It doesn’t sound possible, but the United States just joined most other members of the United Nations in granting UN troops the “right” to use force to protect civilians in a conflict.

While that may sound innocuous, think for a moment: That also means UN troops can be used against American civilians during a “conflict.”

As reported by The Associated Press, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power told a high-level UN meeting in recent days that was discussing the responsibility of the globalist institution to protect civilians, that Washington was “proud” and “humbled” to join 28 other countries that have promised to abide by a set of 18 “pledges.”

Now, UN peacekeepers from these 29 nations are required to act any time they perceive civilians to be in danger.

“The Kigali Principles are designed to make sure that civilians are not abandoned by the international community again,” Powers said, recounting how UN peacekeepers departed Rwanda before the 1994 genocide and Srebrenica before the 1995 massacre there.

In reality, it makes perfect sense to give UN peacekeeping forces the authority to actually keep the peace. The instances cited by our UN ambassador were stains on the institution’s credibility at the time they occurred. Time, money and resources were wasted on sending forces into combat zones where civilians were already depending on them to “keep the peace,” and they didn’t have the mandate – or authority – for that function. So civilians died.

Where all this gets dicey is that the United States has now agreed to become one of 29 countries whose troops are required to act in defense of civilians. The question then becomes, what happens if UN troops are ordered onto American soil?

It seems far-fetched and impossible, but couldn’t it happen here just the same as it might happen anywhere else the UN is asked to send a peacekeeping force?

What if some future U.S. administration makes such a request? It would be unprecedented.

What would happen? Would the request be honored? Would it be opposed by a majority of the American people? American police? The military? Congress?

Consider:

— Members of the military take oaths to “support and defend” the U.S. Constitution, but the institution of the military is subservient to civilian control; if ordered to stand down, it likely would.

— If the majority of Congress were members of the same party as the president, the chances are excellent that the Legislative Branch would not intervene in such a request. Even if Congress wanted to, it would be charged with passing veto-proof legislation barring the president from making such a request.

— There is absolutely no evidence that Americans en masse would rise up and oppose a UN force – which, if attacked, would respond under its mandate to protect civilians. Would that provoke a U.S. military response? It might, if a majority of Pentagon brass decided to buck the president and take control.

So many variables to think about it really does boggle the mind. The one overarching thing to remember, however, is now that the U.S. has signed on to this agreement, anything is possible.

Sources:

FoxNews.com

WeAreChange.org