Home Page

Contents

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul NATO Book of Ron Paul NATO State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:23 At home, virtually all citizens condemn U.S. troops serving under UN command, and yet the financing and support for expanding the United Nations’ and NATO’s roles continues as the hysteria mounts on marching on Baghdad or Bosnia or Haiti or wherever our leaders decide the next monster is to be found. NATO Removing U.S. Armed Forces From Bosnia And Herzegovina 17 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 26:13 But at the same time we win those kind of votes, and there is a strong sentiment here in the Congress when we are required to vote and there is certainly a strong sentiment among the American people that we ought to be dealing with our problems here at home, we ought not to assume the role of world policemen, and we ought to mind our own business, and we ought to be concerned about the sovereignty of the United States, rather than sending our troops around the world under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO and literally giving up our sovereignty to international bodies. We were very confused as to who was really in charge of foreign policy in Iraq, whether it was Kofi Annan or whether it was our President. NATO Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:11 Lastly, foreign policy provisions in this report suggest an ever-increasing role for the United States in our current police-the-world mentality. Strong language to encourage all emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to join NATO area amongst these provisions in the conference report. It also authorizes $20 million for the International Fund for Ireland to support reconciliation, job creation, investment therein. For Iraq, the bill authorizes $10 million to train political opposition forces and $20 million for relief efforts in areas of Iraq not under the control of Hussein. NATO President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops 9 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 5:2 Recently, the President has announced that he will most likely be sending thousands of American troops under NATO command to Kosovo. I think this is wrong. I have introduced legislation today that says that the President cannot send these troops without Congressional approval, merely restating what the Constitution says and how we followed the rules up until World War II. NATO President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops 9 February 1999    1999 Ron Paul 5:9 It is also interesting that one of the jobs of the troops in NATO, if they go into Kosovo, will be to disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army. That is hardly good sense. First, it is not good sense for us to give the permission or renege on our responsibility, but it does not make good sense to get involved in a war that has been going on for many years, but it certainly does not make good sense for us to go in for the sole purpose of supporting Milosevic. He is the one that has been bombing the Kosovars and here we are, we want to disarm the liberation forces and at the same time prevent Kosovo from becoming independent. NATO War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress 9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the President has stated that should a peace treaty be signed between Serbia and Kosovo he plans to send in at least 4,000 American soldiers as part of a NATO peacekeeping force. NATO War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress 9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:5 Citing NATO agreements or U.N. resolutions as authority for moving troops into war zones should alert us all to the degree to which the rule of law has been undermined. The President has no war power, only the Congress has that. When one person can initiate war, by its definition, a republic no longer exists. NATO War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress 9 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 13:11 Vague police actions authorized by the United Nations or NATO, and implemented by the President without congressional approval, invites disasters with perpetual foreign military entanglements. The concept of national sovereignty and the rule of law must be respected or there is no purpose for the Constitution. NATO Kosovo War Resolution 11 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 18:8 We do not just give it to the President, we give it to the President plus the United Nations or NATO. And when we joined NATO and the United Nations, it was explicitly said it was not to be inferred that this takes away the sovereignty and the decision-making powers of the individual countries and their legislative bodies. And yet we have now, for quite a few decades, allowed this power to gravitate into the hands of the President. NATO War Powers Resolution 17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:3 Presently, those of us who argued for Congressional responsibility with regards to declaring war and deploying troops cannot be satisfied that the trend of the last 50 years has been reversed. Since World War II, the war power has fallen into the hands of our presidents, with Congress doing little to insist on its own constitutional responsibility. From Korea and Vietnam, to Bosnia and Kosovo, we have permitted our presidents to “wag the Congress,” generating a perception that the United States can and should police the world. Instead of