Acknowledgments
Herein is presented a summary of A Foreign Policy of Freedom 'Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship' authored by Dr. Ronald Earnest Paul, published in 2007.
The purpose behind the dissemination of Dr. Paul's message to humanity, in a quick and simple presentation, is accessibility to a profound message. While Dr. Paul provides an unrelenting inspiration against the temptations of wealth and power, it is often difficult to make sense of his seemingly outrageous philosophies of nonintervention, sound currency and individuality. Thus, I present his message condensed so at to make it accessible to a mass audience -especially to anyone interested in Liberty.
While every attempt has been made to retain the original intent of the author, discrepancies may arise; these I hope will be discussed and debated, slander is undesired. Students and supporters of the good doctor, as well as every member of humanity, are invited to share and comment upon these efforts. Only through discussion and analysis can we extract the substance behind these philippics against inconsistency and immorality.
Regardless of how the current 2008 Presidential Campaign results, the vibrant message of Dr. Paul cannot pass into the shadows, least we hope to proceed further into tyranny and manipulation -today or in the future. For this reason, it is important we all familiarize ourselves with our heroes message, for only truth can set up free.
V. Perez
Dr. Paul.Feb13,2K8
Showing posts with label A Foreign Policy of Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A Foreign Policy of Freedom. Show all posts
February 13, 2008
Chapter 3
"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." -Dwight D. Eisenhower
June 17, 1981
Lebanon: Another Commitment?
House Resolution 159 passed unanimously yesterday, rightfully so.
Parts urge peace in Middle East, praise character of Philip Habib. No problem with these.
Towards end of resolution some words require debate, not quick senses-of-Congress under unanimous consent, as previous resolutions have meant trouble.
H.R. 159 states:
Resolved, H.R. strongly supports diplomatic efforts to resolve crisis in Lebanon, encourages president to pursue comprehensive coordinated policy, including development of effective cease-fire, resolution of Syrian missiles issue, promotion of independence, sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity of Lebanon.
Since when is U.S. guarantor of Lebanon? Promises require troops & billions of tax dollars.
Solve Syrian missile issue by force? Use our troops to patrol cease-fire?
Overboard resolution, sponsored by Foreign Affairs Committee, seeds within possible trouble for U.S. Congress should not have considered it, Members hardly had time to read it.
Less meddling in internal affairs of other nations needed, not more. Resolution could be used to justify unknown dollars & lives in future conflict or peacekeeping operations.
H.R. 159 bad resolution, brought up without sufficient time to study implications. Not in country’s interests, should not have passed.
Untitled
Oppose sale of AWACS airplanes to Saudi Arabia. This sale of the least objectionable, so often we give weapons away, very expensive; in comparison, this sale less objectionable.
Complain and object to, think Americans agree, being supplier of weapons for everybody. AWACS for Saudi today, also providing 1,177 Sidewinder missiles for planes already purchased from us. Very possible missiles will be used against American-built airplanes in another country, just as AWACS will be shot down this decade by American-built planes. For this object, policy should be consistent to provide security for this country & not police the world, providing weapons for everyone.
For instance, last several decades U.S. helped build trucks Russians used to invade Afghanistan; Corps of Engineers built the highway in Afghanistan they marched upon. We give weapons to Greece & Turkey, together they fight. We propose weapons to Pakistan, yet aid India. They’re likely to end in battle, as sworn enemies.
Look at policy; decide whether or not to be supplier of weapons, protector, policemen of world. Some suggest reason is protection of oil supplies. Yet statistics find 5% total energy needs come through Strait of Hormuz. Japan depends 100% on imports, Europe nearly as much, yet their responsibility in Mid-East negligible. Why must American soldier/taxpayer assume this great risk/burden? Continual policy of intervention will again drag America into unnecessary war.
First, sale more agreeable than outright gift, but important to point, not clean sale. Example, administration reports AWACS will be manned & operated by American servicemen, which means further & permanent involvement in Mid-East. Some sought to reassure Congress saying, AWACS remain under American control –far from reassuring. Rather, likely lead to escalation of American involvement in any altercation within Mid-East. Permanent military makes commitment, explicit or not, we may soon regret.
Second, danger of sophisticated technology falling into enemy hands; Mid-East volatile region, especially following assassination of President Sadat of Egypt. Shah of Iran supplied with our latest weaponry, to shore up government, but fell away. Those sophisticated weapons & radar installations possessed by Khomeini, if reports true, shared with Socialist & Communist Govs. Dare we risk same with AWACS? Soviets have nothing comparable. Fundamental mistake thinking weapons will shore up government. Iran exemplifies, it is not weapons but ideas.
Believe Americans sick & tired of supplying, deliberate or accidental, both conflict sides since WW II. This happened in Vietnam, U.S. shipped wheat and weapons to Soviet Union, who in turn shipped to North Vietnam, while we shipped wheat & weapons to South Vietnam. Seen between India v. Pakistan boarder wars; between Israel v. neighbors; now again in the Mid-East?
