During Thursday's debate in Hollywood, Hillary Clinton was asked not only why she voted to authorize President Bush to use military force against Iraq (H.R. Res. 114), but also why she voted against the so-called Levin Amendment, which would have authorized
the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.
Explaining her vote, Clinton replied:
"The way [the Levin] amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore I voted against it.
The Washington Post Fact Checker reviews this important, but often forgotten vote -- but misses a crucial point that speaks to an American ignorance of convenience when it comes to our obligations under international law.
Indeed, the Levin Amendment looked for nothing more than an application of international law to any use of military force against Iraq. Recall that the UN Charter, to which the United States is a signatory, states in Chapter VII, Article 39:
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Clinton is therefore disingenuous when she states that there was not "a good precedent" for the Levin Amendment. The precedent is well-established, customary international law, which we actively helped craft after World War II. Because we circumvented the UN Security Council, the war in Iraq is not only illegal under international law, but also theoretically illegal under domestic law -- because our obligations under the UN Charter are, according to our Constitution, the law of the land. Here is Article VI of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
The problem with Clinton's vote on the Levin Amendment (among those of, sadly, so many other senators) and her subsequent attempts to explain it goes beyond disingenuousness or dishonesty, however. It speaks to the erosion of the efficacy of American diplomatic power in an increasingly multilateral world. Recall the irony that we, ostensibly, were attempting to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with international law in the first place. How can we do so when we habitually dismiss international law -- to which American jurists and diplomats devoted great effort after World War in order to achieve international peace and security -- when it suits our interests? This is certainly not a new question, but it assumes renewed significance as we choose a new president.