authority to move troops and fight wars coming from the people through a vote of their Congressional representatives, we now permit our presidents to cite NATO declarations and U.N. resolutions. NATO War Powers Resolution 17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:4 This is even more exasperating knowing that upon joining both NATO and the United Nations it was made explicitly clear that no loss of sovereignty would occur and all legislative bodies of member States would retain their legal authority to give or deny support for any proposed military action. NATO War Powers Resolution 17 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 20:10 The recent flare-up of violence in Serbia has been blamed on United States’ plan to send troops to the region. The Serbs have expressed rage at the possibility that NATO would invade their country with the plan to reward the questionable Kosovo Liberation Army. If ever a case could be made for the wisdom of non-intervention, it is here. Who wants to defend all that the KLA had done and at the same time justify a NATO invasion of a sovereign nation for the purpose of supporting secession? “This violence is all America’s fault,” one Yugoslavian was quoted as saying. And who wants to defend Milosevic? NATO U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional 24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:6 The Senate resolution, now claimed to be congressional consent for the President to wage war, is not much better. It, too, was a sense of Congress resolution without the force of law. It implies the President can defer to NATO for authority to pursue a war effort. NATO U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional 24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:7 Only Congress can decide the issue of war. Congress cannot transfer the constitutional war power to the President or to NATO or to the United Nations. The Senate resolution, however, specifically limits the use of force to air operations and missile strikes, but no war has ever been won with air power alone. The Milosevic problem will actually get worse with our attacks, and ground troops will likely follow. NATO U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional 24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:9 U.S. and NATO policy against Serbia will certainly encourage the Kurds. Every argument for Kosovo’s independence can be used by the Kurds for their long-sought-after independence. This surely will drive the Turks away from NATO. NATO U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional 24 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 22:10 Our determination to be involved in the dangerous civil war may well prompt a stronger Greek alliance with their friends in Serbia, further splitting NATO and offending the Turks, who are naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the Albanian Muslims. No good can come of our involvement in this Serbian civil war, no matter how glowing and humanitarian the terms used by our leaders. NATO Peace 25 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 23:3 Let other nations always keep the idea of their sovereign self-government associated with our Republic and they will befriend us, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from our allegiance. But let it be once understood that our government may be one thing and their sovereignty another, that these two things exist without mutual regard one for the other — and the affinity will be gone, the friendship loosened and the alliance hasten to decay and dissolution. As long as we have the wisdom to keep this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever mankind worships freedom they will turn their faces toward us. The more they multiply, the more friends we will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be our relations. Slavery they can find anywhere, as near to us as Cuba or as remote as China. But until we become lost to all feeling of our national interest and natural legacy, freedom and self-rule they can find in none but the American founding. These are precious commodities, and our nation alone was founded them. This is the true currency which binds to us the commerce of nations and through them secures the wealth of the world. But deny others of their national sovereignty and self-government, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, friendship among nations. Do not entertain so weak an imagination as that UN Charters and Security Councils, GATT and international laws, World Trade Organizations and General Assemblies, are what promote commerce and friendship. Do not dream that NATO and peacekeeping forces are the things that can hold nations together. It is the spirit of community that gives nations their lives and efficacy. And it is the spirit of the constitution of our founders that can invigorate every nation of the world, even down to the minutest of these. NATO Crisis in Kosovo 14 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 25:2 A legal war in this country is one that is declared, declared by the Congress. Any other war is illegal. The war in Yugoslavia now pursued by our administration and with NATO is both immoral and illegal and it should not be pursued. We will be soon voting on an appropriation, probably next week. There may be a request for $5 billion to pursue the war in Yugoslavia. I do not believe that we should continue to finance a war that is both immoral and illegal. NATO Crisis in Kosovo 14 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 