In our previous Updates we published ’s views on various topics from Crime, Drugs, ,  Education,  the Economy, Energy and the Environment. In this update we will continue with Paul’s views on Foreign Policy.

Stop interfering with Latin America; talk & trade instead

Q: Venezuela rejected changes to the constitution, but President Hugo Chavez has insisted that he's going to propose them again. Many consider him a threat to democracy in the region. How would you deal with Chavez?

A: Well, he's not the easiest person to deal with, but we should deal with everybody around the world the same way: with friendship and opportunity to talk and try to trade with people. We talked to Stalin, we talked to Khrushchev, we've talked to Mao, and we've talked to the world, & we get along with people. Actually, I believe we're at a time where we even ought to talk to Cuba and trade and travel to Cuba. We have a problem in South America and Central America: because we've been involved in their internal affairs for so long. We have been meddling in their business. We create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world by interfering and creating chaos in their countries, and they respond by throwing out their leader.

Empires usually end by spending too much to maintain empire

I would say that since 70% of the American people want out of the Iraq war, and they are tired of it, the Republicans better pick somebody who is opposed to the war or have a new foreign policy, or they can't win.

I think the whole sentiment [toward the Iraq war] is shifting. The people are sick and tired of the war. We can't even afford it. We can't even fight the war without borrowing the money from the Chinese. So it doesn't add up. It really doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong. The war is going to end because we are going to have such a political and financial havoc here with the devaluation of our dollar because we just can't keep affording.

This is usually how empires end, by spending too much money maintaining their empires. We are in 130 countries. We have 700 bases around the world. And it's going to come to an end. I want it to come to an end more gracefully and peacefully, follow the Constitution and follow more sensible foreign policy.

Stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy

Q: What are the top three federal programs you would reduce in size in order to decrease spending?

A: I would like to change Washington, and we could by cutting three programs, such as the Department of Education-- Ronald Reagan used to talk about that--Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security is the biggest bureaucracy we ever had. And besides, what we can do is we can have a stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy.

 READ ON FOR MORE ON PAUL FOREIGN POLICY PLATFORM

No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur

Q: Does the US have a role to play in ending the genocide in Darfur?

PAUL: The US government has no authority. There's no constitutional authority. There's no moral authority. There's plenty of moral authority and responsibility for individuals to participate. But every time we get involved, no matter where, for good intentions, believe me, we're getting involved in a civil war. Even when you send food, it ends up in the hands of the military and they use it as weapons. So it's not well-intended. We should direct our attention only to national security and not get involved for these feel-good reasons. And this is the main reason why I think we ought to just come home from every place in the world and bring our troops home from Iraq.

Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace

Q: Past presidents have expected Israel to give up land, not for peace but for the promise of peace. With this mindset, Pres. Bush introduced the "roadmap" in 2003, yet 60 terrorist acts are attempted & 300 rockets fall every month in Israel. Will you stand behind Israel to not give up land for unfulfilled promises of peace, even in the face of opposition of European & Arab countries?

A: YES

Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan

Q: I was made a slave during the government of Sudan's war against black Christians of southern Sudan. I am a slave no longer, but today want to free tens of thousands of my brothers and sisters who remain in chattel slavery in Sudan. Would you today endorse the creation of a commission to monitor the eradication of slavery in Sudan, where the slavery of a man is legal?

A: NO

Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty

Q: Pres. Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty, because it gives International Seabed Authority dictatorial power to regulate all oceans and the riches at the bottom of the oceans, plus the power the levy international taxes, and it would make the US subject to the decisions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Would you urge the Senate not to ratify this treaty?

A: YES

Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force

Q: Pres. Bush said in his second inaugural address, "It is the policy of the US to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." Has Pres. Bush's policy been a success?

A: Our responsibility is to spread democracy here, make sure that we have it. This is a philosophic and foreign policy problem, because what the president was saying was just a continuation of Woodrow Wilson's "making the world safe for democracy." There's nothing wrong with spreading our values around the world, but it is wrong to spread it by force. We should spread it by setting an example and going and doing a good job here. Threatening Pakistan and threatening Iran makes no sense whatsoever. I supported going after Al Qaida into Afghanistan--but, lo & behold, the neocons took over. They forgot about Bin Laden. And what they did, they went into nation-building, not only in Afghanistan, they went unjustifiably over into Iraq. And that's why we're in this mess today.

Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests

You can't discuss energy without discussing our foreign policy. Why do we go to the Middle East? You know that oil is very important about the Middle East and why we're there. Why did our government help overthrow Mossadeq in 1953? It had to do with oil. So our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. The profits--that's not the problem. It's the problem that we succumb to the temptation to protect oil interests by literally going out and fighting wars over oil.

Bush mistake: ran on humble foreign policy; now runs empire

Q: What has been President Bush's biggest mistake since taking office?

A: The president ran on a program of a humble foreign policy, no nation-building, and no policing of the world. And he changed his tune, and now we are fighting a war, and our foreign operations around the world to maintain our empire is now approaching $1 trillion a year. That's where the money's going, and that's where it has to be cut so we can take care of education and medical cares that are needed here in this country.

Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy

We should have a foreign policy of non-intervention, the traditional American foreign policy and the Republican foreign policy. Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. 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.

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China.

To authorize measures to deter arms transfers by foreign countries to the People's Republic of China, A YES vote would grant the President the ability to place sanctions on any individual or country that violates the arms embargo, including:

• Denial of participation in cooperative research and development
• Prohibition of ownership and control of any business registered as a manufacturer or exporter of defense articles or services
• Removal of all licenses relative to dual-use goods or technology
• Prohibition of participation of any foreign military sales

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding.

To reform the United Nations, by limiting the US contribution to the UN by up to one-half by the year 2007, if the following reforms are not made:

• Requires the creation of an Independent Oversight Board with the authority to evaluate all operations of the UN
• Instructs the UN to implement procedures to protect whistle-blowers, individuals who reveal wrongdoings within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority
• Obliges the creation of a uniform code of conduct for all UN officials
• Requires the shifting of the funding mechanisms of certain organizational programs from the regular assessed UN budget to voluntarily funded programs
• Compels the US President to influence the Secretary General of the UN to waive diplomatic immunity for UN officials under investigation or charged with serious criminal offences
• Creates a certification of UN cooperation to provide documentary evidence to member states investigating the Oil-for-Food program

Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released.

Stop enforcing travel restrictions on US citizens to Cuba, only after the president has certified that Cuba has released all political prisoners, and extradited all individuals sought by the US on charges of air piracy, drug trafficking and murder.

Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored.

Vote to adopt an amendment that would require that the United States be restored to its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission before the payment of $244 million in funds already designated to pay UN back dues.

Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction.

Vote on an amendment that would transfer $156 million from foreign military financing to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries [HIPC] Trust Fund. The HIPC Trust fund is designed to help debtor countries pay off the money they owe to multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  

Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.

Vote to give permanent Normal Trade Relations [NTR] status to China. Currently, NTR status for China is debated and voted on annually. The measure contains provisions designed to protect the United States from Chinese import surges and the administration would have to report annually on China's compliance with the trade agreement. The bill establishes a commission to monitor human rights, labor standards and religious freedom in China.

Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations.

Vote on a bill to provide $15.2 billion for foreign operations in FY 2000. Among other provisions, the bill would provide $1.82 billion over three years for implementation of the Wye River peace accord in the Middle East. In addition, the measure would provide $123 million in multilateral debt relief and would contribute $25 million to the United National Population Fund.

Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful .

Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.

• WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
• WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
• WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
• WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:

1. The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.
2. Foreign aid is often more harmful than helpful and should be curtailed.
3. US military personnel should always be under US command.

Ban foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production.

Paul sponsored an amendment to the International Financial Institutions Act:

Title: To direct the International Monetary Fund to oppose any new loan to any country that is acting to restrict oil production to the detriment of the United States economy, except in emergency circumstances.

Summary: Amends the International Financial Institutions Act to direct the U.S. Executive Director at the (IMF) to use the U.S. voice, vote, and influence to oppose any new IMF loan to any country which the Secretary of Energy determines is a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and is acting to restrict oil production to the detriment of the U.S. economy, or is acting in concert with OPEC to do so, unless the provision of the loan is necessary to address a systemic risk to the international financial system.