Chapter 8. 1997

During my second tenure in Congress I began to once again seriously question our foreign interventionism on the floor of the House, focusing attention on how our policies were combining with the breakdown of the constitutional separation of powers to bring about a very dangerous situation.

July 15, 1997
AMERICA’S FOREIGN POLICY
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, it is currently an accepted cliché to say foreign policy is a presidential matter and Congress should not meddle. Frequently we hear the plea to remain bipartisan with no dissent, especially when troops are placed in harm’s way. Yet no place in the Constitution do we find any such explicit instruction. Instead, we find no mention of foreign policy.

To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the president when it comes to dealing with foreign nations.

The Constitution is clear. No treaties can be entered into without the consent of the Senate. No war may be fought without the declaration of war by the Congress.

No money shall be spent overseas without Congress first raising the money and then authorizing it and appropriating these funds for specific purposes.

Since the Constitution does not even assume a standing army, let alone stationing troops in peacetime in over 100 countries, with CIA clandestine activities in even more, the current foreign policy that has evolved over the past 100 years would surely be unrecognizable by the authors of that document.

The Founders of this country were opposed to standing armies for fear they would be carelessly used. They were right.

The U.S. record of foreign intervention and its failures has not yet prompted a serious discussion of the need for an overall reassessment of this dangerous and out-of-control policy. Not only has Congress failed in its responsibilities to restrain our adventurous presidents in pursuing war, spying, and imposing America’s will on other nations by installing leaders, and at times eliminating others, throughout the world these past 50 years, we now, by default, have allowed our foreign policy to be commandeered by international bodies like NATO and the United Nations. This can only lead to trouble for the United States and further threaten our liberties, and we have already seen plenty of that in this century.

It looks like our current president, who was less than excited about serving in the military himself, was quite eager to promote U.S. complicity in the escalating dangerous activity in Bosnia. What has been done so frequently in the name of peace more often than not has led to war and suffering, considering Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and even the Persian Gulf War.

Clinton has not been willing to phase out the Selective Service Department and has actually asked for additional funding to include the Selective Service process in his domestic so-called voluntary AmeriCorps program.

But this failed policy of foreign intervention is being pursued once again in Bosnia, with full acknowledgment and funding by the Congress. Congress has failed to exert its veto over this dangerous game our president is determined to play in this region.

Sensing that maybe soon the Congress will finally cut the purse strings on this ill-advised military operation, pushed hard by Secretary of State Albright, policymakers are quietly and aggressively escalating the tension—placing our nearly 8,000 troops in even greater danger—while further destabilizing a region never prone to be stable over this century, with the certain outcome that Congress will further capitulate and provide funding for extension and escalation of the military operation.

In spite of some resistance in the Congress, the current escalation is likely to prevent any chance of withdrawal of our troops by next summer.

The recent $2 billion additional funds in the supplemental appropriation bill were the cue to the president that the Congress will not act to stop the operation when under pressure to support the troops. Of course, common sense will tell us that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home as quickly as possible. This idea, that support for the troops once they are engaged means we must continue the operation, no matter how ill-advised, and perpetuate a conflict that makes no sense is what President Clinton is depending on.

Last week the whole operation in Bosnia changed. The arrest and killing of war criminals by occupation forces coming from thousands of miles away is a most serious escalation of the Bosnia conflict. For outside forces to pronounce judgment on the guilt or innocence of warring factions in a small region of the world is a guarantee that the conflict will escalate. I think those pursuing this policy know this. Prosecuting war criminals is so fraught with danger it seems that the need to escalate surpassed all reason.

Yet immediately after the NATO operation—supported by the United States—that resulted in the death of a Serb leader, Clinton strongly suggested that the troops may well not be able to leave in June of 1998, as promised. They were first supposed to leave in December of 1996, and now 18 months after their arrival, the departure date is indefinite. We in the Congress tragically continue to fund the operation.

This illegal and dangerous military operation will not go unnoticed and will embolden the Serbs and further stir the hatred of the region. Is this policy based on stupidity, or is there a sinister motive behind what our world leaders do?

Must we have perpetual war to keep the military appropriations flowing? Does our military work hand in glove in securing new markets? It is not a hidden fact that our own CIA follows our international corporate interests around the globe, engaging in corporate espionage and installing dictators when they serve these special interests.

Why would an Air Force plane, with a dozen leading industrialists, be flying into a war-torn region like Bosnia, along with the Secretary of Commerce? I doubt they were on a humanitarian mission to feed the poor and house the homeless.

The lobbyists who pushed the hardest to send troops to Bosnia came from corporations who are now reaping great profits from construction work in Bosnia. It may be the calculation is for a slight escalation of the conflict that inevitably will accompany any attempt to try war criminals—and no one plans for another great war breaking out in this region.

What might be planned is just enough conflict to keep the appropriations coming. But the possibility of miscalculation is very real. The history of this region should surely warn us of the dangers that lurk around the corner.

We, in the Congress, have a great responsibility in reversing this policy. We must once again assume this responsibility in formulating foreign policy and not acquiesce to the president’s pressure to perpetuate a serious misdirected policy of foreign meddling 4,000 miles away from home. We must not fall for the old line that we cannot leave, because to do so would not be patriotically ‘supporting our troops.’ That is blatant nonsense!

We have already invested $7.7 billion in this ill-advised military adventure. That money should have either remained in the pockets of working Americans or been spent here in the United States.

The New York Times has praised this recent action by Clinton and the NATO forces and has called for more of the same. The New York Times and the Washington Post also support the notion that our troops will have to stay in this region for a lot longer than the middle of next year.

