Ron Paul - Foreign Policy

Last Updated: Jan 16, 2012

Summary

Congressman Paul's overall foreign policy viewpoint is known as non-intervention. It is the view that the US treats every country the same with respect to trade and economics. Congressman Paul states that non-interventionism means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean isolation.

Congressman Paul notes that our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. He states that Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”

Congressman Paul repeatedly uses the theory of non-intervention in discussing our relations with all nations. He has asked how the US would feel if China was flying spy planes over or near the US. He asks how the US would respond if a middle eastern country placed troops here to secure oil. He also points out that we would not be happy if a stronger nation assisted one of our neighbors in an Israeli type situation. He constantly asserts that if there was no US involvement overseas, there would be no threat to the US as no one there would have reason to hate us. He asserts that the reason we must have troops there to protect our security is that US troops are already there.

As can be seen in the tab for Congressman Paul on International Trade, Congressman Paul does not advocate for allowing the UN, the WTO, or any other foreign entity to assume responsibility where the US would normally step in. He believes strongly in the sovereignty of the US and he believes that other countries should remain sovereign as well.

Congressman Paul opposes the use of the US military to intervene in countries overseas or push US economic interests overseas. He opposed the use of military force in Iraq and Libya and stated that those wars were not legally declared as wars by the Congress. He opposes US military intervention into Iran, Syria, and other countries to dictate their military power.

Foreign Interventionism

Two weeks after the September 11 attacks, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about the foreign policy of the United states and how it can inspire extreme behavior in the middle east.

