Ron Paul Talks abt Foreign Affairs (103 QUOTES)

* Why is foreign aid so bad? Isn’t it our obligation to help those less fortunate? What is not mentioned by proponents of foreign aid is that it very seldom gets to those who need it most. ...Foreign aid distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. It breeds resentment among citizens of foreign countries, who see the United States as keeping oppressive governments in power.
* The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it's false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan.
* We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries- as the world's largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn't work.
* All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.
* We have embarked on the most expensive nation-building experiment in history. We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq's judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down-- all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars.
* Practically speaking, our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region.
* The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.
* We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq.
* 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 mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
* 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.
* The greatest foreign assistance we can give to other countries is to demonstrate to the rest of the world that limited government and the rule of law ensure freedom and prosperity.
* There are good reasons why the US Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced charity is not charity at all, but rather it is theft. If someone picks your pocket and donates the money to a good cause it does not negate the original act of theft.
* We should be happy to hear that Americans are willing to give so much to help those less fortunate in foreign lands. And we should think hard about all the good we could do both at home and abroad if our government did not take so much from us for its ineffective and wasteful foreign aid priorities. True charity is never coerced.
* Make no mistake about it: Economic sanctions are acts of aggression. Sanctions increase poverty and misery among the very poorest inhabitants of targeted nations, and they breed tremendous resentment against those imposing them. But they rarely hurt the political and economic elites responsible for angering American leaders in the first place.
* Arrogant is the only word to describe a Congress that cares so little about its own taxpaying citizens while pretending to know what is best for the world.
* Constitutionally, of course, none of this spending is authorized. But there also is a strong moral case to be made against taking money from Americans and giving it to foreign governments. Foreign aid doesn't help poor people; it helps foreign elites and US corporations who obtain the contracts doled out by those foreign elites.
* Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding Fathers, an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today. Those who support political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere should have the integrity to admit that their views conflict with the principles of our nation's founding.
* The principle of limited government enshrined in the Constitution- limited government in both domestic and foreign affairs- has not changed over time. What has changed is our willingness to ignore that principle.
* The popular press and political world both accept without question the notion that the United States is somehow responsible for resolving any and all conflicts around the globe
* Respect for self-determination really is the cornerstone of a sensible foreign policy, yet many Americans who strongly support U.S. sovereignty advocate interventionist policies that deny other nations that same right.
* The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.
* The real purpose of the IMF is to channel tax dollars to politically-connected companies. The huge multinational banks and corporations in particular love the IMF, as both used IMF funds-- taxpayer funds-- to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It's a familiar game in Washington, where corporate welfare is disguised as compassion for the poor.
* Only free markets, property rights, and the rule of law can create the conditions necessary to lift poor nations out of poverty.
* Rather than asking ourselves what Congress or the president should be doing about terrorism, we ought to ask what government should stop doing.
* We want it both ways -- to meddle in the affairs of other countries but to be immune from their meddling in ours. But it doesn't work that way. Having created this monster, it is now coming back to haunt us.
* When we undermine the sovereignty of other nations we undermine our own sovereignty as well.
* Since American foreign aid programs began in earnest decades ago, tens of billions of US tax dollars have been given to nations around the globe. The utter failure of this money to change things for the better in those nations is no longer in question; even the most earnest liberals are beginning to admit the obvious. Most of the recipient nations remain endlessly mired in poverty, political and legal corruption, and cultural malaise.
* It is clear that interventionism leads to the perceived need for more interventionism, which leads to more conflict and to increased resentment and anti-Americanism. It is an endless cycle and the American taxpayer is always left holding the bill.
* It is not too late to change course. The United States can again be viewed as the shining city on the hill and an example to other nations by re-embracing the kind of foreign and economic policies that made us wealthy and admired across the globe in the first place. This means less government, less taxation, and no foreign meddling. Regaining our economic security will go much further toward guaranteeing our national security in the future.
* Arrogant is the only word to describe a Congress that cares so little about its own taxpaying citizens while pretending to know what is best for the world.
* Foreign aid welfare is still foreign aid welfare, no matter what jingoistic name is applied. There is nothing new or noble about it.
* Foreign aid doesn't help poor people; it helps foreign elites and US corporations who obtain the contracts doled out by those foreign elites.
* The wisest approach to international economic development is for the United States to lead by example, by revitalizing the economic policies that led us to become wealthy in the first place. This means less government, less taxation, and no foreign meddling.
* The greatest gift we can send overseas is a demonstration of the freedom and prosperity possible only with limited government and the rule of law.
