Medic Charged For Refusing U.N. Garb
The Army charged a 22-year-old medic Tuesday with disobeying a lawful order after he declined to don a United Nations patch and blue cap as his battalion was preparing for duty in the Balkans.
The case of Army Spec. Michael G. New already has become a political lightning rod for congressional Republicans opposed to U.S. forces serving in U.N. peacekeeping efforts. It represents a first-of-its-kind challenge at a time American troops are finding themselves increasingly directed to participate in U.N. operations abroad.
But the Army, framing the issue as a matter of discipline, not politics, has shown no willingness to accommodate New’s concerns, denying his request for reassignment to a unit not involved in U.N. peacekeeping. Army commanders have insisted New go with his battalion to Macedonia, a former Yugoslav republic, or face the consequences.
Reared by parents who for nearly a decade during his childhood worked as Christian missionaries in the South Pacific, New has portrayed himself as not seeking a confrontation with the Army. But he says he joined the service 2-1/2 years ago to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not the U.N. charter, and sees some contradiction between the two.
After New refused last week to don the U.N. regalia, when his Germany-based battalion fell into formation with the patches and caps for the first time, the Army started action against him. Initially, it offered New a “non-judicial punishment” to be decided by his commander. That could have meant demotion, forfeiture of pay, assignment of extra duties and restriction to quarters.
New declined, inviting a public hearing of the issues.
“He feels he hasn’t done anything wrong, and accepting a non-judicial punishment would have been an admission of guilt,” said New’s father, Daniel D. New, now a landscape designer in Conroe, Texas.
“Also, a court-martial would provide an open record, and he would like to have both sides heard.”
New went public with his case in early September, attracting interest among congressional Republicans who tend to see U.N. operations as ineffective and indecisive and no place for U.S. troops.
A letter signed by 46 House members and sent to President Clinton last Friday expressed concern about the constitutional issues raised by New’s case and requested a legal justification for placing U.S. soldiers in U.N. operations.
The letter also insisted that any U.S. soldiers deployed to the former Yugoslavia to assist in peacekeeping operations remain under U.S. command and “wear distinctive U.S. military uniforms with no ‘augmentation’ of U.N. insignia, helmets, headgear or accoutrements confusing their legal status as American forces at all times and for all purposes, especially if they become prisoners of war.”