FOREIGN INTERVENTIONISM -- (House of Representatives - September 25, 2001)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SIMPSON). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the last 2 weeks have been tough for all Americans. The best we can say is that the events have rallied the American spirit of shared love and generosity. Partisanship was put on hold as it well should have been. We now, as a free people, must deal with this tragedy in the best way possible. Punishment and prevention is mandatory.
We must not, however, sacrifice our liberties at the hand of an irrational urgency. Calm deliberation in our effort to restore normalcy is crucial. Cries for dropping nuclear bombs on an enemy not yet identified cannot possibly help in achieving this goal.
Mr. Speaker, I returned to Congress 5 years ago out of deep concern about our foreign policy of international interventionism and a monetary and fiscal policy, I believe, would lead to a financial and dollar crisis.
Over the past 5 years, I have frequently expressed my views on these issues and why I believe our policies should be changed. This deep concern prompted me to seek and receive seats on the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on International Relations.
I sought to thwart some of the dangers I saw coming, but as the horrific attacks shows, these efforts were to no avail. As concerned as I was, the enormity of the two-pronged crisis that we now face came with a ferocity no one ever wanted to imagine. Now we must deal with what we have and do our best to restore our country to a more normal status.
I do not believe this can happen if we ignore the truth. We cannot close our eyes to the recent history that has brought us to this international crisis. We should guard against emotionally driven demands to kill many bystanders in an effort to liquidate our enemy. These efforts could well fail to punish the perpetrators while only expanding the war and making things worse by killing innocent noncombatants and further radicalizing Muslim people.
It is obviously no easy task to destroy an almost invisible ubiquitous enemy spread throughout the world without expanding the war or infringing on our liberties here at home. Above all else that is our mandate and our key constitutional responsibility, protecting liberty and providing for national security.
My strong belief is that in the past efforts in the U.S. Congress to do much more than this has diverted our attention and, hence, led to our neglect of these responsibilities. Following the September 11 disasters, a militant Islamic group in Pakistan held up a sign for all the world to see. It said: ``Americans, think! Why you are hated all over the world.'' We abhor the messenger, but we should not ignore the message.
Here at home we are told that the only reason for the suicidal mass killing we experienced on September 11 is that we are hated because we are free and prosperous. If these two conflicting views are not reconciled we cannot wisely fight nor win the war in which we now find ourselves. We must understand why the hatred is directed toward Americans and not any other Western country.
In studying history, I, as many others, have come to the conclusion that war is most often fought for economic reasons, but economic wars are driven by moral and emotional overtones. Our own revolution was fought to escape from the excessive taxation but was inspired and driven by our desire to protect our God-given right to liberty.
The War Between the States, fought primarily over tariffs, was nonetheless inspired by the abhorrence of slavery. It is this moral inspiration that drives people to suicidally fight to the death as so many Americans did between 1861 and 1865.
Both economic and moral causes of war must be understood. Ignoring the importance of each is dangerous. We should not casually ignore the root causes of our current fight nor pursue this fight by merely accepting the explanation that they terrorize us out of jealousy.
It has already been written that Islamic militants are fighting a holy war, a jihad. This drives them to commit acts that to us are beyond comprehension. It seems that they have no concern for economic issues since they have no regard even for their own lives, but an economic issue does exist in this war. It is oil.
When the conflict broke out between Iraq and Iran in the early 1980s, we helped to finance and arm Iraq and Saddam Hussein. At that time, Anwar Sadat of Egypt profoundly stated, ``This is the beginning of the war for oil.'' Our crisis today is part of this long-lasting war over oil.
Osama bin Laden, a wealthy man, left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to join American-sponsored so-called freedom fighters in Afghanistan . He received financial assistance, weapons and training from our CIA, just as his allies in Kosovo continue to receive the same from us today.
Unbelievably, to this day our foreign aid continues to flow into Afghanistan , even as we prepare to go to war against her. My suggestion is, not only should we stop this aid immediately, but we should never have started it in the first place.
It is during this time, bin Laden learned to practice terror tragically with money from the U.S. taxpayer, but it was not until 1991 during what we referred to as the Persian Gulf War that he turned fully against the United States. It was this war, said to protect our oil, that brought out the worst in him. Of course, it is not our oil. The oil, in fact, belongs to the Arabs and other Muslim Nations on the Persian gulf.
Our military presence in Saudi Arabia is what most Muslims believe to be a sacred violation of holy land. The continuous bombing and embargo of Iraq has intensified the hatred and contributed to more than a million deaths in Iraq. It is clear that protecting certain oil interests and our presence in the Persian Gulf helps drive this holy war.
Muslims see this as an invasion and domination by a foreign enemy which inspires radicalism. This is not new. This war, from their viewpoint, has been going on since the Crusades 1,000 years ago. We ignore this history at our own peril.
