>http://www.house.gov/paul/ >http://www.house.gov/paul/cr090502.htm >Congressman Ron Paul Texas >U.S. House of Representatives >September 5, 2002 > >A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty > >Introduction > >Mr. Speaker: > >Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when >he stated: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, >entangling alliances with none..." which is, "one of the essential >principles of our government". The question is: Whatever happened to this >principle and should it be restored? > >We find the 20th Century was wracked with war, peace was turned asunder, >and our liberties were steadily eroded. Foreign alliances and meddling in >the internal affairs of other nations became commonplace. On many >occasions, involvement in military action occurred through UN resolutions >or a presidential executive order, despite the fact that the war power was >explicitly placed in the hands of Congress. > >Since World War II, nearly 100,000 deaths and over a quarter million >wounded (not counting the many thousands that have been affected by Agent >Orange and the Persian Gulf War Syndrome) have all occurred without a >declaration of war and without a clear-cut victory. The entire 20th >century was indeed costly, with over 600,000 killed in battle and an >additional million wounded. > >If liberty had been truly enhanced during that time, less could be said >about the imperfections of the policy. The evidence, however, is clear >that we as a people are less free, and the prosperity we still enjoy may >be more illusionary than many realize. The innocent victims who have >suffered at the hands of our militarism abroad are rarely considered by >our government. Yet they may well be a major factor in the hatred now >being directed toward America. It is not currently popular to question >corporate and banking influence over a foreign policy that replaced the >wisdom of Washington and Jefferson. Questioning foreign government >influence on our policies, although known about for years, is not >acceptable in the politically correct environment in which we live. > >There's little doubt that our role in the world dramatically changed in >the 20th century, inexorably evolving from that of strict >non-interventionism to that of sole superpower, with the assumption that >we were destined to be the world policeman. By the end of the 20th >century, in fact, this occurred. We have totally forgotten that for well >over a hundred years we followed the advice of the founders by >meticulously avoiding overseas conflicts. Instead we now find ourselves in >charge of an American hegemony spread to the four corners of the earth. > >Now we have entered the 21st century, and there is not a country in the >world that does not either depend on the U.S. for protection, or fear her >wrath if they refuse to do her bidding. As the 20th century progressed, >American taxpayers were required to finance, with great sacrifices to >their pocketbooks and their liberty, the buying of loyalty through foreign >aid and intimidation of those countries that did not cooperate. > >The question remains, however: Has this change been beneficial to freedom >and prosperity here at home, and has it promoted peace and trade >throughout the world? Those who justify our interventionist policies >abroad argue that the violation of the rule of law is not a problem, >considering the benefits we receive for maintaining the American empire. >But has this really taken into consideration the cost in lives lost, the >damage to long-term prosperity, as well as the dollar cost and freedoms we >have lost? And what about the future? Has this policy of foreign >intervention set the stage for radically changing America- and the world- >in ways not yet seen? Were the founders completely off track because they >lived in different times, or was the foreign policy they advised based on >an essential principle of lasting value? Choosing the wrong answer to this >question could very well be deadly to the grand experiment in liberty >begun in 1776. > >The Slippery Road to World Policeman > >The transition from non-interventionism to our current role as world >arbiter in all conflicts was insidious and fortuitous. In the early part >of the 20th century, the collapse of the British Empire left a vacuum, >which was steadily filled by a US presence. In the latter part of the >century, the results of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet system >propelled us into our current role. Throughout most of the 20th century, >it was our competition with the Soviets that prompted our ever-expanded >presence around the world. We are where we are today almost by default. >But does that justify interventionism or prove it is in our best interest? > >Disregarding for the moment the moral and constitutional arguments against >foreign intervention, a strong case can be made against it for other >reasons. It is clear that one intervention begets another. The first >problem is rarely solved, and new ones are created. Indeed, in foreign >affairs a slippery slope exists. In recent years, we too often slipped >into war through the back door, with the purpose rarely defined or >understood and the need for victory ignored. > >A restrained effort of intervention frequently explodes into something >that we did not foresee. Policies end up doing the opposite of their >intended purpose- with unintended consequences. The result is that the >action taken turns out to actually be detrimental to our national security >interests. Yet no effort is made to challenge the fundamental principle >behind our foreign policy. It is this failure to adhere to a set of >principles that has allowed us to slip into this role, and if >unchallenged, could well undo the liberties we all cherish. > >Throughout history, there has always been a great temptation