Reason for policy, must maintain balance of power. Cannot this happen by not supplying either side with sinews of war, rather than both? Cannot power be balanced–without U.S. involvement–by staying from the situation?
How much commitment in this sale? Building airbases for AWACS? We will maintain & furnish replacement parts, how far does commitment stretch, 90-day or 90-year warranty?
For this, believe best interest to disapprove sale of advanced technology & weapons to Saudi Gov, urge colleagues do same.
*****
Stage often set for intervention in "non-binding" resolutions. U.S. making dangerous commitment to Lebanon.
Lebanon: Another Commitment?
House Resolution 159 passed unanimously yesterday, rightfully so.
Parts urge peace in Middle East, praise character of Philip Habib. No problem with these.
Towards end of resolution some words require debate, not quick senses-of-Congress under unanimous consent, as previous resolutions have meant trouble.
H.R. 159 states:
Resolved, H.R. strongly supports diplomatic efforts to resolve crisis in Lebanon, encourages president to pursue comprehensive coordinated policy, including development of effective cease-fire, resolution of Syrian missiles issue, promotion of independence, sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity of Lebanon.
Since when is U.S. guarantor of Lebanon? Promises require troops & billions of tax dollars.
Solve Syrian missile issue by force? Use our troops to patrol cease-fire?
Overboard resolution, sponsored by Foreign Affairs Committee, seeds within possible trouble for U.S. Congress should not have considered it, Members hardly had time to read it.
Less meddling in internal affairs of other nations needed, not more. Resolution could be used to justify unknown dollars & lives in future conflict or peacekeeping operations.
H.R. 159 bad resolution, brought up without sufficient time to study implications. Not in country’s interests, should not have passed.
*****
Oct 14, 1981Untitled
Oppose sale of AWACS airplanes to Saudi Arabia. This sale of the least objectionable, so often we give weapons away, very expensive; in comparison, this sale less objectionable.
Complain and object to, think Americans agree, being supplier of weapons for everybody. AWACS for Saudi today, also providing 1,177 Sidewinder missiles for planes already purchased from us. Very possible missiles will be used against American-built airplanes in another country, just as AWACS will be shot down this decade by American-built planes. For this object, policy should be consistent to provide security for this country & not police the world, providing weapons for everyone.
For instance, last several decades U.S. helped build trucks Russians used to invade Afghanistan; Corps of Engineers built the highway in Afghanistan they marched upon. We give weapons to Greece & Turkey, together they fight. We propose weapons to Pakistan, yet aid India. They’re likely to end in battle, as sworn enemies.
Look at policy; decide whether or not to be supplier of weapons, protector, policemen of world. Some suggest reason is protection of oil supplies. Yet statistics find 5% total energy needs come through Strait of Hormuz. Japan depends 100% on imports, Europe nearly as much, yet their responsibility in Mid-East negligible. Why must American soldier/taxpayer assume this great risk/burden? Continual policy of intervention will again drag America into unnecessary war.
First, sale more agreeable than outright gift, but important to point, not clean sale. Example, administration reports AWACS will be manned & operated by American servicemen, which means further & permanent involvement in Mid-East. Some sought to reassure Congress saying, AWACS remain under American control –far from reassuring. Rather, likely lead to escalation of American involvement in any altercation within Mid-East. Permanent military makes commitment, explicit or not, we may soon regret.
Second, danger of sophisticated technology falling into enemy hands; Mid-East volatile region, especially following assassination of President Sadat of Egypt. Shah of Iran supplied with our latest weaponry, to shore up government, but fell away. Those sophisticated weapons & radar installations possessed by Khomeini, if reports true, shared with Socialist & Communist Govs. Dare we risk same with AWACS? Soviets have nothing comparable. Fundamental mistake thinking weapons will shore up government. Iran exemplifies, it is not weapons but ideas.
Believe Americans sick & tired of supplying, deliberate or accidental, both conflict sides since WW II. This happened in Vietnam, U.S. shipped wheat and weapons to Soviet Union, who in turn shipped to North Vietnam, while we shipped wheat & weapons to South Vietnam. Seen between India v. Pakistan boarder wars; between Israel v. neighbors; now again in the Mid-East?
Reason for policy, must maintain balance of power. Cannot this happen by not supplying either side with sinews of war, rather than both? Cannot power be balanced–without U.S. involvement–by staying from the situation?
How much commitment in this sale? Building airbases for AWACS? We will maintain & furnish replacement parts, how far does commitment stretch, 90-day or 90-year warranty?
For this, believe best interest to disapprove sale of advanced technology & weapons to Saudi Gov, urge colleagues do same.