The radicals react as some Americans might react if China dominated the Gulf of Mexico and had air bases in Texas and Florida. Dominating the Persian Gulf is not a benign activity. It has consequences. The attack on the U.S.S. Cole was a warning we ignored. Furthermore, our support for secular governments in the moderate Arab country is interpreted by the radicals as more American control over their region that they want.
There is no doubt that our policies that are seen by the radicals as favoring one faction over another in the long-lasting Middle East conflict adds to the distrust and hatred of America.
The hatred has been suppressed because we are a powerful economic and military force and wield a lot of influence. But this suppressed hatred is now becoming more visible. And we, as Americans, for the most part, are not even aware of how this could be. Americans have no animosity toward a people they hardly even know. Instead, our policies have been driven by the commercial interests of a few, and now the innocent suffer.
I am hopeful that shedding a light on the truth will be helpful in resolving this conflict in the very dangerous period that lies ahead. Without some understanding of the recent and past history of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, we cannot expect to punish the evildoers without expanding the nightmare of hatred that is now sweeping the world. Punishing the evildoers is crucial. Restoring safety and security to our country is critical. Providing for a strong defense is essential. But extricating ourselves from a holy war that we do not understand is also necessary if we expect to achieve the above-mentioned goals.
Let us all hope and pray for guidance in our effort to restore the peace and tranquility we all desire. We did a poor job in providing the security that all Americans should expect, and this is our foremost responsibility. Some Members have been quick to point out the shortcomings of the FBI, the CIA, and the FAA, and to claim more money will rectify the situation. I am not so sure. Bureaucracies, by nature, are inefficient. The FBI and CIA records come up short. The FBI loses computers and guns and is careless with records. The CIA rarely provides timely intelligence. The FAA's idea of security against hijackers is asking all passengers who packed their bags.
The clamor now is to give more authority and money to these agencies. But remember, important industries like our chemical plants and refineries do not depend on government agencies for security. They build fences and hire guards with guns. The airlines have not been allowed to do the same thing. There was a time when airline pilots were allowed and did carry guns, and yet this has been prohibited by government regulations. If this responsibility had been left with the airlines to provide safety, they may well have had armed guards and pilots on the planes, just as our industrial sites have.
Privatizing the FAA, as other countries have, would also give airlines more leeway in providing security. My bill, H.R. 2896, should be passed immediately to clarify that the Federal Government will never place a prohibition on pilots being armed. We do not need more laws restricting our civil liberties, we need more freedom to defend ourselves.
We face an enormous task to restore the sense of security we have taken for granted for so long, but it can be done. Destroying the evildoers while extricating ourselves from this unholiest of wars is no small challenge. The job is somewhat like getting out of a pit filled with venomous snakes. The sooner we shoot the snakes that immediately threaten us, the sooner we can get safely away. If we are not careful, though, we will breed more snakes; and they will come out of every nook and cranny from around the world and little will be resolved.
It is no easy task, but before we fight, we had better be precise about whom we are fighting and how many there are and where they are hiding; or we will never know when the war is over and our goals are achieved. Without this knowledge, the war can go on for a long, long time. And the war for oil has already been going on for more than 20 years. To this point, our President and his administration has displayed the necessary deliberation. This is a positive change from unauthorized and ineffective retaliatory bombings in past years that only worsened various conflicts. If we cannot or will not define the enemy, the cost to fight such a war will be endless.
How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money are we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians in our Nation and others are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will be jeopardized? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give up? How much prosperity will we sacrifice?
The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult task that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days, the concern was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three Federal crimes named in the original Constitution. Today, we have a new type of deadly piracy in the high sky over our country.
The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances was for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to perform the task, with permission to use and reward private sources to carry out the task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his key supporters. This narrows targeting the enemy.
This effort would not preclude the President's other efforts to resolve the crisis but, if successful, would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan , a country that no foreign power has ever successfully conquered throughout all of history. Lives could be saved, billions of dollars could be saved, and escalation due to needless and senseless killing could be prevented.
Mr. Speaker, we must seriously consider this option. This answer is a world apart from the potential disaster of launching nuclear weapons or endless bombing of an unseen enemy. Marque and reprisal demands the enemy be seen and precisely targeted with minimal danger to others. It should be considered, and for various reasons, is far superior to any effort that could be carried out by the CIA.
We must not sacrifice the civil liberties that generations of Americans have enjoyed and fought for over the past 225 years. Unwise decisions in response to the terror inflicted on us may well fail to destroy our enemy, while undermining our liberties here at home. That will not be a victory worth celebrating.