for rulers to >spread their influence and pursue empire over liberty. Few resist this >temptation to power. There always seems to be a natural inclination to >yield to this historic human passion. Could it be that progress and >civilization and promoting freedom require ignoring this impulse to >control others, as the founders of this great nation advised? > >Historically, the driving force behind world domination is usually an >effort to control wealth. The Europeans were searching for gold when they >came to the Americas. Now it=s our turn to seek control over the black >gold which drives much of what we do today in foreign affairs. Competing >with the Soviet Union prompted our involvement in areas of the world where >the struggle for the balance of power was the sole motivating force. > >The foreign policy of the 20th century replaced the policy endorsed by all >the early presidents. This permitted our steadily growing involvement >overseas in an effort to control the world's commercial interests, with a >special emphasis on oil. > >Our influence in the Middle East evolved out of concern for the newly >created state of Israel in 1947, and our desire to secure control over the >flow of oil in that region. Israel's needs and Arab oil have influenced >our foreign policy for more than a half a century. > >In the 1950s, the CIA installed the Shah in Iran. It was not until the >hostage crisis of the late 1970s that the unintended consequences of this >became apparent. This generated Iranian hatred of America and led to the >takeover by the reactionary Khoumini and the Islamic fundamentalists. It >caused greater regional instability than we anticipated. Our meddling in >the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for >our failed policy in dealing with Iraq. > >We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran, and >assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, >we did nothing to stop Hussein's development of chemical and biological >weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a >consequence of that needless intervention, we=re planning a risky war to >remove him from power. And as usual, the probable result of such an effort >will be something our government does not anticipate- like a takeover by >someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he's an enemy of the Al Qaeda, >and someone new may well be a close ally of the Islamic radicals. > >Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many >decades, it's becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly >friendly toward us, and our military presence on their holy soil is >greatly resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist hatred >directed toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America, such as a >regime change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is >not merely a coincidence that 15 of the 9/11 terrorists are Saudis. > >The Persian Gulf War, fought without a declaration of war, is in reality >still going on. It looks now like 9/11 may well have been a battle in that >war, perpetrated by fanatical guerillas. It indicates how seriously flawed >our foreign policy is. In the 1980s, we got involved in the Soviet/Afghan >war and actually sided with the forces of Osama bin Laden, helping him >gain power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United >States, and it has now come back to haunt us. Our policy for years was to >encourage Saudi Arabia to oppose communism by financing and promoting >Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the shortcomings of that policy are now >evident to everyone. > >Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan on the eve of his indictment >over Monica Lewinsky shattered a Taliban plan to expel Osama bin Laden >from Afghanistan. Clinton's bombing of Baghdad on the eve of his >impeachment hardly won any converts to our cause or reassured Muslim >people in the Middle East of a balanced American policy. > >The continued bombing of Iraq over these past 12 years, along with the >deadly sanctions resulting in hundreds of thousands of needless Iraqi >civilian deaths, has not been beneficial to our security. And it has been >used as one of the excuses for recruiting fanatics ready to sacrifice >their lives in demonstrating their hatred toward us. > >Essentially all Muslims see our policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict >as being openly favorable toward Israel and in opposition to the >Palestinians. It is for this reason they hold us responsible for >Palestinian deaths, since all the Israeli weapons are from the United >States. Since the Palestinians don't even have an army and must live in >refugee camps, one should understand why the animosity builds, even if our >pro-Israeli position can be explained. > >There is no end in sight. Since 9/11, our involvement in the Middle East >and Saudi Arabia has grown significantly. Though we can badger those >countries- whose leaders depend upon us to keep them in power- to stay >loyal to the United States, the common people of the region become more >alienated. Our cozy relationship with the Russians may not be as >long-lasting as our current administration hopes, considering the $40 >billion trade deal recently made between Russia and Saddam Hussein. It's >more than a bit ironic that we find the Russians now promoting free trade >as a solution to a difficult situation while we're promoting war. > >This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been >widespread. We've been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have promised >to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over territorial >disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II, we still find our military >spread throughout Europe and Asia. > >And now, the debate rages over whether our national security requires