The oath United Nations officers must take and the one American soldiers take proves that Michael New, the only American ever tried and convicted by court-martial for wanting to serve his country in uniform, was dead right.

New -- a young, enlisted man -- refused to don U.N. insignia and serve in Macedonia under the command of a Finnish officer. He believes that his oath forbids it, and for that he was court-martialed. His appeal is still winding its way through the courts.

But let's look at the oaths. An American soldier swears as follows: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Now, here is the oath that officers serving the United Nations must take: "I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interest 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." The emphasis is mine.

As you can plainly see, a person cannot be loyal to both the United States and to the United Nations. The United Nations is a separate, foreign government. And that was Michael New's point: He never took an oath to the United Nations, and no one had the authority to place him under foreign command.

It bears remembering that, when American troops arrived in France during World War I, British and French officials proposed that they be integrated into the Allied forces and serve under British and French command. Gen. Blackjack Pershing flatly refused. No American soldier, he said, would serve under a foreign commander.

This is an issue that all Americans should join, for it is much larger than Michael New. The question is, do we want America to retain its sovereignty and independence for which our ancestors fought a war with Great Britain, or do we wish it to become a non-independent part of an international, sovereign government?

Yes or no.

And you had better decide, because the American Establishment is opting gradually to dissolve American indepen dence and to merge it into an international order. To prepare Americans for that loss of independence, the present administration is ordering American troops to serve under U.N. command, doing U.N. errands. American troops are posted in more than 100 foreign countries, in nearly every case as U.N. errand boys or U.N. leg-breakers.

In a speech urging rejection of the League of Nations, Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge said, "It must be made perfectly clear that no American soldiers, not even a corporal's guard, that no American sailors, not even the crew of a submarine, can ever be engaged in war or ordered anywhere except by the constitutional authorities of the United States. To Congress is granted by the Constitution the right to declare war, and nothing that would take troops out of the country at the bidding or demand of other nations should ever be permitted . . . ."

As you can see, the fight for American sovereignty is a continuing fight. Which side are you on: America's or the internationalists'? Do you have the courage of Michael New to stand by your country?

The shape of the future depends on the answers.

© 1998 Orlando Sentinel Online