|
Last
week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, and I had the opportunity to raise some of my concerns
regarding US foreign policy and the costs of our interventionism around the
world.
Many
observers claim that the recent overthrow of governments in northern Africa
and the Middle East will result in more liberty for individuals across those
regions. I sincerely hope this proves to be true, but history is replete with
revolutions that began as a cry for freedom against oppressive governments
but ended badly. There are no guarantees that Egyptians, Tunisians, or others
will be better off after these heralded regime changes.
We do
know, however, that these conflicts in Africa and the Middle East can be made
worse if the U.S. government attempts to intervene and support certain candidates
or factions. Such intervention would not further US interests or win us new
friends, but in fact would undermine the legitimacy of any government that
may emerge after the end of old regimes. Just as we would resent and reject
any political force that came to power here with the sponsorship of a foreign
government, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, and others are not likely to take
kindly to what they view as one US puppet being replaced by another US
puppet. It is ironic, but the US government's endless promotion of
"democracy" overseas actually distorts and undermines democracy in
targeted nations. The involvement of a foreign power often undermines true
self-determination.
Radicals
who understand this may use rising resentment and anti-Americanism as
leverage to gain power, thus defeating the stated purpose of US involvement
in the first place. I have never understood how the US government justifies
subsidizing a newspaper or political party abroad in the name of promoting
independence and pluralism. It makes no sense.
Unfortunately
it seems to me that the administration has learned nothing from recent events
in the Mediterranean region. Secretary Clinton emphasized several times at
the committee hearing that "nothing is off the table" with regard
to a US response to internal civil unrest in Libya. Since when is it our
obligation to use political pressure or even military force to solve every
problem overseas? Washington is currently buzzing with talk of "no-fly
zones" and even a land invasion of Libya to aid rebel groups seeking to
overthrow the Gadaffi regime. Some military leaders, including Defense
Secretary Robert Gates, have rightly warned the more enthusiastic
interventionists that such military operations can be enormously costly both
financially and in lives.
The
costs of trying to run the world are unsustainable, and we simply don't have
the money. Morally, it is inexcusable for the US to pick sides in such
conflicts overseas, no matter how odious either side may be. Financially, it
is no longer possible. The 2012 budget request from the administration for
"international affairs," which is code for "foreign aid",
is two and a half times larger than it was just nine years ago! As our
economy shrinks at home, our obligations increase abroad. As our
infrastructure crumbles at home, we continue to spend billions expanding
infrastructure in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. If the interventionists
have their way, no doubt we will be soon pay to reconstruct the
infrastructure we destroy in a Libyan military operation. It does not take a
genius to see that we are going broke, but Washington remains in denial and
intent on business as usual. I fear that if we continue this way we may soon
be out of business altogether.
Ron Paul
www.house.gov/paul
Copyright Dr. Ron
Paul
|