The wise use of marque and reprisal could negate the need to undermine the privacy and rights of our citizens. As we work through this civil task, let us resist the temptation to invoke the most authoritarian of all notions that not too many years ago tore this Nation apart, the military draft.
The country is now unified against the enemy. The military draft does nothing to contribute to unity, nor as the Pentagon again has confirmed, does it promote an efficient military.
Precise identification of all travelers on our air flights is a desired goal. A national ID issued by the Federal Government would prove to be disastrous to our civil liberties and should not be considered. This type of surveillance power should never be given to an intrusive, overbearing government no matter how well intentioned the motives.
The same result can be better achieved by the marketplace. Passenger IDs voluntarily issued by the airlines could be counterfeit-proof, and loss or theft of an ID could be immediately reported to the proper authorities. An ID, fingerprints, birth certificates, or any other information can be required without any violations of anyone's personal liberty.
This delicate information would not be placed in the hands of the Government agents, but could be made available to law enforcement officers, like any other information obtained with probable cause in a search warrant.
The heat of the moment has prompted calls by some of our officials for great sacrifice of our liberties and privacy. This poses great danger to our way of life and will provide little help in dealing with our enemies.
Efforts of this sort will only punish the innocent and have no effect on a would-be terrorist. We should be careful not to do something just to do something, even something harmful.
Mr. Speaker, I fear that some big mistakes could be made in pursuit of our enemies if we do not proceed with great caution, wisdom, and deliberation. Action is necessary. Inaction is unacceptable.
No doubt others recognize the difficulties in targeting such an elusive enemy. This is why the principle behind the marque and reprisal must be given serious consideration. In retaliation, an unintended consequence of a policy of wanton destruction without benefit to our cause could result in the overthrow of moderate Arab nations by the radicals that support bin Laden. This will not serve our interests and will surely exacerbate the threat to all Americans.
As we search for a solution to the mess we are in, it behooves us to look at how John F. Kennedy handled the Cuban crisis in 1962. Personally, that crisis led to a 5-year tour in the U.S. Air Force for me. As horrible and dangerous as the present crisis is, those of us that held our breath during some very tense moments that October realized we were on the brink of a worldwide nuclear holocaust.
That crisis represented the greatest potential danger to the world in all of human history. President Kennedy held firm and stood up to the Soviets as he should have and the confrontation was resolved. What was not known at the time was the reassessment of our foreign policy that placed nuclear missiles in the Soviet's back yard in Turkey. These missiles were quietly removed a few months later, and the world became a safer place in which to live. Eventually we won the Cold War without starting World War III.
Our enemy today, as formidable as he is, cannot compare to the armed might of the Soviet Union in the fall of 1962. Wisdom and caution on Kennedy's part in dealing with the crisis was indeed a profile in courage. But his courage was not only in his standing up to the Soviets, but his willingness to reexamine our nuclear missile presence in Turkey which, if it had been known at the time, would have been condemned as an act of cowardice.
President Bush now has the challenge to do something equally courageous and wise. This is necessary if we expect to avert a catastrophic World War III. When the President asks for patience as he and his advisors deliberate seek a course of action, all Americans should surely heed this request.
Mr. Speaker, I support President Bush and voted for the authority and the money to carry out his responsibilities to defend this country. But the degree of death and destruction and chances of escalation must be carefully taken into consideration.
It is, though, only with sadness that I reflect on the support, the dollars, the troops, the weapons and training provided by U.S. taxpayers that are now being used against us. Logic should tell us that intervening in all the wars of the world has been detrimental to our own self-interest and should be reconsidered.
The efforts of a small minority in Congress to avoid this confrontation by voting for the foreign policy of George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson and all the 19th century Presidents went unheeded.
The unwise policy of supporting so many militants who later became our armed enemies makes little sense, whether it is bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. A policy designed to protect America is wise and frugal, and hopefully it will once again be considered.
George Washington, as we all know, advised strongly, as he departed his Presidency, that we should avoid all entangling alliances with foreign nations.
The call for a noninterventionist policy over the past year has fallen on deaf ears. My suggestions made here today will probably meet the same fate. Yet, if truth is spoken, ignoring it will not negate it. In that case, something will be lost. But if something is said to be true and it is not and it is ignored, nothing is lost. My goal is to contribute to the truth and to the security of this Nation.
What I have said today is different from what is said and accepted in Washington as conventional wisdom, but it is not in conflict with our history and our Constitution. It is a policy that has, whenever tried, generated more peace and prosperity than any other policy for dealing with foreign affairs. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood this. Since the light of truth shines brightest in the darkness of evil and ignorance, we should all strive to shine that light.

