commander there.rnWith the order to change an Americanrnberet and patch for United Nationsrninsignia, the President has also cededrnsome control over American troops.rnSpokesmen for both the Army and thernDepartment of Defense carefully drew arndistinction between “administrativerncontrol,” which President Clinton retainsrnin Macedonia, and the “operationalrncontrol” exercised by U.N. CommanderrnEngstrom.rnArmy spokesman Harkey would notrnagree that the President has ceded anyrnauthority to the U.N. commander. Yet itrnseems evident that Gen. Engstrom has arnfair amount of control over Americanrntroops. Defense spokesman Lt. Col.rnMike Wood said that “operationalrncontrol” means the U.N. commanderrncannot modify the basic mission, deployrnAmerican forces outside the missionrnarea, separate those forces, divide theirrnsupplies, or administer discipline. Therntroops also retain the right to defendrnthemselves. Wood said. But with operationalrncontrol. Gen. Engstrom can tellrnthem where to go and what to do.rnWhen asked if operational controlrnmeans the Einnish commander can putrnhis American troops in harm’s way.rnWood replied, “Sure.”rnHarkey added that “ultimate command”rnis retained by the President. Hernalso said that under operational control,rnan American battalion commander reservesrnthe right respectfully to decline arnU.N. commander’s order. Harkey couldrnnot recall an instance when an order hadrnbeen declined.rnYet Gen. Engstrom himself seems tornthink his authority over American troopsrnin Macedonia is a first. At a briefing sessionrnfor American soldiers and their familiesrnheld last winter, Engstrom was quotedrnas saying (in a November 17, 1995,rnissue of the Army paper the MarnelandrnCrusader), “This is a very unique andrnhistoric opportunity. Before Macedonia,rna non-American or non-NATO officerrnhas never before had command of anrnAmerican battalion abroad.”rnHarkey could not conhrm whether orrnnot the general is correct. He did sayrnthat American forces have been in U.N.rnoperations since Korea, including missionsrnin Somalia and the Sinai. ButrnHarkey was unsure if in any of these missionsrna foreign commander had operationalrncontrol, as in Macedonia.rnThen there is the U.N. identity card.rnAccording to a United Nations AidernMemoire for the United Nations ProtectionrnForce (UNPROFOR), troops arrivingrnin Macedonia or Bosnia will “bernissued an UN peace-keeping force identificationrncard which will be the onlyrnidentity document required within thernarea of operation.” Army spokesmanrnHarkey said he did not know if membersrnof New’s battalion in Macedonia wererncarrying such a card. “But I do know thatrnthey are not required to give up theirrngreen military ID card,” he said.rnEven if troops are carrying both IDrncards, Ron Ray said, the fact that thernU.N. card is the only one required saysrnsomething about these troops. At therncourtmartial Ray pointed inside the babyrnblue U.N. beret, to the label which reads,rn”Property of the United Nations.” “Doesrnthat refer to the beret or the soldier whornwears it?” he asked.rnNew’s best chances for relief may comernfrom Congress—and not just the House,rnwhere Roscoe Bartlett (Maryland),rnJames Traficant (Ohio), Tom DeLayrn(Texas), Robert Dornan (California),rnand other members have tried to helprnhim. New gained an important Senaternchampion in late March, when KentuckyrnRepublican Mitch McConnell wrote arnletter to the President that called thernMacedonian deployment “illegal.” Hernalso promised as head of the Senate Appropriationsrnforeign aid subcommitteernthat he would withhold “voluntaryrnpeacekeeping funds to support activitiesrnin the former Yugoslavia.” (The UnitedrnStates pays a mandatory yearly assessmentrnto the U.N. as well.)rnThe legal issue that concerns McConnellrnis whether this mission is properlyrndefined as a United Nations Charterrnchapter VI, or Chapter VII, operation.rnSince July 9, 1993, when President Clintonrnwrote to Congress spelling out the legalrnjustification of this deployment, thernadministration has characterized it as arnChapter VI operation, which meansrntroops are limited to 1,000 people, arernthere for observation rather than combat,rnand can be sent by the Presidentrnwithout congressional approval. But accordingrnto McConnell (and New asrnwell), the entire operation in the formerrnYugoslavia is really a Chapter VII deployment.rnThis is a vital distinction, becausernunder the United Nations ProtectionrnAct, Section 6 (the act that incorporatesrnthe U.N. Charter into American law), arnChapter VII deployment must haverncongressional approval. McConnell saidrnin his letter that the U.N. itself hasrncharacterized the entire Yugoslavianrnmission—of which the Macedonianrndeployment is a part—as Chapter VII.rnOf the 97 U.N. Security Council resolutionsrnpassed between 1991 and 1995rnconcerning the former Yugoslavia, nonernmention Chapter VI, McConnell wrote.rnBut “there are 27 resolutions whichrnspecifically refer to both ‘UNPROFOR’rnand the mandate for UNPROFOR,rnwhich includes UNPROFOR Macedonia,rnas ‘Chapter VII’ under the UNrnCharter,” he said. He quoted languagernfrom these resolutions showing that thernU.N. expected this deployment to involverncombat, a Chapter VII criterion.rn(Chapter VI troops, remember, are therernto observe.) He also cited the Army’srnown lawyers in New’s case as stating thatrnthis battalion was “combat-equipped”rnand being sent into a “combat environment.”rn”It appears that the Administrationrnis using . . . Chapter VI to avoid thernneed for [congressional approval] on therndeployment of U.S. troops in Macedonia,”rnhe concluded.rnAs we go to press, the President hasrnnot yet answered McConnell’s letter.rnBut whatever happens, New’s case canrnno longer be characterized as a simplerncourtmartial of a young man who refusedrnto follow orders. “What [New] hasrnopened up here is an issue far larger thanrnhis concern about wearing the U.N. insignia,”rnsaid Congressman Bartlett.rn”He’s opened up the whole constitutionalrnquestion of the responsibilities ofrnCongress and the President.”rnWhile it seems unlikely that his courtmartialrnwill be overturned by Gen.rnMeigs, New may get a second chance inrnfederal court. In March, U.S. DistrictrnJudge Paul L. Friedman in the District ofrnColumbia refused to hear New’s argumentsrnfor habeas corpus, but left therndoor open for New to return once he hasrnexhausted possible remedies in militaryrncourt. McConnell’s press secretary,rnRobert Steurer, said the senator intendedrnto hold a hearing on peacekeeping inrnlate May, which may touch on New’srncase.rnThen there is the court of public opinion.rnBoth New’s battalion and New himselfrnwill probably be back in the Statesrnthis summer. Though New has told hisrnlawyer that “he would rather go to jailrnthan give a speech,” he may be in greatrn42/CHRONICLESrnrnrn