2009 Ron Paul 106:2
I talked to somebody today that will
be voting for these, but admitted that
they wont work and it is mere symbolism.
So already they dont think
these will do much good, even those
who will vote for it. Theyre impossible
to enforce, is one reason, and it will
create a black market. And these particular
sanctions are most difficult to
enforce just because of the nature of
the way its written.
2009 Ron Paul 106:3
One must understand a little bit
about the pressures put on this country
to act in a defensive way. They happen
to be surrounded by a lot of nuclear
bombs. And they dont have a history,
the Iranians. As bad as they are for
their leadership and how bad their regime
is, theyre not expansionists territorially.
I mean, how many years has
it been since they invaded another
country for the purpose of taking over
another country? It is just not in recent
history at all. But the countries
around them, India – India has nuclear
weapons, China has nuclear weapons,
Pakistan, Israel, the United States. I
mean, theyre all around them, so Im
sure they feel like a cornered rat.
2009 Ron Paul 106:4
What I see here is propaganda, propaganda
to build fear into people, to prepare
the people for what is likely to
come, just as we did in the 1990s, fear
that there were weapons of mass destruction,
but this one is, well, someday
they might get a weapon of mass
destruction. Unfortunately, I am just
really concerned that this is going to
lead to hostilities because this is the
initiation. The fear is building up. Too
often in this country we talk of peace
at the same time that we pursue war.
We pursue war, and we use these efforts
to push our policies on others.
2009 Ron Paul 106:5
And quite frankly, we dont have any
more money to pursue this policy,
whether its used by the militarism or
even to try to buy friends by giving
them a lot of money. It just doesnt
work.
2009 Ron Paul 106:6
I urge a no vote on this resolution
in the interest of United States security.
2009 Ron Paul 106:7
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few
more points as to why I oppose this new
round of sanctions on Iran, which is another
significant step toward a U.S. war on that
country. I find it shocking that legislation this
serious and consequential is brought up in
such a cavalier manner. Suspending the normal
rules of the House to pass legislation is a
process generally reserved for non-controversial
business such as the naming of post offices.
Are we to believe that this House takes
matters of war and peace as lightly as naming
post offices?
2009 Ron Paul 106:8
This legislation seeks to bar from doing
business in the United States any foreign entity
that sells refined petroleum to Iran or otherwise
enhances Irans ability to import refined
petroleum such as financing, brokering, underwriting,
or providing ships for such. Such
sanctions also apply to any entity that provides
goods or services that enhance Irans
ability to maintain or expand its domestic production
of refined petroleum. This casts the
sanctions net worldwide, with enormous international
economic implications.
2009 Ron Paul 106:9
Recently, the Financial Times reported that,
[i]n recent months, Chinese companies have
greatly expanded their presence in Irans oil
sector. In the coming months, Sinopec, the
state-owned Chinese oil company, is scheduled
to complete the expansion of the Tabriz
and Shazand refineries – adding 3.3 million
gallons of gasoline per day.
2009 Ron Paul 106:10
Are we to conclude, with this in mind, that
China or its major state-owned corporations
will be forbidden by this legislation from doing
business with the United States? What of our
other trading partners who currently do business
in Irans petroleum sector or insure those
who do so? Has anyone seen an estimate of
how this sanctions act will affect the US economy
if it is actually enforced?
2009 Ron Paul 106:11
As we have learned with U.S. sanctions on
Iraq, and indeed with U.S. sanctions on Cuba
and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments
who suffer most. The purpose of
these sanctions is to change the regime in
Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time
and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes
they target and marginalize any opposition.
As would be the case were we in the
U.S. targeted for regime change by a foreign
government, people in Iran will tend to put
aside political and other differences to oppose
that threatening external force. Thus this legislation
will likely serve to strengthen the popularity
of the current Iranian government. Any
opposition continuing to function in Iran would
be seen as operating in concert with the foreign
entity seeking to overthrow the regime.
2009 Ron Paul 106:12
This legislation seeks to bring Iran in line
with international demands regarding its nuclear
materials enrichment programs, but what
is ironic is that Section 2 of H.R. 2194 itself
violates the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) to which both the United States and
Iran are signatories. This section states that
[i]t shall be the policy of the United States
. . . to prevent Iran from achieving the capability
to make nuclear weapons, including by
supporting international diplomatic efforts to
halt Irans uranium enrichment program. Article
V of the NPT states clearly that, [n]othing
in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting
the inalienable right of all the Parties to the
Treaty to develop research, production and
use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
without discrimination and in conformity with
articles I and II of this Treaty. As Iran has
never been found in violation of the NPT – has
never been found to have diverted nuclear
materials for non-peaceful purposes – this legislation
seeking to deny Iran the right to enrichment
even for peaceful purposes itself violates
the NPT.
2009 Ron Paul 106:13
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that many of
my colleagues opposing war on Iran will vote
in favor of this legislation, seeing it as a step
short of war to bring Iran into line with U.S.
demands. I would remind them that sanctions
and the blockades that are required to enforce
them are themselves acts of war according to
international law. I urge my colleagues to reject
this saber-rattling but ultimately counterproductive
legislation.