Chapter 5. 1983

These next two speeches focus upon our current Middle East morass, which has been in the making for decades. Our policy has harmed our interests without adding stability to the region. In an attempt to “balance interests” we anger all sides, and that anger has consequences for our service members, as well as American civilians in the region.

February 24, 1983
U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN MIDDLE EAST
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, this week President Reagan pledged U.S. border protection for Israel if Israel removes its troops from Lebanon. As Commander in Chief, the president certainly can respond militarily in an emergency, if our nation is attacked or our security threatened. But by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that such an elaborate arrangement in the Middle East is required for America’s security. Moreover, the president has no authorization to make any such agreement.

This assumption of power, nevertheless, is the logical outgrowth of a decades-old foreign policy based on our extended commitments overseas. An interventionist foreign policy creates problems, the so-called solutions to which can only be found in further commitments and intervention. I do not believe the American people are happy with the ever-growing number of obligations we have assumed over the last several decades, but they feel helpless to change this policy.

Israel has not and will not benefit from our persistent involvement in the Mideast. Since our dollars flow to both Arabs and Israelis, we will not be inclined to allow either side to decide for itself what is in its own best interest.

Israel, under today’s circumstances, cannot retain its sovereignty, for we will always feel compelled to criticize their actions if, in our opinion, these actions destabilize the area. This is true whether it involves their borders with Gaza in the south or the settlement on the West Bank. I think what they do in these areas is their business, not ours. How would we feel if a country halfway around the world told us how we should act in the face of what we believed to be a threat to our borders?

Committing unlimited troops and American dollars to secure a border between two warring factions who have fought for thousands of years does not make much sense. Our presence in the Middle East helps neither the Arabs nor the Israelis, and it does little to increase the probability of peace in the long run. Although the proponents of these policies are sincere in their intent to bring peace, their actions in fact jeopardize America’s interests. They increase the likelihood of our being engulfed in a regional conflict in which we need not, and should not become entangled. In our attempt to befriend both Arab and Israel, we inevitably will alienate both. Giving military support to two sides of a conflict and then proclaiming neutrality is not a tenable policy.

It is like buying two tomcats, putting them in a cage and then insisting they should not fight since they belong to the same owner. Obviously, putting your hand between the two to stop the fighting while pleading for reason will not work either.

But even if it did work, which it will not, where is the moral and constitutional authority for such a grandiose assumption of responsibility? Quite frankly, there is none. The responsibility of the administration and the Congress is to promote security for our nation and to seek peace and harmony with all nations. Pursuing a policy of free trade with all and not giving aid to allies or potential adversaries would do more to enhance peace and prosperity than any attempt to guarantee borders in the Middle East or anywhere else. Such a policy cannot achieve peace between enemies halfway around the world. There is neither authority nor popular mandate for it. There is no money for this kind of intervention either. We are broke, with $ 1 trillion debt staring us in the face. Expenditures of this sort will only hasten the day of our collapse.

We have already pumped a billion dollars into the Mideast in the name of peace, yet the powder keg is as hot and dangerous as ever. This policy has been costly beyond words. There are many more dollars hidden in our Pentagon budget over and above the direct foreign aid expenditures we all know about. But the real threat lies ahead.

Continued intervention in the Middle East will only guarantee greater problems for us in the future. It cannot enhance our security. It can only jeopardize peace and weaken our own defenses.

April 19, 1983
THE BOMBING OF THE
AMERICAN EMBASSY IN LEBANON
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, yesterday’s abhorrent attack on the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon was a well-planned and willful attack on the U.S. government. The bomb was expertly planted to inflict maximum property damage and high loss of human life. The death toll currently stands at 39, but is expected to rise as high as 80.

We must not minimize the seriousness of this bombing. Under international law, an embassy and its grounds are considered to be the territory, not of the host country, but of the embassy’s country. Therefore, this bombing must be viewed as an attack on U.S. territory. I am appalled that there are some who are attempting to minimize the impact that this attack will have on the U.S. presence in Lebanon.

We in this body have essentially endorsed our entire policy in the Mideast on two occasions. On June 16,1981, the House approved House Resolution 159, a resolution commending Philip Habib for his efforts to negotiate a Mideast peace settlement. The resolution went further than simply patting Habib on the back. It encouraged the president to pursue a comprehensive and coordinated policy in Lebanon. Then on September 28,1983, the House passed House Concurrent Resolution 409, a resolution regarding the massacre of Palestinians in Lebanon. I voted against this resolution for very specific reasons. While I abhorred the massacre of Palestinian refugees, I felt compelled to vote against the resolution because it granted carte blanche to President Reagan in the Mideast, stating that he should “pursue every possible effort to bring peace to the Middle East.” This is a dangerous policy to pursue.