Chapter 2
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be." -Thomas Jefferson
Aug 22, 1980
Workers of the World, Unite
Striking Factory & dock workers -whose leaders were arrested by Communist regime in Poland- admired for courageously defying dictators controlling country. Certainly American sympathy is with workers protesting injustice & lack of freedom in "workers' paradise" for 35 years.
What of the Federal Gov? While Americans sympathize with Polish people, American government supports Polish government.
Example, from end of WW II until 1978, Federal Government loaned & gave Communist Poland $677 million. 1979, Fed Gov granted Polish regime additional $500 million in loans & loan guarantees. Journal of Social & Political Studies published: “The availability of these Western credits is probably relieving the Soviet Union from the expensive task of propping up the Polish economy.”
Poland is deeply in debt to Western countries, including U.S, for propping the Polish economy. Current debt estimated at $20 billion. Has not yet repaid WW I debts, present Communist Gov has no intention either. Why subsidize Communist Poland? Whose side is U.S. Gov on, Communist or workers?
Believe in consistent foreign policy of nonintervention in others’ affairs. Certainly not subsidizing dictatorial regime not support by own people. Outrageous that American taxes pay to prop up Communist Gov. Legislation, H.R. 3408 would end such foreign subsidies. Irrational policy of subsidizing those who hate freedom must stop.
Polish turmoil dramatizes wasted, worn out slogans of Communism, paradise promised never materialized. Source of discontent expressed by workers, yet neither our Gov nor businessmen have expressed sympathy for protests and support coming from our workers in U.S. Contrasting what predicted–revolt of workers against brutal capitalism–we see opposite; Poles demand liberty and supported by workers throughout the world. “Workers of the world, unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”
*****
Ongoing crackdown in Poland, funding oppressors, yet again our focus.
Workers of the World, Unite
Striking Factory & dock workers -whose leaders were arrested by Communist regime in Poland- admired for courageously defying dictators controlling country. Certainly American sympathy is with workers protesting injustice & lack of freedom in "workers' paradise" for 35 years.
What of the Federal Gov? While Americans sympathize with Polish people, American government supports Polish government.
Example, from end of WW II until 1978, Federal Government loaned & gave Communist Poland $677 million. 1979, Fed Gov granted Polish regime additional $500 million in loans & loan guarantees. Journal of Social & Political Studies published: “The availability of these Western credits is probably relieving the Soviet Union from the expensive task of propping up the Polish economy.”
Poland is deeply in debt to Western countries, including U.S, for propping the Polish economy. Current debt estimated at $20 billion. Has not yet repaid WW I debts, present Communist Gov has no intention either. Why subsidize Communist Poland? Whose side is U.S. Gov on, Communist or workers?
Believe in consistent foreign policy of nonintervention in others’ affairs. Certainly not subsidizing dictatorial regime not support by own people. Outrageous that American taxes pay to prop up Communist Gov. Legislation, H.R. 3408 would end such foreign subsidies. Irrational policy of subsidizing those who hate freedom must stop.
Polish turmoil dramatizes wasted, worn out slogans of Communism, paradise promised never materialized. Source of discontent expressed by workers, yet neither our Gov nor businessmen have expressed sympathy for protests and support coming from our workers in U.S. Contrasting what predicted–revolt of workers against brutal capitalism–we see opposite; Poles demand liberty and supported by workers throughout the world. “Workers of the world, unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”
Chapter 1
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." -James Madison
Sept 15, 1976
The Death of Mao Tse-Tung
Virtual censorship in American press coverage regarding oppression Communist China under Mao; portrays great leader & shrewd politician [he was] yet overlooks monstrous tyranny exercised over Chinese people.
China different today than 1949, but change does not equal progress, Mao must be judged within moral context. Mao cannot be praised for industrial development while ignoring millions executed for opposing communism & millions more living in abject slavery.
True, Chinese values differently from America & West; but foolish to think Chinese don’t yearn for freedom. Fact confirmed, untold thousands risk lives escaping Communist totalitarianism for Hong Kong liberty.
"Realists" asked to overlook unpleasantry, support Communist China to balance military power of Soviet Union. Shortsighted policy repeats error; treat all enemies' enemies as friends. Policy destroys credibility.
American pride comes from breaking Europe’s balance of power-politics, thus establishing a moral foreign policy upholding American interests. Tradition as old as country, survives today, in spite of Henry Kissinger's destructive efforts.
Mismanaged foreign policy has Americans equating moral policy with interventionist policy, not synonymous. Condemnation of Communist tyranny ought not imply threat of U.S. intervention; nor imply support for petty dictatorship paying anticommunism lip service.
America remain forthright, oppose tyranny universally. Recognize Mao as oppressive dictator. Fear not saying so, make it clear; so long as Chinese people remain slaves expect no support from the United States.
*****
Upon death of Chinese dictator, statement made, more hawkish that would be today, but moral authority to state position without violating other independence certain.