The Original Foreign Policy

In December of 2006, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss foreign policy as it was originally intended by the founders.

The Original Foreign Policy
December 18, 2006
It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
George Washington
Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive. But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.” Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy?
Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it. Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today.
The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy. It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.

Iowa Rally

At a campaign event in Iowa, Congressman Paul spoke about non-interventionism and the US foreign policy in recent years.

Foreign Entanglements

In December of 2007, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss the problems with long term foreign entanglements.

On Foreign Entanglements: The Ties that Strangle
Last week I highlighted the irony of sending nearly $1 billion overseas in military earmarks as we close down bases here at home to save money. Our government's flawed foreign policy troubles me this week especially. Benazir Bhutto's assasination was a great tragedy. Pakistan is now more than ever teetering on chaos. And all the money we have sent Musharraf has inadvertently drawn a target on our backs. Musharraf, unfortunately, appears to have learned how to work our system, much in the way a career welfare recipient has learned to do the same. The perpetual welfare recipient promises to look for a job. Musharraf has promised to look for Bin Laden. Both are terrible investments of American taxpayer dollars, however with Musharraf, its been an astonishing $10 billion loss over the last few years. But it is even worse than that. With his recent actions declaring martial law, and dismissing the justices of the supreme court, he is to the rest of the world, and to Pakistanis, a wildly unpopular, power hungry, brutal military dictator.
The perception by most is that we are propping him up while simultaneously urging Ms. Bhutto back into Pakistan as a lamb to the slaughter. The trouble is the average Pakistani will have little doubt regarding Bhutto's death, regardless if it was orchestrated by Musharraf or not. At this point It is almost irrelevant who was responsible or how she died. The perception is what will fuel the anger. My great fear is their anger towards Musharraf's military regime will be targetted towards his enablers - the United States. This is the problem with our government involvement in the internal affairs of other nations. Our friend one day is our enemy the next. And all our friends' enemies become our enemies. How many times have we armed BOTH sides of a conflict because of this? There is little for us to gain from this policy, and simultaneously a lot of trouble we get ourselves into. It is not a rational or intelligent way to interact with the world. The administration has behaved as if there are only two choices in foreign policy - sending money or sending bombs.
Our founding fathers knew a better way - to talk with our neighbors, do honest business with them, cultivate friendship, allow travel and open communication. We should neither initiate violence, nor take sides in conflicts that are none of our business. The American taxpayers are working hard enough to support their families here at home. If an American wants to send money overseas for a conflict or cause, let them, but do not slap Americans in the face by forcefully sending their children's college money abroad to subsidize despotic foreign governments. Our children should be going off to college, not going off to more senseless foreign wars. I was deeply saddened to hear of Benazir Bhutto's death. My hope is that we can change our foreign policy moving forward and truly make strides this year toward peace on earth and goodwill toward men.

John Stossel Interview

In December of 2007, Congressman Paul was interviewed by John Stossel. They discussed numerous instances of foreign policy decisions that Congressman Paul does not agree with.

Campaign for Liberty Video

In September of 2008, the Campaign for Liberty released a video on Congressman Paul's foreign policy. The video is a series of statements made by Congressman Paul during the 2008 election cycle where he addresses US foreign policy.

Pittsburgh Tribune Video

During the 2008 election cycle, the Pittsburgh Tribune released a video showing a series of speeches by Congressman Paul dealing with foreign policy.

What if?

In February of 2009, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about foreign policy. He asks a series of questions about US actions overseas and notes that wars do little beyond growing government.

How Would We Feel?

In February of 2009, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to ask how Americans would feel if a foreign power had bases in the US.

Imagine
Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”
Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up check points on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.
Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers’ attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.
Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.
The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.
According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn’t stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.
Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome’s did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.

We Are Less Safe

In May of 2009, Congressman Paul issued a video on torture for the campaign for liberty. He spoke about foreign policy and torture, He noted that whenever we torture someone and other people find out, it creates more enemies for us to fight.

Bombs and Bribes

In October of 2009, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address foreign policy in Pakistan and other nations. He again spoke from a vantage point of asking what the US would do if attacks such as those in Pakistan were taking place on US soil.