* Are nation-building and empire part of our national credo? Those who answer yes to these questions should have the integrity to admit that our founders urged the opposite approach, namely a foreign policy rooted in staying out of the affairs of other nations.
* Ultimately, our money, weapons, and interventionist policies never buy us friends for long, and more often we simply arm our future enemies. The politicians responsible for the mess are usually long gone when the trouble starts, and voters with a short attention span don't connect the foreign policy blunders of twenty years ago with today's problems. But wouldn't our long-term interests be better served by not creating the problems in the first place?
* A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East.
* We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn't work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves.
* All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.
* Today, our phony allies are bought and paid for with billions of your tax dollars, but prove less than trustworthy when trouble arises.
* Foreign aid is not only unConstitutional, but also exceedingly unwise. It creates the worst kind of entangling alliances that President Washington warned about. It doesn't buy us any real allies, but instead encourages false friendships, dependency, and a sense of entitlement among the recipients. It also causes resentment among nations that receive none, or less than they feel they deserve.
* It is simply unconscionable to tax American citizens and send their money overseas. We have enough problems of our own here at home, and those dollars should be returned to taxpayers or spent on legitimate Constitutional activities.
* Today we find ourselves once again becoming further entangled with the UN- all because we lack the courage to assert our sovereignty and tell the world that our Constitution, not the UN, governs our nation.
* What is badly needed today is a coherent foreign policy based on American national security and self-defense, free trade, a rejection of entangling political and military alliances, and a wholesale removal of the U.S. from the clutches of global government.
* Whenever I discuss the issue of foreign aid with my colleagues, I always remind them that in all my years serving in Congress, I've never once had a constituent ask me to send more money overseas.
* Most Americans instinctively understand what the Constitution makes clear: Congress has no business sending tax dollars outside the country.
* 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." How many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many champion Jefferson and the Constitution, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy?
* It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify foolish 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.
* Once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other.
* Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. "Solutions" imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.
* Respect for self-determination really is the cornerstone of a sensible foreign policy, yet many Americans who strongly support U.S. sovereignty advocate interventionist policies that deny other nations that same right.
* The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth.
* If we care about the self-determination of the Israeli and Palestinian people, and if we care about the Constitution, we must adopt a neutral, diplomatic role in the conflict and stop funding both sides.
* Whenever I discuss the issue of foreign aid with my colleagues, I always remind them that in all my years serving in Congress, I’ve never once had a constituent ask me to send more money overseas.
* U.S. taxpayers have a right to know exactly what we're getting for our foreign aid dollars. Have we helped bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan? Have we eased suffering there? Have we added to stability in the region? Have we earned the love or respect of the Afghan people? Have we made an ally of the Taliban government? The answer to all of these entirely reasonable questions is a resounding NO.
* Peaceful relations and trade with every nation should be our goals, and the first step in accomplishing both should be to stop sending taxpayer dollars overseas.
* Our government hardly can expect other nations to respect our right to manage our domestic affairs when we meddle so aggressively in theirs.
* The moral of the story is this: if you don't have a nuke, we'll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we'll leave you alone. In fact, we'll probably subsidize you.
* Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy.
* If we hope to restore any measure of Constitutional government, we must abandon the policy of policing the world and keeping troops in every corner of the earth. Our liberties and our prosperity depend on it.
* We must move quickly toward a more traditional American foreign policy of peace, friendship, and trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none. We must reject the notion that we can or should make the world safe for democracy.
* We must forget about being the world's policeman. We should disengage from the unworkable and unforgiving task of nation building.
* We must reject the notion that our military should be used to protect natural resources, private investments, or serve the interest of any foreign government or the United Nations.
* While going around the world criticizing admittedly abhorrent governmental actions abroad we are ignoring the very dangerous erosions of our own civil liberties and way of life at home.
* All empires end, end badly, for economic reasons, because you can't afford them. If you look out through all of history, eventually they collapse. And you may be militarily powerful, but eventually you undermine the finances.
* Don't accept this notion that it's our responsibility to police the world. It backfires on us. There's too many blowback consequences. There's unintended consequences, and the financial is the big one.
* We need to look at the inconsistent and counterproductive way we currently treat other nations. We reward and respect nations with nuclear weapons. Look at how we treat Russia, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea. Our policies serve as an incentive for rogue nations to achieve a nuclear capability.
* Do the American people really believe it's the government's responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.