that >we, for the first time, escalate this policy of intervention to include >"anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war." If our interventions of >the 20th century led to needless deaths, unwinnable wars, and continuous >unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to >unleash on the world. > >Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate >Saddam Hussein whenever it gets the chance and that the government of Iraq >is to be replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations >inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who >were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and >continue with the routine bombing missions. Why should there be a question >of why Saddam Hussein might not readily accept UN inspectors without some >type of assurances? Does anybody doubt that control of Iraqi oil supplies, >second only to Saudi Arabia, is the reason U.S. policy is belligerent >toward Saddam Hussein? If our goal is honestly to remove dictators around >the world, then this is the beginning of an endless task. > >In the transition from the original American foreign policy of peace, >trade, and neutrality to that of world policeman, we have sacrificed our >sovereignty to world government organizations, such as the UN, the IMF, >the World Bank, and the WTO. To further confuse and undermine our >position, we currently have embarked on a policy of unilateralism within >these world organizations. This means we accept the principle of >globalized government when it pleases us, but when it doesn't, we ignore >it for the sake of our own interests. > >Acting in our own interest is to be applauded, but what we're getting is >not a good alternative to a one-world government. We don't get our >sovereignty back, yet we continue to subject ourselves to a great >potential financial burden and loss of liberty as we shift from a national >government, with constitutional protection of our rights, to an >international government, where our citizens' rights are threatened by >treaties we haven=t ratified, like the Kyoto and International Criminal >Court treaties. We cannot depend on controlling the world government at >some later date, even if we seem to be able to do that now. > >The unilateralists' approach of dominating world leaders and arbitrarily >ignoring certain mandates- something we can do with impunity because of >our intimidating power- serves only to further undermine our prestige and >acceptability throughout the world. And this includes the Muslim countries >as well as our European friends. This merely sets the stage for both our >enemies and current friends to act in concert against our interests when >the time comes. This is especially true if we become financially strapped >and our dollar is sharply weakened and we are in a much more vulnerable >bargaining position. > >Unilateralism within a globalist approach to government is the worst of >all choices. It ignores national sovereignty, dignifies one-world >government, and places us in the position of demanding dictatorial powers >over the world community. Demanding the right to set all policy and >exclude ourselves from jurisdictional restraints sows the seeds of future >discontent and hostility. > >The downside is we get all the bills, risk the lives of our people without >cause, and make ourselves the target for every event that goes badly. We >get blamed for the unintended, unforeseen consequences and become the >target of terrorists that evolve from the radicalized fringes. > >Long-term, foreign interventionism does not serve our interests. Tinkering >on the edges of our current policy will not help. An announced policy of >support for globalist government, assuming the financial and military role >of world policeman, maintaining an American world empire, while flaunting >unilateralism, is a recipe for disaster. US unilateralism is a far cry >from the non-intervention that the founders advised. > >The Principle Behind Foreign Policy > >The term "foreign policy" does not exist in the Constitution. All members >of the federal government have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and >should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful reading >of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more responsibility than >the President in dealing with foreign affairs. The President is the >Commander-in-Chief, but can=t declare war or finance military action >without explicit congressional approval. A good starting point would be >for Congress to assume the responsibility given it and to make sure the >executive branch does not usurp any authority explicitly granted to Congress. > >A proper foreign policy of non-intervention is built on friendship with >other nations, free trade, and open travel, maximizing the exchanges of >goods and services and ideas. Nations that trade with each other are >definitely less likely to fight against each other. Unnecessary >bellicosity and jingoism is detrimental to peace and prosperity, and >incites unnecessary confrontation. And yet, today, that's about all we >hear coming from the politicians and the media pundits who are so anxious >for this war against Iraq. > >We should avoid entangling alliances and stop meddling in the internal >affairs of other nations- no matter how many special interests demand >otherwise. The entangling alliances that we should avoid include the >complex alliances in the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. >One-world government goals are anathema to non-intervention and free >trade. The temptation to settle disputes and install better governments >abroad is fraught with great danger and many uncertainties. > >Protecting our national sovereignty and guaranteeing constitutional >protection of our citizens' rights are crucial. Respecting the sovereignty >of other nations, even when