The murderous blast that ripped through the Embassy was not an act of random violence. It was a carefully planned response to the U.S. foreign policy of interventionism—a policy supported and encouraged by this body in resolutions such as the two I have just cited.

Since World War II, the United States has pursued an interventionist foreign policy. This policy has led to our involvement in distant regional conflicts that have no bearing on the genuine security interests of the United States. Often we have found ourselves in the awkward position of being allied to both sides of a conflict, as in the Falkland Islands crisis, and the Israeli-Lebanese conflict last summer. This policy has cost the United States $2 trillion since the end of World War II, and we have nothing to show for these huge expenditures.

In the Middle East, for example, we first gave economic and military aid to Israel; then we gave aid to Lebanon to help them rebuild from the Israeli attack on the PLO in Lebanon.

But the terrorist attack on our Embassy, while horrible and tragic, should come as no great surprise to anyone. There have been several attacks on U.S. Marines stationed in Lebanon that should have forewarned us that such an event was imminent.

I agree with the gentleman from Arizona in the other body who is calling for the withdrawal of U.S. Marines from Lebanon. As this gentleman wisely points out, the day that one U.S. Marine is killed, we will have to answer the question. What do we do? I believe that with this attack on U.S. territory, and the death of American citizens, the time to answer that question has arrived. In order to avoid U.S. involvement in a Mideast war, we must remove our troops from the region immediately, and return to the historical and traditional American policy of nonintervention in the affairs of other nation.

Trying to influence events in Central America with giveaway programs and trade barriers has repeatedly failed; a more positive approach would develop with more freedom and peaceful commerce.

June 6, 1983
CERTIFICATION OF CONDITIONS IN EL SALVADOR
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to explain my opposition to H.R. 1271. I do so not only to explain my own vote but to shed further light on this enormously complicated issue.

Let me make it clear that I, in no way, condone the violence in El Salvador. I think that those of my colleagues who support H.R. 1271 because they believe it would make it more difficult for El Salvador to receive further U.S. dollars are perfectly justified in doing so. But the bill does not challenge the notion of foreign aid itself.

My concern is that this bill would legitimize something my colleagues have denied for years. It legitimizes the concept of American foreign aid as a tool of American foreign policy. Of course, our foreign aid dollar is now and has always been a weapon. H.R. 1271 should lead my colleagues to admit this and to dispense with the humanitarian rhetoric in which we have indulged in this body. It should lead us to end this hypocrisy by ending our foreign aid program altogether.

As our imposition of conditions on El Salvador suggests, our foreign aid is a bribe by which we seek to impose our own will on other supposedly sovereign governments. Worse yet, successive administrations and successive Congresses have used this foreign aid bribe in a most hypocritical manner. In the case of El Salvador, we are not demanding that its government meet stringent conditions in exchange for relatively small amounts of foreign aid. Yet in the case of other less developed countries—that is, those ruled by Communists—the utter suppressing of the most basic human rights seems to matter not at all. We give them the money without a thought to internal conditions, in the vain hope of buying their friendship.

I oppose H.R. 1271 for another reason: H.R. 1271 and the section of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1981 that it amend demand that the president certify certain conditions within El Salvador. How do we in Congress honestly expect the president of the United States to know exactly what is going on within the government of another sovereign nation? We cannot. Since we cannot, this entire certification nonsense comes to little more than political grandstanding.

If the flow of U.S. foreign aid dollars is intended to boost the economies of our Latin American neighbors, and thus arrest the spread of communism, as some of our colleagues insist, then I would submit that there are more effective ways to accomplish both of these objectives.

After all, four decades of massive foreign aid giveaways have done nothing whatsoever to stop the growth of communism. Similarly, the flow of dollars from the taxpayers of this country to the dictators of the Third World have done nothing to stimulate economic growth in those backward economies, but a good deal to prevent it in our own.

Meanwhile, of course, my colleagues have introduced a barrage of protectionist legislation, imposing artificial barriers to trade that block any possibility of sustained economic growth in those countries. The economic stagnation that results increases the likelihood that these victimized countries will be economically and militarily vulnerable to communism. Our response, of course, will be to send them more dollars.

