand where you're coming from, and I support you." One or two have said, "I'm a born-again Christian, and I believe the way you do, but I can't say anything because I'm a career soldier. I'll support you one hundred percent, but off the record."

Colonel Ray points out that Spec. New "has posed questions of tremendous historic importance. He is acquainted with the U.S. Constitution and the principles it embodies, and the contrary principles found in the UN Charter. He's in a very strong factual position as well, because the Army's gradual and increasing involvement in UN operations places U.S. soldiers in a militarily vulnerable and morally untenable position."

New has demonstrated the self-effacing patriotism which must be asserted if America is to regain its independence and restore its constitutional republic, and his plight has struck a responsive chord in the American public. In a truly remarkable fashion, New's story completely circumnavigated the mass media, being circulated instead through an American *samizdat* - the Internet, fax networks, and talk radio. Daniel New told the New American that on September 5th alone, Michael received "over one thousand letters, many of them containing small donations." These letters, according to Mr. New, "are going to be exhibit 'A' at any hearing or legal proceeding against Michael; we're going to demonstrate that the American people support him unreservedly."

As Mr. and Mrs. New concluded in their letter to General Reimer:

"We are prepared...for the possibility that our son could give his life in defense of Freedom and of the United States of America. We are *not* prepared to see him die serving the agenda of the United Nations. When we read of Vice President Al Gore's remarks to families of the 15 servicemen who died in Iraq from "friendly fire" [Gore expressed "condolences to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations"] we were not comforted..."

Michael New's resolve to serve his country by resisting the adulteration of his constitutional oath may provide a test case to determine if patriotism is treason in the new world order.

END

Historical source: new_us-un.html