The military-industrial complex and its powerful political supporters continue to be well-represented in the media and in Washington. Unfortunately the idea that America is responsible to police the world, and provide the funding and the backup military power to impose ‘peace’ in all the disturbed regions of the world, remains a policy endorsed by leaders in both parties.

The sooner this policy is challenged and changed, the better off we will be. Our budget will not permit it; it threatens our national security, and worst of all, it threatens our personal liberties.

Several of us understood that our policy regarding Bosnia was a real problem. This would result in a serious entanglement, as well as NATO’s first offensive war. I believe the precedent set by this action will have significant consequences in the future.

September 4, 1997
THE SOONER WE GET OUT OF BOSNIA, THE BETTER
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, NATO has announced it will now use lethal force in Bosnia. NATO, of course, means the United States, both our dollars and our troops. Little concern is shown here in Congress as we appropriate billions of dollars more for Bosnia with no end in sight.

Policing this area is an impossible task as NATO interferes with TV broadcasts and arresting and trying so-called war criminals. Current policy is only leading to an escalation of the conflict. Ethnic hatred and border fights have been going on in this region for centuries.

Mr. Speaker, the United States will not solve these problems. It is impossible for us to do so. We are already being blamed by the Bosnians while our troops are being attacked with stones and homemade weapons. Congress must bear some of the responsibility for the coming policy disaster. The president cannot act without funds, funds which only Congress can appropriate. Our efforts in Bosnia have nothing to do with national security. We have a responsibility to our troops, and our current policy exposes them to unwarranted danger.

Congress must defund the Bosnian conflict. The sooner we get out of Bosnia, the better.

September 5, 1997
ON BOSNIA
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this time today to express my deep concern for the recent military buildup in Bosnia.

I think this is a dangerous situation, and I would like to call it to the attention of my colleagues here in the Congress. This is something that has been going on for a long time.

Many of us have tried to get our troops out of Bosnia and out of harm’s way, but so far that has not been the case. Yesterday, the U.S. Defense Department announced that they would be adding more aircraft in this region. There will be 6 more F-16’s sent to this region, taking the total number up to 24. They will be flying out of Ariano, Italy, and the purpose is to patrol the Bosnian skies.

The purpose that is stated is to provide deterrence and to provide a peaceful situation to a very difficult problem that has existed, not for a few months or for a few years, but for decades, if not hundreds of years, in this region.

Instead of providing deterrence and a peaceful effort being made here, I believe our contribution is going to do nothing more than escalate the problems of that region.

The recent buildup has also been said to be necessary, because it is supposed to guarantee an election process. During the last year, there were two attempts to hold elections in this region but, due to the political turmoil there, the elections have had to be canceled. Again they are trying to have another election. Our presence there is supposed to provide the stability to a region that is inherently unstable, and I challenge this notion whether or not this can even be achieved.

In addition to the troops and the aircraft that have gone in which we are sending, the international bodies have sent in 2,600 election monitors. The odds of this providing stability to an election are very, very slim.

Last month there were some additional troops sent into Bosnia. Not much was said about this. There were not very many reports in the media regarding this, and certainly no discussion here in the Congress. But we have had 8,000 troops stationed in Bosnia. We have added 1,600 more. So we are now in the process of adding aircraft and adding personnel in a situation which puts our troops in jeopardy. It was not too long ago that our troops were stoned and homemade weapons were used against them.

The NATO forces just recently took control of a television transmitter and said that the information over this transmitter was not acceptable. Just recently that transmitter was returned in hopes that the return of the transmitter to the Serbs would calm the personnel there, the people there, so that the elections could be carried out. But just the thought of taking over the transmitter is one thing. But the conditions that were placed on the Serbs in the return of the transmitter are something else again.

Our Pentagon official threatened the Serbs that if they violated the instructions that were given the television station, it would be a clear-cut justification for NATO forces to retaliate. In the best of diplomatic jingoism, our Pentagon official, as quoted in the Washington Post, said, if they do not comply, we will “whack” them.

Hardly do I think this policy will lead to peace and a wonderful election. I really challenge the Congress, in the continuation of the funding of a military operation that is doomed to fail. It is a real tragedy that we get promises made by the administration.

The troops were supposed to be in there until December 1996, and here they are, another year, and supposedly they are supposed to come out next July. But the way things are going there, and by the way we comply, we are complicit in this operation and provide the funds, the odds of our troops being out of there next July are very, very slim.

This raises the question about overall policy. Traditionally the American foreign policy, up until the latter part of this century, has been a policy of noninterference, nonintervention in the affairs of other nations, and also that of neutrality with all nations.

This is proper under the Constitution. This has been traditional. Instead, we should be concentrating on national security issues. We should be concerned about what the American position is, and we should not pretend that we know what is best for everybody, because we do not.

November 5, 1997
INCONSISTENCY IN AMERICA’S FOREIGN POLICY
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, the Congress has never earned high marks for consistency. We do spend many hours debating the minor differences in the management of many centralized programs that are generally unwarranted. But when it comes to foreign policy, I see both sides of the aisle are eagerly agreeing with the president that we must threaten force and use of force in Iraq.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is no indication that this is a proper position. We have been told by the Ambassador to the United Nations that the reason we must threaten force in this area is that Iraq is a direct threat to the security of the United Nations. Here all along, I thought I was here in the Congress to protect the security of the United States.

We are inconsistent, because the majority of Americans want us out of Bosnia. Most Members of Congress argue and vote to get us out of Bosnia. There is no indication that we are going to get out of Bosnia. Yet here we are, chanting away that we should use force and threaten force in Bosnia. We do not have that same policy with China, a country many see as a threat to our security.