25:3 It has been said that we are in Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing, but it is very clear that the goal of the NATO forces is to set up an ethnic state. NATO Crisis in Kosovo 14 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 25:9 Yesterday in the Washington Post an interesting article occurred on this subject, but it was not in the news section; it was in the business section. There was a headline yesterday in the Washington Post that said: Count Corporate America Among NATO’s Staunchest Allies. Very interesting article because it goes on to explain why so many corporations have an intense interest in making sure that the credibility of NATO is maintained, and they go on to explain that it is not just the arms manufacturers but the technology people who expect to sell weapons in Eastern Europe, in Yugoslavia, and they are very interested in making use of the NATO forces to make sure that their interests are protected. I think this is not the reason for us to go to war. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, supporters of internationalism celebrated NATO’s 50th anniversary with the Senate’s 1998 overwhelming approval for expanding NATO to include Eastern European countries. This year’s official inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic made all NATO’s supporters proud, indeed. But in reality, NATO now is weaker and more chaotic than ever. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:2 In the effort to expand NATO and promote internationalism, we see in reaction the rise of ugly nationalism. The U.S. and NATO policy of threats and intimidation to establish an autonomous Kosovo without true independence from Serbia, and protected by NATO’s forces for the foreseeable future, has been a recipe for disaster. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:3 This policy of nation-building and interference in a civil war totally contradicts the mission of European defense set out in the NATO charter. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:4 Without the Soviet enemy to justify the European military machine, NATO had to find enemies and humanitarian missions to justify its existence. The centuries-old ethnic hatreds found in Yugoslavia and the militant leaders on all sides have served this purpose well. Working hard to justify NATO’s policy in this region has totally obscured any objective analysis of the turmoil now raging. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:5 Some specific policy positions of NATO guaranteed that the ongoing strife would erupt into a full-fledged and dangerous conflict. Once it was determined in the early 1990s that outsiders would indict and try Yugoslavian war criminals, it was certain that cooperation with western negotiators would involve risks. Fighting to the end became a practical alternative to a mock international trial. Forcing a treaty settlement on Serbia where Serbia would lose the sovereign territory of Kosovo guaranteed an escalation of the fighting and the forced removal of the Kosovars from their homes. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:6 Ignoring the fact that more than 500,000 Serbs were uprooted from Croatia and Bosnia with the encouragement of NATO intervention did great harm to the regional effort to reestablish more stable borders. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:15 The KLA took on the Serbs, not the other way around. Whether or not one is sympathetic to Kosovo’s secession is not relevant. I for one prefer many small independent governments pledged not to aggress against their neighbors over the international special interest authoritarianism of NATO, the CIA, and the United Nations. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:31 What will the fate of NATO be in the coming years? Many are fretting that NATO may dissolve over a poor showing in Yugoslavia, despite the 50th anniversary hype and its recent expansion. Fortunately for those who cherish liberty and limited government, NATO has a questionable future. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:32 When our leaders sanctioned NATO in 1949, there were many patriotic Americans who questioned the wisdom and the constitutionality of this organization. It was by its charter to be strictly a defensive organization designed to defend Western Europe from any Soviet threat. The NATO charter clearly recognized the Security Council of the United Nations was responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:33 Likewise, the legislative history and congressional testimony maintained NATO could not usurp from Congress and the people the power to wage war. We have drifted a long way from that acknowledgment, and the fears expressed by Robert Taft and others in 1949 were certainly justified. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:34 United States and NATO, while deliberately avoiding a U.N. vote on the issue, have initiated war against a sovereign state in the middle of a civil war. A Civil War that caused thousands of casualties and refugees on both sides has been turned into a war with hundreds of thousands of casualties and refugees with NATO’s interference. The not-so-idle U.S. threats cast at Milosevic did not produce compliance. It only expanded the violence and the bloodshed. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:35 The foolishness of this policy has become apparent, but Western leaders are quick to justify their warmongering. It was not peace or liberty or national security they sought as they sent the bombs flying. It was to save face for NATO. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:36 Without the Soviets to worry about, NATO needed a mission, and stopping the evil Serbs fit the bill. It was convenient to ignore the evil Croates and the Kosovars, and it certainly was easy to forget the United Nations’, NATO’s, and the United States’ policies over the past decade that contributed to the mess in Yugoslavia. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:37 It was soon apparent that bombing was no more a successful diplomatic tool than were the threats of dire consequences if the treaty, unfavorable to the Serbs, was not quickly signed by Milosevic. This drew demands that policy must be directed toward saving NATO by expanding the war. NATO’s credibility was now at stake and how could Europe, and the United States war machine, survive if NATO were to disintegrate. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:38 Hopes as expressed by Ron Brown and his corporate friends were not extinguished by the unfortunate and mysterious Air Force crash while on their way to Bosnia to do business deals. Nobody even bothers to find out what U.S. policy condones business trips of our corporate leaders in a war zone on an Air Force aircraft. Corporate interests and the military-industrial complex continues to play a role in our Yugoslavian war policy. Corporate America loves NATO. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:39 Most politicians and the public do not know what NATO’s real mission is, and today’s policy cannot be explained by reading its mission statement written in 1949. Certainly our vital interests and national security cannot justify our escalation of the war in Yugoslavia. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:42 In spite of the powerful political and industrial leaders’ support behind NATO, and the budgets of 19 Western countries, NATO’s days appear numbered. We shall not weep when NATO goes the way of the Soviet Empire and the Warsaw Pact. Managing a war with 19 vetoes makes it impossible for a coherent strategy to evolve. Chaos, bickering, bureaucratic blundering, waste and political infighting will surely result. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:43 There is no natural tendency for big government to enjoy stability without excessive and brute force, as was used in the Soviet system. But eventually the natural tendency towards instability, as occurred in the Soviet Empire, will bring about NATO’s well-deserved demise. NATO, especially since it has embarked on a new and dangerous imperialistic mission, will find using brute force to impose its will on others is doomed to fail. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:45 Nationalism is alive and well even within the 19-member NATO group. When nationalism is non-militaristic, peace loving, and freedom oriented, it is a force that will always undermine big government planners, whether found in a Soviet system or a NATO/U.N. system. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:46 The smaller the unit of government, the better it is for the welfare of all those who seek only peace and freedom. NATO no longer can hide its true intent behind an anti-communist commitment. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:55 What does this hodgepodge philosophy here in the Congress mean for the future of peace and prosperity in general and NATO and the United Nations in particular? Pragmatism cannot prevail. Economically and socially it breeds instability, bankruptcy, economic turmoil and factionalism here at home. Internationally it will lead to the same results. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:56 NATO’s days are surely numbered. That is the message of the current chaos in Yugoslavia. NATO may hold together in name only for a while, but its effectiveness is gone forever. The U.S. has the right to legally leave NATO with a 1-year’s notice. That we ought to do, but we will not. We will continue to allow ourselves to bleed financially and literally for many years to come before it is recognized that governance of diverse people is best done by diverse and small governments, not by a one-world government dependent on the arbitrary use of force determined by politically correct reasons and manipulated by the powerful financial interests around the world. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:58 The President, as so many other presidents have done since World War II, took it upon himself to wage an illegal war against Yugoslavia under NATO’s authority, and Congress again chose to do nothing. By ignoring our constitutional responsibility with regards to war power, the Congress implicitly endorsed the President’s participation in NATO’s illegal war against Yugoslavia. We neither declared war nor told the President to cease and desist. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:59 Now we have a third chance, and maybe our last, before the war gets out of control. We are being asked to provide all necessary funding for the war. Once we provide funds for the war, the Congress becomes an explicit partner in this ill-conceived NATO-inspired intervention in the civil war of a sovereign nation, making Congress morally and legally culpable. NATO U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999    1999 Ron Paul 29:61 Bellicosity and jingoism associated with careless and illegal intervention can never replace a policy of peace and friendship whenever possible. And when it is not, at least neutrality. NATO’s aggressive war of destruction and vengeance can only make the situation worse. The sooner we disengage ourselves from this ugly civil war, the better. It is the right thing to do. NATO We Must Not Fund This Senseless Bombing 5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 39:2 Serb victims are people, too, who love their families and hate the war, yet become the victims of this ill-conceived policy of NATO aggression. It is a strange argument, indeed, that the capture of our three soldiers was illegal and yet our bombing of civilians is not. Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation. It only makes things worse. NATO Kosovo War Is Illegal 5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, it is time to stop the bombing. NATO’s war against Serbia left the Congress and the American people in a quandary, and no wonder. The official excuse for NATO’s bombing war is that Milosevic would not sign a treaty drawn up by NATO, which would have taken Kosovo away from the Serbs after the KLA demanded independence from Serbia. NATO Kosovo War Is Illegal 5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:2 This war is immoral because Serbia did not commit aggression against us. We were not attacked and there has been no threat to our national security. This war is illegal. It is undeclared. There has been no congressional authorization and no money has been appropriated for it. The war is pursued by the U.S. under NATO’s terms, yet it is illegal even according to NATO’s treaty as well as the U.N. charter. The internationalists do not even follow their own laws and do not care about the U.S. Constitution. NATO Kosovo War Is Illegal 5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:3 The humanitarian excuse for the war is suspect. Economic interests are involved, as they so often are in most armed conflicts. NATO’s vaguely stated goals have not been achieved. For the most part, the opposite has. Let me give my colleagues a few examples. NATO Kosovo War Is Illegal 5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:5 Number two. Russia is now alienated from the west. Their hold on a nuclear arsenal is ignored. Along with Russia’s economic desperation and political instability, NATO is pushing Russia into a new alliance against the west. NATO Kosovo War Is Illegal 5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:9 Number six. This war institutionalizes foreign control over our troops. Tony Blair now tells Bill Clinton how to fight a NATO war, while the U.S. taxpayers pay for it. NATO Kosovo War Is Illegal 5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:15 Number twelve. The massive refugee problem, which is essentially a result of NATO’s bombing, continues. NATO Kosovo War Is Illegal 5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 40:19 Only chaos can come from ignoring the strict prohibition by the Constitution of a president unilaterally waging war. If a president ignores the absence of a declaration, and we are serious, the only option left to Congress is the power of the purse, which is clearly the responsibility of the Congress. We should not fund this illegal and immoral NATO war. NATO Supplemental Appropriations 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we will later today vote on the conference report to H.R. 1141, the bill to further fund NATO’s aggression in Yugoslavia. The President has requested $7.9 billion but Congress has felt compelled to give him $15 billion. NATO Supplemental Appropriations 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:3 We are asking the President to seek reimbursement from NATO members since we have assumed the financial burden for fighting this war. This has tremendous appeal but cannot compensate for the shortsightedness of spending so much in the first place. The money may well never be recouped from our allies, and even if some of it is it only encourages a failed policy of military adventurism. If this policy works, the United States, at Congress’ urging, becomes a hired gun for the international order, a modern day government mercenary. This is not constitutional and it is a bad precedent to set. NATO Supplemental Appropriations 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:5 We should not encourage the senseless and immoral NATO aggression against Serbia. The funding of this war should not be approved, no matter what special interest appropriations have been attached to the initial request to gain support for this special spending measure. NATO Supplemental Appropriations 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:11 NATO, through their daily briefings, has been anxious to reassure us that its cause is just. Yet NATO cannot refute the charge that the refugee problem was made much worse with the commencement of the bombing. NATO Supplemental Appropriations 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:12 Yesterday it was reported in the Los Angeles Times by Paul Watson, in stark contrast to NATO’s propaganda, that in Svetlje, Yugoslavia, 15,000 Albanians displaced by the bombing remain near their homes in north Kosovo, including hundreds of young military age men, quote, strolling along the dirt roads or lying on the grass on a sunny day. There were no concentration camps, no forced labor and no one serving as human shields according to an Albanian interviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Many admitted they left their homes because they were scared after the bombing started. Some of the Albanians