* America is now held in low esteem in many nations, not because we follow our own interests, but because the elites make claims that are not reflected in reality. They have, for example, undertaken economic sanctions in an entirely new way in recent years. When they wanted to take aim at Iraq and Iran, they imposed sanctions against those countries, but also against countries doing business with those countries. This meant we were in no position to negotiate with our adversaries, and we also could not rely on support from our allies.
* No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.
* Globalists often label those of us who resist their schemes as “isolationist.” Yet it is, somewhat remarkably, the globalists themselves who promote policies that isolate our nation from the rest of the world.
* In one of his most lucid moments President Bush spoke of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Unfortunately, that bigotry is one of the core tenets at the heart of the globalist ideology.
* All along globalists claim a moral high ground, as if our government is responsible for ensuring the general welfare of all people. Yet the consequences are devastating to our own taxpayers, as well as many of those we claim to be helping.
* The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us, and it may also require “welcoming with open arms” people who come here illegally.
* The American concept of independent nationhood inscribed in our Declaration cannot be maintained if we are going to pursue a policy that undermines the independence of other nations. National independence is an idea, and the erosion of the independence of other nations only serves to erode that idea.
* Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States.
* The root of the problem is our insistence on accepting the concept of one-world globalist government while pursuing unilateralist goals. We participate in globalist institutions like the UN, sign globalist treaties, and send our sons and daughters to fight in globalist wars that have nothing to do with our national interest. Yet we also demand the right to act unilaterally when it suits us, to set all policy in the global arena, and to exclude ourselves from many of the international rules. This schizophrenic approach inevitably gives us the worst of both worlds.
* What is badly needed today is a coherent foreign policy based on American national security and self-defense, free trade, a rejection of entangling political and military alliances, and a wholesale removal of the U.S. from the clutches of global government.
* I believe there is no way to square our nation's traditions and reverence for independence with the globalist policies these elites are currently pursuing.
* America cannot impose its will upon every conflict around the globe. Lasting, effective peace agreements can be crafted only by those who will live under them.
* Today's American soldiers are the veterans of the future, and they should never be sent to war without clear objectives that serve definite American national security interests. They should never fight at the behest of the United Nations or any other international agency. They should never serve under a UN flag, nor answer to a UN commander. They deserve to know that they fight for the American people and the Constitution, and that the decision to send them into battle was made by their own congress rather than by UN bureaucrats who don't care about them.
* Remember that American tax dollars have been instrumental in the incredible militarization of the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in Palestinian hands. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unConstitutional foreign aid, though debatably well-intentioned, only intensifies the conflict.
* Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us.
* We must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
* We have a lot of goodness in this country. And we should promote it, but never through the barrel of a gun. We should do it by setting good standards, motivating people and have them want to emulate us.
* If the goal of government is to be the policeman of the world, you lose liberty.
* I follow the founders’ admonition-- peace and commerce and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
* We need more rather than less interaction with our world neighbors. We should encourage travel, foreign commerce, friendship, and exchange of ideas – this would far surpass our misplaced effort to make the world like us through armed force.
* Governments should just get out of the way and let individuals make their own decisions about how they want to relate to the world.
* We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.
* We need to be worried about our boarders here at home, and not be worried about the boarders around the world.
* I think our founders were right. Peace, and commerce and friendship are much better than going to war.
* How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.
* Americans have the freedom to do everything in their power to alleviate African suffering, whether by donating money or working directly in impoverished nations. But government-to-government foreign aid doesn't work, and it never has.
* The federal government has spent tens of billions of U.S. tax dollars in the region, and a succession of presidents have held peace summits with Middle Eastern leaders, all to no avail. The endless supply of American money, however well-intentioned, gives the leaders of both sides a perverse incentive to remain engaged in the process indefinitely.
* Power without accountability naturally leads to corruption, and the UN is nothing if not unaccountable.
* The real problem, however, is not that the UN is corrupt, or ineffective, or run by scoundrels. The real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept.
* The average American has no say whatsoever over what happens at the UN, even though he's forced to pay taxes to support it.
* It is ludicrous to suggest that billions of people across the globe have in any way consented to UN governance, or have even the slightest influence over their own governments.
* We cannot reconcile American sovereignty with our membership in the UN. Neither the UN nor any other international body has authority to make laws that bind the American people. Americans have not consented to laws passed by foreign individuals or bodies.
* Not even the wildest interpretation of the Constitution would allow Congress simply to abandon its lawmaking power to another body. Yet this is what UN advocates would have us believe when the UN attempts to dictate or influence our domestic labor, environmental, trade, tax, and gun laws-- as it already has.
* America would be far better off simply rejecting global government as a concept, and openly embracing true sovereignty for every nation.