In closing, I would repeat that I deplore the killings in El Salvador. Unfortunately, the solution cannot be found in this hypocritical use of U.S. dollars.

Ludwig von Mises wrote that interventionism simply breeds more interventionism. This was certainly true with regard to our policy toward the Communists. U.S. taxpayers were made to prop up red regimes and then financially support the people fighting against these very same governments.

July 28, 1983
AMENDMENT TO THE INTELLIGENCE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2760 presents Members with only two options: covert aid or overt assistance to Central America. The bill fails to address the fundamental question of whether or not we should be sending any assistance to Central America. Throwing U.S. tax dollars at Central America is a shortsighted, regional response to the global problem of Soviet aggression.

I believe that aid to the region, which is supposedly designed to stop the spread of communism, would be unnecessary if the United States would quit subsidizing communism at its source—the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc. At the present time, the Soviets and other Communist nations owe almost $ 100 billion to Western nations, particularly the United States; $100 billion buys a lot of arms for insurgents.

Many proponents of aid to Communist nations claim that the funds we give them are used only for peaceful purposes. However, funds are fungible. The grants, credits, and below-market loans the United States gives Communist nations for so-called peaceful reasons free up their own limited capital for fomenting revolution abroad.

All of us are concerned about the flow of arms from Cuba to Marxist rebels in Central America. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to examine the extent to which the Soviet Union is subsidizing Cuba. The amounts are staggering. In recent years, the Soviet Union has been spending over $ 10 million a day on Cuba. Soviet economic assistance to Cuba in 1982 amounted to $4.7 billion, accounting for almost 25 percent of Cuba’s GNP. Further, Soviet military assistance to Cuba since 1961 is estimated at $10 billion. This massive flow of rubles into the Caribbean is being supported by the U.S. government’s credit policies.

The Soviets are not foolhardy. They are actually cautious and quite calculating in their foreign policy. They have, however, reached the stage in their empire building where they are having trouble controlling their subjugated nations.

The point I am making is this: the Central American region is peripheral to Soviet interests. If the United States would cut off aid to the Eastern bloc, the resultant belt tightening would probably force the Soviets to end their military adventurism in the Caribbean and Central America in order to maintain control over the Warsaw Pact nations and Afghanistan.

While I would prefer an entirely different course of action to the one proposed in H.R. 2760, let me state that in the context of the bill I am opposed to any covert military actions by the U.S. government. Such actions have no place in a free society. Any action the government takes must be open to examination by all.

Beyond the ethical questions involved, there are practical considerations. Covert actions in the past have usually failed. And when these failures have been uncovered, they have been used against us by our enemies. In the struggle between freedom and tyranny in the Third World, the United States, as the freest nation in the world, is losing the battle of ideas. This loss of stature is not for objective reasons. Our capitalist economy still provides the best model for development. Our largess has resulted in $2 trillion worth of foreign aid programs since the end of World War II. Yet we are viewed as an imperialist power by many wary, if not hostile, Third World nations. This is largely the result of effective Communist propaganda, and our own clumsy attempts at covert actions designed to bring about U.S. objectives.

While overt aid is always preferable to covert aid, the so-called interdiction assistance proposed in H.R. 2760 has many drawbacks. Many foreign policy experts believe that the $80 million called for in the bill is far too low to end the flow of arms to El Salvador. Further, the program’s success rests completely on the cooperation of our Central American neighbors. I am also concerned because the bill would actually deepen U.S. involvement in the region. Covert assistance is currently going only to the rebels in Nicaragua. The interdiction assistance would be spread among friendly nations in the region.

The time has come to end the vicious cycle of funding communism and then funding those fighting communism. Instead of paying other nations to cut off the flow of arms into El Salvador, as H.R. 2760 proposes, let us simply stop paying for the arms.

The next several statements focus on the tragedy that fell upon our troops in Lebanon. I had stood against sending them and questioned their being maintained there. Unfortunately, it took severe loss of life for us to follow a more rational policy.

September 15, 1983
TROOPS IN LEBANON
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported there is no sentiment in the Congress for the removal of the troops from Lebanon. If this is true, it is unfortunate because there certainly is a strong sentiment among the American people for their removal.