we=re in disagreement with some of their >policies, is also necessary. Changing others then becomes a job of >persuasion and example- not force and intimidation- just as it is in >trying to improve personal moral behavior of our fellow citizens here at home. > >Defending our country from outside attack is legitimate and is of the >highest priority. Protecting individual liberty should be our goal. This >does not mean, however, that our troops should follow our citizens or >their investments throughout the world. While foreign visitors should be >welcomed, no tax-supported services should be provided. Citizenship should >be given with caution, and not automatically by merely stepping over a >national boundary for the purpose of giving birth. > >A successful and prosperous society comes from such policies and is >impossible without a sound free-market economy, one not controlled by a >central bank. Avoiding trade wars, devaluations, inflations, deflations, >and disruption of free trade with protectionist legislation is impossible >under a system of international trade dependent on fluctuating fiat >currencies controlled by world central banks and influenced by powerful >financial interests. Instability in trade is one of the prime causes of >creating conditions that lead to war. > >The basic moral principle underpinning a non-interventionist foreign >policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is >based on non-violence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, >and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with >the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should >mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have >an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. >Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and >unrelated to national security provides no benefits to us, while exposing >us to great risks financially and militarily. > >What Would a Foreign Policy For Peace Look Like? > >Our troops would be brought home, systematically but soon. Being in Europe >and Japan for over 50 years is long enough. The failure in Vietnam >resulted in no occupation and a more westernized country now doing >business with the United States. There=s no evidence that the military >approach in Vietnam was superior to that of trade and friendship. The lack >of trade and the imposition of sanctions have not served us well in Cuba >or in the Middle East. The mission for our Coast Guard would change if our >foreign policy became non-interventionist. They, too, would come home, >protect our coast, and stop being the enforcers of bureaucratic laws that >either should not exist or should be a state function. > >All foreign aid would be discontinued. Most evidence shows that this money >rarely helps the poor, but instead solidifies power in the hands of >dictators. There's no moral argument that can justify taxing poor people >in this country to help rich people in poor countries. Much of the foreign >aid, when spent, is channeled back to weapons manufacturers and other >special interests in the United States who are the strong promoters of >these foreign-aid expenditures. Yet it's all done in the name of >humanitarian causes. > >A foreign policy of freedom and peace would prompt us to give ample notice >before permanently withdrawing from international organizations that have >entangled us for over a half a century. US membership in world government >was hardly what the founders envisioned when writing the Constitution. The >principle of Marque and Reprisal would be revived and specific problems >such as terrorist threats would be dealt with on a contract basis >incorporating private resources to more accurately target our enemies and >reduce the chances of needless and endless war. This would help prevent a >continual expansion of conflicts into areas not relating to any immediate >threat. By narrowing the target, there's less opportunity for special >interests to manipulate our foreign policy to serve the financial needs of >the oil and military-weapon industries. > >The Logan Act would be repealed, thus allowing maximum freedom of our >citizens to volunteer to support their war of choice. This would help >diminish the enthusiasm for wars the proponents have used to justify our >world policies and diminish the perceived need for a military draft. > >If we followed a constitutional policy of non-intervention, we would never >have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based on >speculation of what a country might do at some future date. Political >pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for their benefit >would never be a consideration. Commercial interests and our citizens >investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow them and protect >their profits. A non-interventionist foreign policy would not condone >subsidies to our corporations through programs like the Export/Import Bank >and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These programs guarantee >against losses, while the risk takers want our military to protect their >investments from political threats. This current flawed policy removes the >tough decisions of when to invest in foreign countries and diminishes the >pressure on those particular countries to clean up their political acts in >order to entice foreign capital to move into their country. Today's >foreign policy encourages bad investments. Ironically this is all done in >the name of free trade and capitalism, but it does more to export jobs and >businesses than promote free trade. And yet when it fails, capitalism and >freedom are blamed. > >A non-interventionist foreign policy would go a long way toward preventing >9/11 type attacks. The Department of Homeland Security would be >unnecessary, and the military, along with less bureaucracy in our >intelligence-gathering