The United Nations
International organizations can serve the cause of peace, but they can never serve as a substitute for, or exercise a veto over, principled American leadership. The United Nations was not designed to summon or lead armies in the field and, as a matter of U.S.
sovereignty, American troops must never serve under United Nations command. Nor
will they be subject to the jurisdiction of an International Criminal Court. The
United Nations can provide a valuable forum for nations to peacefully resolve
their differences, and it can help monitor international agreements and organize
international humanitarian assistance. The United States will pay a fair, not
disproportionate, share of dues to the United Nations once it has reformed its
management and taken steps to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. All funds that
the U.S. contributes for operations, conferences, and peacekeeping should count
against these dues.
The next Republican administration will use its
diplomatic influence to put an end to a pattern of discrimination that persists
at the United Nations in denying committee assignments to Israel. It will do the
likewise at the International Red Cross which refuses to accredit the symbol of
Magen David Adom, Israel’s equivalent of the Red Cross. Moreover, Republicans
oppose the ideological campaign against participation by the Vatican in U.N.
conferences and other activities. The United Nations was created to benefit all
peoples and nations, not to promote a radical agenda of social engineering. Any
effort to address global social problems must be firmly placed into a context of
respect for the fundamental social institutions of marriage and family. We
reject any treaty or convention that would contradict these values. For that
reason, we will protect the rights of families in international programs and
will not fund organizations involved in abortion. This approach to foreign
assistance will unify people, respect their diverse beliefs, and uphold basic
human rights. It will enable us, in cooperation with other free societies around
the world, to more effectively oppose religious persecution and the sex
trafficking that ruins the lives of women and children. |
|
People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq, but this much is clear: this Administration badly exaggerated its case, particularly with respect to weapons
of mass destruction and the connection between Saddam's government and al Qaeda. This Administration did not build a true international coalition. This Administration disdained the United Nations weapons inspection process and rushed to war without exhausting diplomatic
alternatives. Ignoring the advice of military leaders, this Administration did not send sufficient forces into Iraq to accomplish the mission. And this Administration went into Iraq without a plan to win the peace.
Now this Administration has been forced to change course in order to correct this fundamental mistake. They are now taking up the suggestions that many Democrats have been making for over a year. And they must – because having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing
force in the Middle East. And we must secure more help from an international community that shares a huge stake in helping Iraq become a responsible member of that community, not a breeding ground for terror and intolerance.
As a first step, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. To do this right, we must truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome, and we must bring them in to commit troops and resources. The Bush Administration has missed three great opportunities to do that.
First, the President broke his promise to build a legitimate coalition in Iraq by exhausting diplomacy before resorting to the use of military force. Second, when the statue fell in Baghdad, Kofi Annan invited the United States to come to the table to discuss international support – but we rejected his offer. Third, when the President addressed the United Nations last fall, he once
again refused to acknowledge the difficulties we faced in Iraq and failed to elicit support from other nations.
The President has not given our troops the clarity of mission, the equipment or the international
support they need and deserve. We have a different approach based on a simple commitment:
Troops come first. Our helicopter pilots have flown battlefield missions without the best antimissile
systems. In a Democratic Administration, that will change. Too many of our nation's finest
troops have died in attacks, because tens of thousands were deployed to Iraq without the best
bulletproof vests, and there is a shortage of armored vehicles on the ground. In a Democratic
Administration, that will change. Thousands of National Guardsmen and reservists have been
forced to leave their families and jobs for more than a year – with no end in sight – because this
Administration ignored the pressing need for a true coalition. In a Democratic Administration,
that will change.
To succeed, America must do the hard work of engaging the world's major political powers in
this mission. We must build a coalition of countries, including the other permanent members of
the UN Security Council, to share the political, economic, and military responsibilities of Iraq with
the United States.
To win over allies, we must share responsibility with those nations that answer our call, and
treat them with respect. We must lead, but we must listen. The rewards of respect are enormous.
We must convince NATO to take on a more significant role and contribute additional military
forces. As other countries, including Muslim majority countries, contribute troops, the United
States will be able to reduce its military presence in Iraq, and we intend to do this when
appropriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be
seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence.
Second, we need to create an international High Commissioner to serve as the senior
international representative working with the Iraqi government. This Commissioner should be
backed by a newly broadened security coalition and charged with overseeing elections, assisting
with drafting a constitution, and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly
regarded by the international community, have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people, and
work directly with Iraq's interim government, the new U.S. Ambassador, and the international
community. |
| World GovernmentThe Issue: Participation in any form of world or international government threatens the sovereignty of the United States, its citizens and its Constitution.
The Principle: The sovereignty of individual rights is preserved only by
minimal government, and subservience to a world government is
totalitarianism of a more severe form than to a national government.
Solutions: We oppose U.S. government participation in any
world or international government. We support withdrawal of the United
States government from, and an end to its financial support for, the
United Nations. We oppose any treaty under which individual rights would
be violated.
Transitional Action: Specifically, we oppose
any U.S. policy designating the United Nations as policeman of the
world, committing U.S. troops to wars at the discretion of the U.N., or
placing U.S. troops under U.N. command.
|
|