The motivation for sending in the Marines, that is to keep the peace, certainly cannot be questioned. However, good intentions in no way guarantee wisdom. The fact that we have assisted both factions in the war in the Mideast raises questions as to just why we have positioned ourselves between the two warring factions. Already several Marines have been killed and many others wounded.

Since victory is not our goal but merely stability in an area that has been unstable for centuries, it makes the task of maintaining peace impossible. Our military presence and activity is escalating rapidly. At first it was a few Marines. Now we have sent in more Marines to stand by offshore. Naval and air power is now being used to intimidate certain factions of this civil war. Soon we will not be able to extricate ourselves from a deepening involvement that we may well be sorry for.

We should not have gone into Lebanon in the first place. We should not be escalating the military activity there, and we should leave Lebanon immediately. All we need now is for one Russian-built missile launched by the Syrians to sink one of our warships now shelling the Druzes’ position and the big war will be started.

Now is the time to prevent that from happening.

September 20, 1983
WHY, I ASK, ARE WE THERE?
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, the parents of Marines killed and wounded in Lebanon are asking: Why are we there? What is our goal? Where is the enthusiasm for the mission? What is our role?

Americans will support, and fight and rally together when the objectives are clear. They will grow discontented and divided if our goals are vague and untenable.

Now is the time to decide what the purpose for our Middle East involvement is. If we wait a day longer, we will become deeply mired in a conflict from which we cannot escape.

It has been said that we are a peace-keeping force, yet there is less peace now than when we went into Lebanon. We did not go in to fight, yet we fire our weapons daily to protect our Marines. But if our Marines were not there, there would be no reason to participate in the killing—nor have our own Marines killed and wounded.

Last year we rescued the PLO at great risk and expense. Today, those same PLO members are firing at our Marines.

Some have said that our Marines feel good about their mission in Lebanon. But Alexander Ortega, in his last letter home before being killed, said: “I never knew how much I love America. I want to come home.” Soon after he wrote that letter, he came home—in a box. And for what?

No—there is no peace, yet we are told there is no war. If there is no war, then victory can never be the goal.

It makes no sense. It is time we admit it and come home before a lot more Marines come home as Alexander Ortega did.

It would be a serious mistake for Congress to give approval for our troops to occupy Lebanon for an additional 18 months. Our involvement in Lebanon serves to escalate the war, jeopardizes our national security, and detracts from our ability to provide for a true defense of America. It is time to come home.

September 21, 1983
LEBANESE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, it has been heralded as a compromise on the war powers issue. In my estimation it is nothing of the kind. It is complete capitulation to a continued active presence in the Mideast with a great possibility that the fighting will be escalated and more men and weapons will be required—just to maintain a status quo—of a continued no-win purposeless fight.

It is said to be bipartisan, yet it is just a continuation of our monolithic policy of decades of continued foreign intervention. This intervention is not required for our security and therefore fraught with great danger—danger of never achieving victory and never being able to gracefully withdraw.

We as a Congress are reneging on our responsibility to be the sole decision-maker in committing our people to war as directed by the Constitution.

How can we fix for 18 months the number of troops in an area of active hostility? It is totally untenable. More troops must be used to protect our men. If they are not, it would be rather simple to pick off and demoralize a fixed contingency of 1200 Marines—limited in their role to fight.

Security in this area is vital to Israel. Israel had nearly achieved this and had the PLO on the ropes, yet our policy makers decided to rescue the PLO who are now back in Lebanon—shooting at our Marines. It is an unworkable policy, doomed to fail. It is with great risk that we remain in Lebanon with the chance that significant escalation of the conflict will come on the heels of some unforeseen incident—such as the sinking of a U.S. warship.

In the politics of war, compromise with precise goals ushers in tomorrow’s unsolvable dilemmas. Let us have no part of this compromise of our responsibilities.

September 28, 1983
MULTINATIONAL FORCE IN LEBANON RESOLUTION
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I think it is a serious mistake.

I would like to refer back to a little legislative history. In June of 1981, we were anxious to praise Ambassador Habib for the “peace” he brought about in the Mideast. In that resolution there was a statement that actually set the stage for what we are facing today. That resolution said:

The House of Representatives strongly encourages the president to pursue a comprehensive and coordinated policy in Lebanon including the development of an effective cease-fire, resolution of the issue of Syrian missiles, promotion of the independent sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon.

That resolution was passed 398 to 1 and literally set the stage for the involvement we have in Lebanon today.

