Ron Paul's Foreign Policy: Fantasyland or Reality

2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul's foreign policy positions have been called crazy and dangerous. He has been accused of living in fantasyland when it comes to the real-life circumstances of the modern world's nations. His insistence on diplomacy as the primary tool for interaction with Iran has been categorized as incredulous. And his extension of our American belief in national sovereignty to that of other nations have been snickered at as ridiculous. But is he really that wrong, or is he just honestly standing for principles that most Americans believe in - until they are perceived to be not in our best interest?

Most people would probably agree that to say one thing and then do another is hypocritical. They would probably also agree that to proclaim a belief, and then subvert that belief is not only hypocritical, but also shows a lack of moral character. Ron Paul is neither a hypocrite, nor lacks integrity, so are his foreign policy positions really based on a fantasyland view of the world, or are they based on the authorities of the U.S. Constitution, and the foundational beliefs of core American values?

On the surface, a look at Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Positions do seem extreme and unrealistic in today's world, but a deeper look may reveal that perhaps that is because he is standing by convictions that many Americans espouse as the building blocks of the foundation of a great nation, but seem to be willing to set aside for the cause of self-interest.

National Sovereignty:

Who would deny that Americans, (mostly), view the United States as a sovereign nation? That no other nation has a right to meddle in its affairs? Self-determination is an American touchstone. But apparently, based on the criticism of Ron Paul's foreign policy positions, national sovereignty is only for us, it's okay for other nations only as long as it suits our interests.

Imagine the American reaction if it were to be discovered that an Islamic nation was financing and supporting American groups whose goal was to subvert our secular justice system and replace it with Sharia law, and theocratic justice. The outrage would be thunderous, and cries for punishing retaliation strident, but yet, just such proposals are supported as major planks of almost all the 2012 presidential candidate's platforms, and not just against Iran.

Except for Ron Paul.

Is he dangerously naive for standing by a core value in the face of potential national jeopardy, a value that many seem willing to sacrifice in the name of self-interest, or is he demonstrating the strength of his convictions by insisting that America find solutions that don't require the subversion of its integrity?

Foreign Aid:

Bluntly stated - U.S. foreign aid policy currently amounts to nothing more than buying either allegiance or compliance. Too many times U.S. foreign aid is nothing more than a form of "protection money," or bribery. Is that the proper use of taxpayer money? Wasn't "entanglement" with other nations one of the admonishments of the nation's founding fathers?

Justified by the premise that - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend...," how many times has our foreign aid policy backfired and turned to bite the hand that fed it? Bin laden? The Contras? The Palestinian Authority? etc. etc.

How rational is it that the U.S. gives more foreign aid to the Arab nations surrounding Israel, than it does to Israel? Or that it gives billions of dollars of foreign aid to countries that actively act against America's best interests? Pakistan? the Palestinians? Egypt? etc. etc.

Or more billions to countries that don't need it. Saudi Arabia? China? Japan? etc. etc.

There has been very little said about the obvious problems and idiocy of much of our foreign aid policy from the 2012 presidential candidates that are considered real contenders for the nomination.

Except for Ron Paul.

Is his position to cut all foreign aid just completely nuts, or perhaps a good start to restoring some sanity to the nation's foreign relations policies?

Non-intervention:

Many of Ron Paul's non-interventionist views were illustrated in the National Sovereignty discussion, but one that he takes a lot of heat for is his proclamation that the U.S. should close all foreign military bases. Extreme "all or nothing" positions are too frequently too rigid to deal with the many "gray" areas of today's world, and that may be the case with this Paul foreign policy, but... could it be a starting point for honest discussion?

Depending on the source, the U.S. is cited as having 700 - 1000 foreign military bases abroad. Even using the low number of 700, can there really be honest justification that 700 overseas military bases are needed? it is very probable that there are valid and important reasons for some bases, for instance; the bases in Japan and Germany are major military installations that serve many realistically justified global functions that serve U.S. interests. And it could even be argued that our military base(s) in South Korea serve an important geo-political role.

But... can we really justify, or do we need, a military base on the Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, with approximately 431 personnel? Or a base with 113 people in Thailand? Or one with 100 military personnel in the Philippine? Or closer to home - a military base in Canada?

Maybe the U.S. does need most of these bases, or maybe it doesn't. Maybe most serve vital national security interest functions, or maybe they don't. How can you tell? What are the criteria used to determine a base's justification for existence? Wouldn't it be interesting to hear the justification for a U.S. military base in Canada?

Maybe Mr. Paul's "close all bases" stance is too draconian to be feasible - but couldn't it serve as a good starting point for a validation process that would look at the nation's actual needs, versus the blind acceptance of Pentagon assurance?

There are many more positions in presidential candidate Ron Paul's Foreign policy plans. Many that seem perfectly logical, and more than a few that perhaps need a little moderation. But regardless of which group they fall in, they are positions that Mr. Paul has held for a long time, he has not changed his positions to meet the prevailing winds of public sentiment - as too many other political candidates do, too often, and too obviously. Just as obviously, it seems that it can be safely said that whether you agree with his foreign policy positions, or not, they all seem to be grounded in constitutional authority or intention, and formulated with the best interest of the nation at heart.

Can the same be said for the other presidential candidates?

When considering the planks of Ron Paul's foreign policy beliefs that seem "way out there," or "not grounded in reality," remember that the office of the President is not a dictatorship. It does not rule the nation by carte blanc fiat, it works in congress with the legislative branch which serves as both a "brake" and an "initiator," so that even his "crazy" ideas might be just what the nation needs as motivational starting points to get rid of some of the current "craziness" that isn't Ron Paul's.

Heaven forbid rational thought and integrity of purpose should be proposed as solutions for what is too frequently described as the political sewer of Capitol Hill.

ps. Ron Paul did not say the U.S. "invited" the 9/11 attacks - he said the U.S. foreign policy actions contributed to their motivation - can that really be denied?

• GA Anderson - on Politics

I may not always be right, but I always have an opinion. See more of my writings at:

• GA Anderson's Library

"Seeing it does not make it real, and reading it does not make it true. Use a little common-sense and trust your instincts." - GAA