Bombs and Bribes
What if tomorrow morning you woke up to headlines that yet another Chinese drone bombing on US soil killed several dozen ranchers in a rural community while they were sleeping? That a drone aircraft had come across the Canadian border in the middle of the night and carried out the latest of many attacks? What if it was claimed that many of the victims harbored anti-Chinese sentiments, but most of the dead were innocent women and children? And what if the Chinese administration, in an effort to improve its public image in the US, had approved an aid package to send funds to help with American roads and schools and promote Chinese values here?
Most Americans would not stand for it. Yet the above hypothetical events are similar to what our government is doing in Pakistan. Last week, Congress did approve an aid package for Pakistan for the stated purposes of improving our image and promoting democracy. I again made the point on the floor of the House that still no one seems to hear: What if this happened on US soil? What if innocent Americans were being killed in repeated drone attacks carried out by some foreign force who was trying to fix our problems for us? Would sending money help their image? If another nation committed this type of violence and destruction on our homeland, would we be at all interested in adopting their values?
Sadly, one thing that has entirely escaped modern American foreign policy is empathy. Without much humility or regard for human life, our foreign policy has been reduced to alternately bribing and bombing other nations, all with the stated goal of “promoting democracy”. But if a country democratically elects a leader who is not sufficiently pro-American, our government will refuse to recognize them, will impose sanctions on them, and will possibly even support covert efforts to remove them. Democracy is obviously not what we are interested in. It is more likely that our government is interested in imposing its will on other governments. This policy of endless intervention in the affairs of others is very damaging to American liberty and security.
If we were really interested in democracy, peace, prosperity and safety, we would pursue more free trade with other countries. Free and abundant trade is much more conducive to peace because it is generally bad business to kill your customers. When one’s livelihood is on the line, and the business agreements are mutually beneficial, it is in everyone’s best interests to maintain cooperative and friendly relations and not kill each other. But instead, to force other countries to bend to our will, we impose trade barriers and sanctions. If our government really wanted to promote freedom, Americans would be free to travel and trade with whoever they wished. And, if we would simply look at our own policies around the world through the eyes of others, we would understand how these actions make us more targeted and therefore less safe from terrorism. The only answer is get back to free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. It is our bombs and sanctions and condescending aid packages that isolate us.

CNN National Security Debate

On November 22, 2011 Congressman Paul participated in the national security debate on CNN. When asked about al-Qaida, he spoke about meddling in the affairs of other nations. He also spoke about the need for the US to avoid over reaction in attacks on US forces occupying other nations.

KATHERINE ZIMMERMAN: I'm Katherine Zimmerman from the American Enterprise Institute Critical Threats Project.
The United States adopted a policy of disengagement with Somalia after its retreat following Black Hawk down.
Today, an al Qaeda affiliate, Al Shabab, controls significant territory in that country.
What can the United States do to prevent Al Shabab from posing the same threat that al Qaeda did from Afghanistan 10 years ago?
BLITZER: Congressman Paul?
PAUL: You're talking about al Qaeda, correct?
ZIMMERMAN: Right.
PAUL: You have to understand who the al Qaeda really is. The -- the al Qaeda responds in a very deliberate fashion. As a matter of fact, Paul Wolfowitz explained it very clearly after 9/11.
He said that al Qaeda is inspired by the fact that we had bases in Saudi Arabia. So if you want to inspire al Qaeda, just meddle in -- in that region. That will inspire the al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, he went on to say that that was a good reason for us to remove the base that we had had in 15 years in -- in Saudi Arabia and that we should have done that.
So there is a response. Al Qaeda responds to that and they -- they are quite annoyed with us. So if you drop -- if you have a no- fly zone over Syria, that's an act of war.
What if we had China put a no-fly zone over our territory? I don't think -- I don't think we would like that.
And I think we should practice a policy of good will to other people. What about saying that we don't do anything to any other country that we don't have them do to us? When we have a no-fly zone over Iraq, it was for -- meant to be regime change. And evidently, some want to have regime change.
What is our business? Why should we spend more money and more lives to get involved in another war? That's an -- that is the internal affairs of the other nations and we don't want -- we don't need another nation to start nation building. We have way too many already. So this is just looking for more trouble. I would say why don't we mind our own business?
...
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.
I want to do this quickly, if we can, because we don't have a lot of time.
Congressman?
PAUL: I worry most about overreaction on our part, getting involved in another war when we don't need to, when we have been attacked, and our national security has not been at threat. And I worry a lot about people never have come around to understanding who the Taliban is and why they are motivated.
Taliban doesn't mean they want to come here and kill us. The Taliban means they want to kill us over there because all they want to do is get people who occupy their country out of their country, just like we would if anybody tried to occupy us.