This resolution, House Joint Resolution 364, I sincerely believe, is a capitulation. It is no compromise whatsoever on the war powers resolution. We are literally reneging on our responsibilities as Congressmen and Representatives of the people. We are reneging on our responsibility given only to Congress that only we can declare war. I do not see how we can prevent the escalation, if it is necessary in order to preserve the lives of the Marines in Lebanon. We, by passing this resolution, literally give license to the administration to pursue a more extended war.

The American people, I do not believe, endorse the involvement in Lebanon. If a referendum were taken, they would wholeheartedly endorse our getting out of Lebanon and not becoming increasingly involved, as we have been.

For the past couple of years, we have subsidized and helped both sides of the war over there. We have rescued the PLO when Israel was about to do the PLO in. And what do we find now? The PLO is back in Lebanon, shooting at our Marines. And we actually financed both sides. Israel, at that time, was able to take care of the PLO, yet we marched in, rescued the PLO; now we still have them to contend with.

During the bombing of Beirut, bombing with weapons that we paid for, we had a bill on this House floor with foreign aid to Lebanon to rebuild Beirut during the time the bombs were still falling. This is a foolhardy policy.

It is time the American people woke up and decided there is a more sensible policy that we could pursue.

We have less peace in Lebanon now than a year ago. There is no peace, yet they say there is no war. If there is no war, there can be no victory. All we need today is one Russian-built missile to hit one of our ships and it sink. I believe we would face catastrophe, an international and world catastrophe. I do not know how we could prevent it.

Our purpose there is not definable because we do not know what our purpose is.

The policy of foreign involvement and interference is a policy the American people are questioning. It has failed us for the past 70 years, and the sooner we admit it the better.

The numerous mutual defense pacts that we have committed our sons and tax dollars to are unwise investments. How many believe that there is anything mutual about our allies coming to our aid in a time of need? Yet our citizens are continually being drained of their resources and their lives in order to attempt the unachievable. How can we expect to buy peace in the Mideast when there has been war there for so many centuries?

But most importantly, our unwise commitments and overextensions throughout the world serve to distract resources and energies that should be directed toward our national defense. Interference in the affairs of other nations precipitates conflicts and invites hostility directed toward the United States. It does not serve the interest of peace; it instead jeopardizes our security. The policy of global interference threatens the peace of the world and prevents the establishment of a policy based on adequate defense and self-confidence in our role in world affairs. It’s time to bring the Marines home and reconsider our policy of foreign entanglements.

I thank the Chairman, and I rise to state my strong support for the Long-Obey amendment. It certainly does not do as much as I think we should do in restraining the activities we are performing over in the Middle East; but it does put on some of the needed controls that I think are necessary. It has been adequately explained here in the last several hours the great danger of having troops in the Middle East, but I think that there is another good reason why we should not be involved.

I think in many ways this justifies the use of Marines any place and every place. If we can put the Marines in the Middle East today and keep them on this so-called peace mission, we justify their use any place any time.

I think also that we must consider the fact that this represents a policy of interference. Interference in a place in the world where I do not think we should be interfering. It literally restrains Israel from doing the kind of thing that they need to do to secure their own country.

So, with the policy of interference, I think that we do great harm, not only to that area of the world by causing confusion and not allowing the balance of powers to develop adequately, but I think it literally harms and injures our own defense by taking resources and personnel that should be used for this purpose.

The idea of the President ignoring Congress regarding foreign policy is not new. Unfortunately, Congress often abrogates its duty, preferring to let the President take the political risks. When Congress does act, it is often based on partisan considerations rather than the national interest. As these two speeches suggest, contrasting the approach of some in Congress regarding Lebanon as compared with Grenada reveals this truth.

October 24, 1983
BLOWING HOT AND COLD ON
THE ISSUE OF COMMUNISM
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, on the news this morning, the American people were informed that U.S. Marines are participating in a multinational force invading the island Grenada in the Caribbean. The purpose of the force is to rescue the American citizens there who wish to be rescued, and to restore peace and freedom to the chaotic nation.

News reports also indicate that the recent coup in Grenada was backed by the governments of the Soviet Union and Cuba, and that there are, in fact, Cuban and Russian troops on the island. Our Marines, according to the president, are there to depose the brutal leftist thugs who have murdered the Prime Minister and several other officials of the government of Grenada.