agencies, could instead provide the security the >new department is supposed to provide. A renewed respect for gun ownership >and responsibility for defending one=s property would provide additional >protection against potential terrorists. > >Conclusion > >There are many reasons why a policy of peace is superior to a policy of >war. The principle that we do not have the moral authority to forcibly >change governments in foreign lands just because we don't approve of their >shortcomings should be our strongest argument- but rarely today is a moral >argument in politics worth much. > >The practical argument against intervention, because of its record of >failure, should certainly prompt all thoughtful people to reconsider what >we have been doing for the past many decades. > >We should all be aware that war is a failure of relationship between >foreign powers. Since this is such a serious matter, our American >tradition as established by the founders made certain that the executive >is subservient to the more democratically responsive legislative branch on >the issue of war. Therefore, no war is ever to be the prerogative of a >president through his unconstitutional use of executive orders, nor should >it ever be something where the legal authority comes from an international >body such as NATO or the United Nations. Up until 50 years ago, this had >been the American tradition. > >Non-intervention prevents the unexpected and unintended consequences that >inevitably result from well-intended meddling in the affairs of others. > >Countries like Switzerland and Sweden who promote neutrality and >non-intervention have benefited for the most part by remaining secure and >free of war over the centuries. Non-intervention consumes a lot less of >the nation's wealth- and with less wars, a higher standard of living for >all citizens results. But this, of course, is not attractive to the >military-industrial complex, which enjoys a higher standard of living at >the expense of the taxpayer when a policy of intervention and constant war >preparation is carried out. > >Wisdom, morality, and the Constitution are very unlikely to invade the >minds of the policy makers that control our foreign affairs. We have >institutionalized foreign intervention over the past 100 years through the >teachings of all our major universities and the propaganda that the media >spews out. The powerful influence over our policy, both domestic and >foreign, is not soon going to go away. > >I'm convinced however, that eventually restraint in our interventions >overseas will be guided by a more reasonable constitutional policy. >Economic reality will dictate it. Although political pressure in times of >severe economic downturn and domestic strife encourage planned >distractions overseas, these adventures always cause economic harm due to >the economic costs. When the particular country or empire involved >overreaches, as we are currently doing, national bankruptcy and a severely >weakened currency call the whole process to a halt. > >The Soviet system armed with an aggressive plan to spread its empire >worldwide collapsed, not because we attacked it militarily, but for >financial and economic reasons. They no longer could afford it, and the >resources and wealth that it drained finally turned the people against its >authoritarian rule. > >Maintaining an overseas empire is incompatible with the American tradition >of liberty and prosperity. The financial drain and the antagonism that it >causes with our enemies, and even our friends, will finally force the >American people to reject the policy outright. There will be no choice. >Gorbachev just walked away and Yeltsin walked in, with barely a ripple. A >non-violent revolution of unbelievable historic magnitude occurred and the >Cold War ended. We are not immune from such a similar change. > >This Soviet collapse ushered in the age of unparalleled American dominance >over the entire world, and along with it allowed the new expanded hot war >between the West and the Muslim East. All the hostility directed toward >the West built up over the centuries between the two factions is now >directed toward the United States. We are now the only power capable of >paying for and literally controlling the Middle East and its cherished >wealth, and we have not hesitated. Iraq, with its oil and water and >agricultural land, is a prime target of our desire to further expand our >dominion. The battle is growing more tense with our acceptance and desire >to control the Caspian Sea oil riches. But Russia, now licking its wounds >and once again accumulating wealth, will not sit idly by and watch the >American empire engulf this region. When time runs out for us, we can be >sure Russia will once again be ready to fight for control of all those >resources in countries adjacent to her borders. And expect the same for >China and India. And who knows, maybe one day even Japan will return to >the ancient art of using force to occupy the cherished territories in her >region of the world. >The most we can hope for will be, once the errors of our ways are >acknowledged and we can no longer afford our militarism, we will >reestablish the moral principle that underpins the policy of "peace, >commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with >none." Our modern-day war hawks do not respect this American principle, >nor do they understand how the love of liberty drove the founders in their >great battle against tyranny. > >We must prepare for the day when our financial bankruptcy and the failure >of our effort at world domination are apparent. The solution to such a >crisis can be easily found in our Constitution and in our traditions. But >ultimately, the love of liberty can only come from a change in the hearts >and minds of the people and with an answered prayer for the blessings of >divine intervention. > >
