Gordon L. Weil
In his speech at the United Nations General Assembly,
President Trump asserted that the U.N. was “empty words.” In an important sense, he was right.
When it was founded 80 years ago, the U.N. was supposed to
be the world’s peacemaker and peacekeeper.
At its summit were placed five nations – U.S., Soviet Union, U.K.,
France and China. They were the principal
victors in World War II, having stamped out aggression and war. United above
all by their experience, they would protect against more such conflicts.
It took less than a year for the hoped-for unified
commitment of the five to fall apart. An “Iron Curtain”
fell across Europe. In the East, the Soviet Union pursued historic Russian
imperial policies and forced nations under Communist rule, managed in Moscow.
Under the U.N., all five were required to act unanimously;
after 1946, that became increasingly impossible. The U.N. action against North Korea’s
invasion of South Korea in 1951 was only possible because the Soviet Union was
boycotting the U.N. Over time, the U.N.
played only limited roles in peacekeeping, turning its attention to mitigating
the causes of conflict.
In this series of events, the U.N.
Charter was not violated. It was applied, but in a manner that left it
failing to pursue its original intent. Evolving beyond the terms and intentions
of a founding document is perhaps inevitable as people and events change, and
sometimes that can happen quickly, as with the U.N.
What has happened to the world organization is now happening
in the United States.
The American system of government, initiated in the historic
and innovative Constitution, was based on the common commitment of a group of
leaders who shared much the same background and experience. They expected that the system would evolve,
as it must under such a brief rulebook, but would maintain the values they
tried to build into the American republic.
Among the most basic of their concerns were the excessive
concentration of power in a central government and in the chief executive of
that government. They rejected British
royal rule and all power over the 13 colonies being exercised by London. They also sought to protect people from oppressive
rule, immune from legal review.
While the government could adopt policies required by the
times, what has become a catch phrase – “a system of checks and balances” – was
the byword for how the government could be kept from concentrating excess
power.
The intentions of the Framers have been eroded somewhat by
successive generations of national leaders of major political parties,
especially in the White House and Congress.
However, in many basic respects, the Constitution has functioned as
planned and in line with shared understandings.
Until now.
The Constitution risks becoming “empty words.” The intended limitations on the power of the
chief executive are being dismantled, and the effect spreads across American
life, public and private.
When the words “freedom of the press” are open to unprecedented,
partisan interpretation, they become “empty words.”
There appear to be two principal causes for this historic turn. The U.S. Supreme Court sees the president as
having almost unlimited executive power.
The result is that the balance has shifted from Congress to the
president, thanks to the judgment of the Court.
This transfer is possible in part because many laws leave the president
more discretion than has proved to be wise.
The other cause is Donald Trump’s view of his election. Not
only did his win, coupled with the support of his party’s congressional majority,
give him almost absolute control over all parts of federal government action, he
believes, but even the power to reach beyond public institutions, using the immense
government power, to influence business and personal behavior.
He abolishes agencies created and funded by law. He fires independent regulators to replace them
with his allies. He directs prosecutors
to pursue his past opponents, whom he readily says he hates. He carries out acts of war on the high seas
without the knowledge of Congress. He
uses the armed forces as domestic police.
And more. He uses his
office to enrich himself and his family to an overt and extensive degree not reached
by his predecessors. He seeks to impose a set of moral values on many who have
the right to their own values and to the exercise of their rights.
All of this both sets dangerous precedents for the future of
the American system and has clearly changed the nation’s place in the world.
Speakers at the General Assembly spoke of the need to end
the one-nation veto, now frequently used by the U.S. It’s doubtful if that is possible without
U.S. agreement.
Similarly, perhaps the Constitution should be amended. It’s doubtful that the required 38 states
would agree.
To recalibrate how the Constitution is applied requires
doing just as Trump has done. Win
elections, control Congress, and add some balance to the Court.
For the present, an Iron Curtain has fallen across
America.
But we may misunderstand the two sides, so next time, I’ll
take a look.
No comments:
Post a Comment