Ron Paul debates the Manchester Union-Leader on foreign affairs
October 8th, 2007 by Brendan SteinhauserCongressman Ron Paul has an interesting piece in the Manchester Union-Leader about his foreign policy views. This is clearly a point of contention in the Republican Party, and Congressman Paul does a good job outlining his views. The article was in response to a previous editorial by the Union-Leader editors, which called his foreign policy views “unrealistic and dangerous.”
Paul writes,
A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.
He continues,
It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.
Paul concludes,
A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.
The Union-Leader editorial had argued,
Paul offers our victory in the Cold War as an example of how we can win wars by “diplomacy.” But our victory in the Cold War was not diplomatic. Ronald Reagan’s military buildup topping decades of military interventionism around the globe were critically important components of our defeat of the Soviet Union.
Asked if we should let Iran obtain nuclear weapons, he shrugged and said, “Well, that’s not the end of the world.” Iran is no threat to us, he said, because it can’t invade us. He never acknowledged that Iran is a state sponsor of terror, and a nuclear Iran could one day supply terrorists with nuclear technology or weaponry.
For more on the debate within conservative circles about foreign policy, check out the book The Right War: The Conservative Debate on Iraq.
What do you think about America’s foreign policy? Feel free to comment below.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
British PM Chamberlain used “engagement,” and that was a mistake. Diplomatic engagement is always the correct move to make. President Bush isn’t isolating America from the global economy, he’s isolating our enemies from the global economy. There is a huge difference. We do have enemies that do not care how good we are, they are still going to be evil. I’m pretty sure that Congressman Paul voted AGAINST majority of the free trade agreements that President Bush negociated, and were finally approved by Congress. And he says he’ll expand trade with any country that wants to do business with us? If he truly wanted to do that he would have voted FOR all of the free trade agreements that President Bush negociated.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
**Diplomatic engagement ISN’T always the correct move to make.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:22 am
trey, so tell me are you sure that Ron Paul “voted against the free trade agreements that President Bush has negociated”? See Congressman Paul is a free trader from all i have heard him say and i am a free trader too. I think you are wrong on this issue.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Trey,
It is so unfortunate that you have been led to believe that the so called “free trade” agreements encouraged free trade. NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, and the many others that have been introduced are barriers to FREE TRADE, they create unnecessary bureaucracy and impede trade while selling out America and reducing our sovereignty in the eyes of those who truly understand where our power lies. If you have not learned by now that President bush does not have the best interest of the American people in his mind then nothing will remove the blinders that have been place upon you. I only pray that the people realize the chance that has been presented to them, Ron Paul is a once in a lifetime opportunity to secure prosperity for generations to come.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
With a $800 Billion+ trade deficiet, how can one say Fair Trade (NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA) is good for the American people. All of our High paying jobs are gone. All we see is cheap China, Mexico, etc. made products. It may be good business for big Co’s, but for the ave. working stiff it’s the pitts. This needs to stop. As soon as Bush’s war stops, things could possibly get back to normal. May Election time come quick.
January 13th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Scott, you answered your own question. While we do not quite have “free” trade yet (it’s managed trade), it still gives us cheap products. If we had a free monetary system (i.e. competing currencies w/o taxing exchange gains and without taxing gold gains) any imbalance would be self correcting in the marketplace.
No one complained when RE was going up, but the free marketplace is correcting the imbalance, if the US govt would just step aside.