If this were not troubling enough, the news this morning also reports that our president has written a letter of apology to some Members of Congress who voted against cutting off a small part of our subsidy of Communist countries. In his letter of apology, the president said: “Enactment of any amendment that limits the use of IMF funds—including the amendment regarding “Communist dictatorships”—would unnecessarily tie the hands of the IMF.”

Mr. Speaker, this administration blows hot and cold on the issue of communism. Why are we engaged in military action against the Communists in which American lives are being lost when we cannot take the simple action of cutting off the flow of money to the Communists? For decades we have pursued this immoral course of action, asking American men to die fighting an enemy the American government has financed. To have it announced on the same morning that American boys are dying and that this administration wants to continue financing communism is wrong.

Anti-Communist military action, such as an invasion to protect American citizens, may be legitimate, but it should be undertaken only after open consultation with the Congress and prior congressional approval as the Constitution prescribes. Certainly such action in the Caribbean, is much closer to our shores than Lebanon, and is strategically different. But to order men to die and then to continue sending our dollars to the Communists is immoral and an intolerable policy.

October 31, 1983
INVOKING SECTION 4(a)(1) OF WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO GRENADA
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, the situations in Lebanon and Grenada have demanded the attention of both the American people and this Congress in the last few weeks. Not too long ago, this House was considering a war powers bill on the subject of Lebanon; today we have one before us on Grenada.

I find it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the Congress wrote the president a blank check in the Lebanon matter, a check that is good for at least 18 months; but in the case of Grenada we are calling for, not an 18-month limitation, but a 2-month limitation. Nevertheless, I believe that the president has no authority under the Constitution to engage U.S. troops without the consent of the Congress unless it is to repel an invasion of American territory or to rescue American citizens when Congress is not in session.

I find this action ironic, because the situation in Lebanon is quite different from the one in Grenada. First, in Lebanon, our Marines have no clearly defined objective. In Grenada, the objective of the invasion, or at least one of its objectives, is the rescue of American citizens. By contrast, our Marines were first used in Lebanon to rescue the PLO. Yet Congress leaps to reprimand the president for his action in Grenada, not Lebanon.

Second, 15 times as many Marines have died in Beirut as in the Caribbean. About 240 of our Marines have been killed in Lebanon; about 16 in Grenada. Yet Congress wants to reprimand the president for what he has done in Grenada, not Beirut.

Third, the United States has no clear interest in the Lebanese conflict 6,000 miles away, but the Caribbean is right on our shores. It now appears that there were troops and advisers in Grenada from Libya, Cuba, Bulgaria, the Soviet Union, East Germany, and North Korea. If that is the case, I fail to see how anyone can believe that Grenada posed no threat to our well-being.

Apparently the six foreign governments represented on the island thought differently. But Congress hastens to rebuke the president for what he did in Grenada, not Lebanon.

Fourth, the administration has repeatedly said that the Marines will be out of Grenada in a matter of weeks, but it has refused to place any time limit on our involvement in Lebanon. Yet the Congress is eager to impose a limit on the Grenada operation, but no meaningful limit on the Lebanon occupation.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I will vote for this resolution, for I believe the president should have come to Congress before committing troops to either Lebanon or Grenada. But I believe that the Congress is showing poor judgment in our foreign affairs by becoming more exercised over Grenada, in which we have a legitimate national interest, than it did over Lebanon in September, in which we have no legitimate national interest.

Congress does control the military, according to the Constitution. The president is Commander in Chief when we are at war. He has the power to conduct war, but the Congress has the exclusive power to initiate war. It is the failure of Congress to exercise its constitutional prerogatives to declare war that led to both Korea and Vietnam. I would hate to see either Lebanon or Grenada become another no-win undeclared war.

The War Powers Resolution itself, Mr. Speaker, is an imperfect instrument. It enshrined in law for the first time the claim some recent presidents have made that the president has the unilateral power to commit U.S. Armed Forces to war in the absence of a congressional declaration of war. Under the Constitution, the Congress has the exclusive right of initiating war, except in the two cases already noted, to repel invasion and to defend American citizens when Congress is not sitting. Not until June of 1950 did any president claim the right to start a war on his own. President Truman must go down in history for that novel and dangerous theory of executive power. What followed was a war in which we suffered 53,000 dead, 103,000 wounded. But Congress acquiesced in this bold usurpation of power. A little over 10 years later, the same thing happened in Southeast Asia, and 58,000 Americans died; 157,000 were wounded.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we insist that the president abide by the explicit terms of the Constitution. Unfortunately, we ourselves have not done so, and we ought to put our own House in order first.