The Death of Mao Tse-Tung
Virtual censorship in American press coverage regarding oppression Communist China under Mao; portrays great leader & shrewd politician [he was] yet overlooks monstrous tyranny exercised over Chinese people.
China different today than 1949, but change does not equal progress, Mao must be judged within moral context. Mao cannot be praised for industrial development while ignoring millions executed for opposing communism & millions more living in abject slavery.
True, Chinese values differently from America & West; but foolish to think Chinese don’t yearn for freedom. Fact confirmed, untold thousands risk lives escaping Communist totalitarianism for Hong Kong liberty.
"Realists" asked to overlook unpleasantry, support Communist China to balance military power of Soviet Union. Shortsighted policy repeats error; treat all enemies' enemies as friends. Policy destroys credibility.
American pride comes from breaking Europe’s balance of power-politics, thus establishing a moral foreign policy upholding American interests. Tradition as old as country, survives today, in spite of Henry Kissinger's destructive efforts.
Mismanaged foreign policy has Americans equating moral policy with interventionist policy, not synonymous. Condemnation of Communist tyranny ought not imply threat of U.S. intervention; nor imply support for petty dictatorship paying anticommunism lip service.
America remain forthright, oppose tyranny universally. Recognize Mao as oppressive dictator. Fear not saying so, make it clear; so long as Chinese people remain slaves expect no support from the United States.
Introduction
Personal Note
Dr. Paul's involvement in politics began in 1960s after reading Friedrich Hayek's, The Road to Serfdom. Studied Austrian economics, especially Ludwig von Mises; explains how central banking & government intervention undermine middleclass & injure poor through inflation & business cycle in market economy. Breakdown of Bretton Woods pseudo-gold in 1974 confirmed Austrian predictions. Ran for Congress in 1974, entertaining little hope of victory, yet felt important to express himself.
Lost race but positioned to win election one year later. 1976-1984, served four years; serving on Banking Committee dealing with monetary issues. Early 1980s, served on Gold Commission -era of stagflation.
Concerned with protection of individual liberty, private property, free markets. Primary focus on economic policy during first Congressional tour, with time learned economic policy [especially deficit financing] & monetary policy interrelated with foreign policy & bad economic policies.
During Reagan years, realized how special interests with bipartisan support drive policy of foreign intervention. Troops in Lebanon & Granada; financial aid to Nicaragua; weapons to Iran & Iraq; military assistance to Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein; bomb Libya -for reasons other than national security. Events motivated Dr. Paul to speak out more frequently on foreign affairs and vote [often alone] to make point: follow constitution & advice of founding fathers, stay out of affairs of foreign nations.
Foreign intervention cannot be separated from economic concerns; deficits, inflation, taxes. Current trend towards world government, globalism, managed trade, institutionalized world financial system [fiat based] controlled by industrial-banking-political elite.
Move towards political globalization contrasts free markets, free trade, commodity money; ushered in era challenging national sovereignty & traditional borders.
New World Order permits sanctions, tariffs, privileges for politically connected interests. Trend endangers liberty, sovereignty, prosperity, peace.
Book collection of statements made over 30 years starting in 1976. Wrote & spoke less during 12 year hiatus [1985-1997], still interested in studying case for noninterventionism. Publicly opposed Persian Gulf War, 1991; consider Iraq war continuation of conflict.
Lost race but positioned to win election one year later. 1976-1984, served four years; serving on Banking Committee dealing with monetary issues. Early 1980s, served on Gold Commission -era of stagflation.
Concerned with protection of individual liberty, private property, free markets. Primary focus on economic policy during first Congressional tour, with time learned economic policy [especially deficit financing] & monetary policy interrelated with foreign policy & bad economic policies.
During Reagan years, realized how special interests with bipartisan support drive policy of foreign intervention. Troops in Lebanon & Granada; financial aid to Nicaragua; weapons to Iran & Iraq; military assistance to Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein; bomb Libya -for reasons other than national security. Events motivated Dr. Paul to speak out more frequently on foreign affairs and vote [often alone] to make point: follow constitution & advice of founding fathers, stay out of affairs of foreign nations.
Foreign intervention cannot be separated from economic concerns; deficits, inflation, taxes. Current trend towards world government, globalism, managed trade, institutionalized world financial system [fiat based] controlled by industrial-banking-political elite.
Move towards political globalization contrasts free markets, free trade, commodity money; ushered in era challenging national sovereignty & traditional borders.
New World Order permits sanctions, tariffs, privileges for politically connected interests. Trend endangers liberty, sovereignty, prosperity, peace.
Book collection of statements made over 30 years starting in 1976. Wrote & spoke less during 12 year hiatus [1985-1997], still interested in studying case for noninterventionism. Publicly opposed Persian Gulf War, 1991; consider Iraq war continuation of conflict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)