March 31, 1999
Bill Clinton's threats to enter the Kosovo conflict are a direct
attack on national sovereignty, our own as well as Yugoslavia's. The
foreign policy gurus of the Clinton Administration don't believe in the
concept of sovereignty and are trying to replace it, piece by piece,
with their global utopian vision.
In trying to force the sovereign state of Yugoslavia to kowtow to
a U.S.-dictated "peace" agreement, Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright is demanding that Yugoslavia allow foreign troops to occupy a
portion of its territory where they would exercise authority backed by
force. It is, of course, a critical element of sovereignty that
foreign troops must not be allowed jurisdiction over a nation's soil.
So Albright cut to the core of the argument with a demand that
Yugoslavia surrender a piece of its sovereignty. She said: "Great
nations who understand the importance of sovereignty at various times
cede various portions of it in order to achieve some better good for
their country. We are looking at how the nation-state functions in a
totally different way than people did at the beginning of this
That ominous ultimatum sounds like a double entendre. Yugoslavia
is not a "great nation," but the United States is. And it's becoming
more and more evident that the Clintonites are pursuing an incremental
plan to cede various portions of U.S. sovereignty in order to achieve
what they believe is the "better good."
Clinton's chief foreign policy adviser, Strobe Talbott, was
frighteningly forthright during his 22 years as a writer for Time
Magazine. Talbott enthusiastically wrote that "national sovereignty
wasn't such a great idea," predicted that "nationhood as we know it
will be obsolete," and rejoiced in the coming "birth of the Global
It's a mistake to relax in the conventional wisdom that Clinton is
just muddling along without a coherent foreign policy. Charles
Krauthammer has accurately defined Clinton's foreign policy as
implementing non-traditional elements: "internationalism" (rather
than sticking with policies based on what's good for America),
"legalism" (the folly that treaties can make nations get along
peacefully and can even regulate domestic law), and using
"humanitarianism" as the excuse for interventionist escapades (rather
than U.S. strategic, political or economic interests).
The Clinton Administration repeatedly cites international
"obligations" as its authority for issuing overbearing executive
orders and administrative regulations. Americans are expected to defer
to global governance irrespective of whether the order comports with
either our Constitution or national security interests, or whether the
relevant treaty has even been ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Clinton is using this ploy of global "obligations" in his
environmental regulations to implement the unratified Global Warming
Treaty (the Kyoto Protocol), and in his "Bring Beijing Home" task
force to implement the unratified UN Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Clinton used this ploy of
global "obligations" in his Executive Order 13107 on Implementation of Human Rights Treaties (including the treaties to which the United
States "may become a party in the future"), and in his Executive Order 13061 called the American Rivers Heritage Initiative (federalizing the land along 14 rivers).
We've already seen numerous encroachments on our national
sovereignty from NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, under which
rulings by committees of foreigners cannot be appealed to American
courts and even purport to order changes in U.S. domestic law.
We should also be on guard against probable attempts to subject
individual American citizens to regulations and penalties imposed by
committees set up under treaties signed by other nations. Treaties
that pose dangers to American citizens even though we never ratified
them are the treaty creating an International Criminal Court and the
new protocol adopted last week under the Convention on the Elimination
of Discrimination Against Women.
Alleged "international obligations" are increasingly cited to
con America into all sorts of entanglements and costly handouts. The
pressure is building to persuade Congress to pay alleged back dues to
the United Nations.
The most dangerous attack on American sovereignty by the Clinton
Administration comes from its pretense that we should abide by the now-obsolete 1972 ABM Treaty with now-defunct Soviet Union. Only those who
don't believe in America as a sovereign nation could argue that a
treaty with a government that went out of existence seven years ago can
limit America's right to protect the lives of our citizens against
Yet, the Clinton Administration is trying to breathe new life into
that dead treaty with new protocols that it is urging the Senate to
approve. A dead treaty with a non-existent government cannot protect
us against offensive missiles from Communist China, North Korea, Iran,
Iraq, or even from the new countries carved out of the old Soviet
Union, which still possess an awesome number.
The Clinton-Albright attack on Yugoslavia's sovereignty is a
costly, foolish and unconstitutional outrage. Their sneak attacks on
American sovereignty are far more dangerous.