I am sorry that this resolution has come up under suspension of the rules. I think it would be highly appropriate to impose the same time limitation on the occupation of Lebanon that we are here imposing on the occupation of Grenada. But the procedure under which we are considering this resolution precludes the offering of an amendment to make a two-month limitation apply to our involvement in both Lebanon and Grenada. I pray that this action on our part does not usher in the same sort of conflict that we have forced on the American people twice in the past 30 years.

Congress seems at times to be incapable of letting any internal activity of foreign nations pass without some nanny-like comment from the body. Oddly, this often puts us at odds with one of America’s founding principles, the right to self-determination.

November 17, 1983
CONDEMNING ACTION OF SO-CALLED TURKISH
FEDERATED STATE OF CYPRUS IN DECLARING ITSELF
TO BEAN INDEPENDENT STATE ON CYPRUS
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.

This does not mean that I necessarily approve of the unilateral declaration of independence by the Turkish Cypriots. As a U.S. legislator, however, I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. My performance of this role does not include resolutions of condemnation such as the one before us today.

This resolution is a hastily conceived response to actions that took place in Cyprus on November 15. So hastily was it prepared that most Members did not even have access to the text until it was brought to the floor for debate. That is not responsible representation; that is a blind leap of faith.

Let us take a moment to examine House Concurrent Resolution 220 and its implications.

This resolution states that the U.S. government recognizes the government of the Republic of Cyprus as the sole legitimate government of Cyprus. I have no problems with this declaration. In international affairs, the recognition of a government carries with it profound implications, especially in this era of massive U.S. foreign aid giveaways. However, refusal to recognize a government is vastly different from the sort of condemnation contained in this resolution. It is, therefore, the stated reasons for this condemnation that I object to.

In one clause, the resolution states, “…this unjustified action clearly contradicts the stated U.S. objectives….” The U.S. government seems to have stated objectives and strategic security interests in every nation in the world. We send planes, armaments, food, money and men all over the world in the hope of having things our way, yet rarely do we achieve our elusive goals. Four decades of an interventionist foreign policy have not enhanced our security and/or our defensive capability. Instead, we have dissipated our energies and left ourselves militarily and economically weak by our indiscriminate actions.

The resolution is merely a reflection of our current bankrupt foreign policy—a policy we can no longer afford. We have spent over $2 trillion on foreign aid programs since the end of World War II, yet we have not bought peace, prosperity, or security.

The time has come to alter drastically our foreign policy. The sole legitimate function of our armed services and our foreign policy is to insure a strong and independent United States. By attempting to chaperone the entire world, we find U.S. forces committed indefinitely in areas from Western Europe to the Philippines, and everywhere in between.

We expect all these forces to be peacekeepers of sorts; their bodily presence is supposed to insure peace in our time. Yet our young men have died by the tens of thousands, and they are continuing to die in places where the United States has no genuine security interests.

Some Members of this body object strenuously to the foreign policy and military decisions made by the president. Yet we pass resolutions such as the one before us that gives him carte blanche and a green light.

Have my colleagues thought about the real message this resolution will send to the American people if approved? We are condemning the unilateral declaration of independence by the Turkish Cypriots. Is that as far as the resolution goes?

My colleagues, this resolution is dangerous. It leaves unanswered the question, “If we oppose this action, what do we plan to do about it?” That is a decision we will abdicate to the president if we approve this resolution.

If you think not, I would like to refresh your memories. In June 1981, we were anxious to praise Ambassador Habib for the “peace” he brought about in the Mideast. In that resolution—which the House overwhelmingly approved—there was a statement that actually set the stage for what we are facing in Lebanon today. That resolution said:

The House of Representatives strongly encourages the president to pursue a comprehensive and coordinated policy in Lebanon including the development of an effective cease-fire, resolution of the issue of Syrian missiles, promotion of the independent sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon.

That resolution passed 398 to 1. That seemingly innocuous resolution paved the way for U.S. Marine bunkers around Beirut Airport and the senseless deaths that followed.

We have no constitutional authority to impose our will on the people of Cyprus, nor do we have a moral authority for such action.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution—also seemingly harmless—because it could become the rationale for deeper U.S. involvement in Cyprus.