2006 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to claim my 5 minutes at
this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without
objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
2006 Ron Paul 48:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by recent news that the administration
has offered to put an end to our
26-year-old policy of refusing to speak
with the Iranians. While this is a positive
move, I am still concerned about
the preconditions set by the administration
before it will agree to begin
talks.
2006 Ron Paul 48:3
Unfortunately, the main U.S. precondition is that the Iranians abandon
their uranium enrichment program.
But this is exactly what the negotiations
are meant to discuss. How can a
meaningful dialogue take place when
one side demands that the other side
abandon its position before the talks
begin?
2006 Ron Paul 48:4
Is this offer designed to fail so as to clear the way for military action while
being able to claim that diplomacy was
attempted? If the administration wishes
to avoid this perception, it would be
wiser to abandon preconditions and
simply agree to talk to Iran.
2006 Ron Paul 48:5
By demanding that Iran give up its uranium enrichment program, the
United States is unilaterally changing
the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. We must remember that
Iran has never been found in violation
of the Nonproliferation Treaty. U.N.
inspectors have been in Iran for years,
and International Atomic Energy
Agency Director ElBaradei has repeatedly
reported that he can find no indication
of diversion of source or special
nuclear material to a military purpose.
2006 Ron Paul 48:6
As a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran has, according to the
treaty, the inalienable right to the
development, research and production
of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
without discrimination.
2006 Ron Paul 48:7
Yet, the United States is demanding that Iran give up that right even
though, after years of monitoring, Iran
has never been found to have diverted
nuclear material from peaceful to military
use.
2006 Ron Paul 48:8
As my colleagues are well aware, I am strongly opposed to the United Nations
and our participation in that organization.
Every Congress I introduce
a bill to get us out of the U.N., but I
also recognize problems with our demanding
to have it both ways. On one
hand, we pretend to abide by the U.N.
and international laws, such as when
Congress cited the U.N. on numerous
occasions in its resolution authorizing
the President to initiate war against
Iraq. On the other hand, we feel free to
completely ignore the terms of treaties,
and even unilaterally demand a
change in the terms of the treaties
without hesitation. This leads to an increasing
perception around the world
that we are no longer an honest broker,
that we are not to be trusted. Is this
the message we want to send at this
critical time?
2006 Ron Paul 48:9
So some may argue that it does not matter whether the U.S. operates
under double standards. We are the
lone superpower, and we can do as we
wish, they argue. But this is a problem
of the rule of law. Are we a Nation that
respects the rule of law? What example
does it set for the rest of the world, including
rising powers like China and
Russia, when we change the rules of
the game whenever we see it? Wont
this come back to haunt us?
2006 Ron Paul 48:10
We need to remember that decisionmaking power under Irans Government
is not entirely concentrated in
the President. We are all familiar with
the inflammatory rhetoric of President
Ahmadinejad, but there are others,
government bodies in Iran, that are
more moderate and eager for dialogue.
We have already spent hundreds of billions
of dollars on a war in the Middle
East. We cannot afford to continue on
the path of conflict over dialogue and
peaceful resolution. Unnecessarily
threatening Iran is not in the interest
of the United States and is not in the
interest of world peace.
2006 Ron Paul 48:11
I am worried about pre-conditions that may well be designed to ensure
that the talks fail before they start.
Let us remember how high the stakes
are and urge the administration to
choose dialogue over military conflict.