America's Entangling Alliances - What G. Washington told us in 1796!!
The first quote is by a Congressmen Ron Paul (R), MD, in which he addresses our current entanglement in the Middle East. If George Washington were alive today, he was be saying, "I told you so". The second quote discusses what exactly George Washington said should be our foreign policy. "What relationship should free men have with the rest of the world?"
-----------------------
Source
| quote: | America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East
by Congressman Ron Paul, MD
We were warned, and in the early years of our Republic, we heeded that warning. Today, though, we are entangled in everyone’s affairs throughout the world, and we are less safe as a result. The current Middle-East crisis is one that we helped create, and it is typical of how foreign intervention fails to serve our interests. Now we find ourselves smack-dab in the middle of a fight that will not soon end. No matter what the outcome, we lose.
By trying to support both sides we, in the end, will alienate both sides. We are forced, by domestic politics here at home, to support Israel at all costs, with billions of dollars of aid, sophisticated weapons, and a guarantee that America will do whatever is necessary for Israel’s security.
Political pressure compels us to support Israel, but it is oil that prompts us to guarantee security for the western puppet governments of the oil-rich Arab nations.
Since the Israeli-Arab fight will not soon be resolved, our policy of involving ourselves in a conflict unrelated to our security guarantees that we will suffer the consequences.
What a choice! We must choose between the character of Arafat versus that of Sharon.
The information the average American gets from the major media outlets, with their obvious bias, only makes the problem worse. Who would ever guess that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorists? We should remember that Palestinian deaths are seen by most Arabs as being American-inspired, since our weapons are being used against them, and they’re the ones whose land has been continuously taken from them.
Yet there are still some in this country who can’t understand why many in the Arab/Muslim world hate America.
Is it any wonder that the grassroots people in Arab nations, even in Kuwait, threaten their own governments that are totally dominated by American power and money?
The arguments against foreign intervention are many. The chaos in the current Middle-East crisis should be evidence enough for all Americans to reconsider our extensive role overseas and reaffirm the foreign policy of our early leaders – a policy that kept us out of the affairs of others.
But here we are in the middle of a war that has no end and serves only to divide us here at home, while the unbalanced slaughter continues with tanks and aircraft tearing up a country that does not even have an army.
It is amazing that the clamor of support for Israel here at home comes from men of deep religious conviction in the Christian faith, who are convinced they are doing the Lord’s work. That, quite frankly, is difficult for me as a Christian to comprehend. We need to remember the young people who will be on the front lines when the big war starts – which is something so many in this body seem intent on provoking.
Ironically, the biggest frustration in Washington, for those who eagerly resort to war to resolve differences, is that the violence in the Middle East has delayed plans for starting another war against Iraq.
Current policy prompts our government on one day to give the go-ahead to Sharon to do what he needs to do to combat terrorism (a term that now has little or no meaning); on the next day, however, our government tells him to quit, for fear that we may overly aggravate our oil pals in the Arab nations and jeopardize our oil supplies. This is an impossible policy that will inevitably lead to chaos.
Foreign interventionism is bad for America. Special interests control our policies, while true national security is ignored. Real defense needs, the defense of our borders, are ignored, and the financial interests of corporations, bankers, and the military-industrial complex gain control – and the American people lose.
It’s costly, to say the least. Already our military budget has sapped domestic spending and caused the deficit to explode. But the greatest danger is that one day these contained conflicts will get out of control. Certainly the stage is set for that to happen in the Middle East and south central Asia. A world war is a possibility that should not be ignored. Our policy of subsidizing both sides is ludicrous. We support Arabs and Jews, Pakistanis and Indians, Chinese and Russians. We have troops in 140 countries around the world just looking for trouble. Our policies have led us to support Al Qaeda in Kosovo and bomb their Serb adversaries. We have, in the past, allied ourselves with bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein, only to find out later the seriousness of our mistake. Will this foolishness ever end?
A non-interventionist foreign policy has a lot to say for itself, especially when one looks at the danger and inconsistency of our current policy in the Middle East.
April 12, 2002
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Ron Paul Archives
|
Source
| quote: | No entangling alliances & the primacy of trade
The Americans’ rebellion had been successful, a new nation had constituted itself.
But it seemed a strange phenomenon, this new nation compared to the world around it and all of its political decisions would have to respect this situation.
The founding fathers faced „the knotty problem of defining the relationship that a
nation of free men should establish with the wider world, which was still domina- ted by monarchies and despotism. What kind of foreign policy was appropriate for men of such quality ?“[20]
Fearing a division of the nation into citizens who favored the French and their Revolution and those who supported Britain, George Washington took the oppor- tunity of his Farewell Address in 1796 after having served two terms as president, to determine the course of U.S. foreign policy:[21]
"[The spirit of party] opens the door to foreign influence and corruption. (...)
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending
our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as
possible. (...) Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of
Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition,
rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of
permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.“[22]
Washington had described the outside world as a hostile place where the U.S. had
(politically) nothing to gain, but its own peace to lose. He had given expression to the disgust of Americans over the ‘uncivilized’ continuous wars of European powers. The president had turned the U.S.’ attention inward where there was a continent to settle, a wilderness to open up. As long as there were enough prospects for everyone within the national boundaries, there was no need to seek involvement in foreign affairs.[23] Since the USA could be considered a country and a nation in the making up to the 40’s, this principle was long regarded as the ‘law of U.S. foreign policy’.
What is striking is that Washington considers only political connections as entang- ling and even emphasizes the need to extend the commercial relations along with reducing political ones.
Commerce seemed a effective means to spread democracy and maintain peace to early U.S. politicians.
"Commerce, it was contended, enlarges the mind, softens manners, confers
reciprocal benefits, reduces prejudice and diffuses enlightenment. If world
trade were relived of its shackles, Jefferson said as Secretary of State, ‘the greatest mass possible would then be produced of those things which contribute to human life and human happiness.’ Trade was the carrier of civilization.“[24]
To attain this objective, the U.S. would have to promote unrestricted trade and align its foreign policy to this end. The earlier mentioned treaty with France was a first step to pave the way for American merchants to foreign markets. It was soon followed by similar treaties with Holland, Sweden and Prussia.[25] Although the U.S. home market expanded steadily with the flow of the new-arrivals from Europe and the settlement of the Continent and the percentage of exports of the gross nati-onal product dropped to 10% in 1850 and to a mere 6% in 1860, the extension of U.S. trade relations seemed to be the sole purpose of the State Department. All of America’s diplomacy bore a purely commercial character, consuls represented the nation abroad rather than ministers or ambassadors, and the navy consisted to a
large proportion of merchantmen.[26]
U.S. Foreign Policy in The American Century would stick to the primacy of trade, but it would not always respect Washington’s warning as well. |
___________________
Last edited by Krypton on Feb-10-2007 at 22:22
|