said the only time they saw the Serb police was when they came to sell cigarettes to the Albanians. NATO Supplemental Appropriations 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:13 We should not be in Yugoslavia for obvious constitutional and moral reasons, but the American people should not believe the incessant propaganda that is put out by NATO on a daily basis. NATO’s motives are surely suspect. I meet no one who can with a straight face claim that it was NATO’s concern for the suffering of the refugees that prompted the bombing and demands by some to escalate the war with the introduction of ground troops. NATO Supplemental Appropriations 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:14 Even with NATO’s effort to justify its aggression, they rarely demonstrate a hit on a military target. All this fine star wars technology and we see reruns of strikes with perfect accuracy hitting infrastructures like bridges and buildings. I have yet to see one picture of a Serbian tank being hit, and I am sure if they had some classy film like that we would have seen it many times on the nightly television. NATO Supplemental Appropriations 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:15 NATO must admit its mistake in entering this civil war. It violates the NATO treaty and the U.N. Charter, as well as the U.S. Constitution. The mission has failed. The policy is flawed. Innocent people are dying. It is costing a lot of money. It is undermining our national security and there are too many accidents. NATO Supplemental Appropriations 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 47:16 I am sick and tired of hearing NATO’s daily apologies. NATO Opposing Supplemental Appropriation 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 48:2 The President came to us and asked us to fund the NATO war, asked for $7.9 billion, but we in the conservative Congress have decided that not only would we give it to him, but we would bump that up to $15 billion, which does not make a whole lot of sense, especially if Congress has spoken out on what they think of the war. NATO Opposing Supplemental Appropriation 18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 48:6 But the real principle here today that we are voting on is whether or not we are going to fund an illegal, unconstitutional war. It does not follow the rules of our Constitution. It does not follow the rules of the United Nations Treaty. It does not follow the NATO Treaty. And here we are just permitting it, endorsing it but further funding it. This does not make any sense. NATO Quietly Restoring Funding For War In Kosovo 27 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 53:2 Today, the International War Crimes Tribunal decided to indict Milosevic. Milosevic is obviously a character that deserves severe criticism, but at this particular junction in the debate over this erroneous and ill-gotten war in Yugoslavia, this indicates to most of the world that there is no attempt whatsoever on the part of NATO to attempt any peace negotiations. This is a guarantee of the perpetuation of war. NATO Quietly Restoring Funding For War In Kosovo 27 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 53:3 Milosevic is going to be further strengthened by this. He will not be weakened. It was said the bombing would weaken Milosevic, and yet he was strengthened. This same move, this pretense that this kangaroo court can indict Milosevic and carry this to fruition indicates only that there are some who will enjoy perpetuating this war, because there is no way this can enhance peace. This is a sign of total hypocrisy, I believe, on the part of NATO. NATO, eventually, by history, will be indicted. NATO Quietly Restoring Funding For War In Kosovo 27 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 53:5 We could have had a bill that made a statement against spending this money to perpetuate this illegal NATO war, and yet it was explicitly removed from the bill. I think this is reason to question the efforts on this rule. Certainly it should challenge all of us on the final passage of this bill, because much of this money will not be spent on the national defense, but to perpetuate war, which is a direct distraction from our national defense because it involves increasing threats to our national security. It does not protect our national security. NATO A Positive Spin On An Ugly War 7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Yugoslavian civil war, now going on for years, was near ending until NATO chose to enter on the side of the KLA seeking independence. Aggressively entering the fray by invading a foreign nation, in direct opposition to its charter, NATO has expanded the war and multiplied the casualties. The impasse now reached, although predictable, prompts only more NATO bombing and killing of innocent civilians on both sides. It is difficult to see how any good can come from this continuous march of folly, but I am going to try. NATO A Positive Spin On An Ugly War 7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:2 Number one, the U.N. has suffered a justified setback in its effort to be the world’s governing body of the new world order, and that is good. By NATO refusing to seek a U.N. resolution of support for its war effort, it makes the U.N. look irrelevant. Now NATO is using the U.N. to seek a peace settlement by including the Russians, who agree to play the game as long as additional American tax dollars flow to them through the IMF. The U.N. looks weak, irrelevant, ignored, and used. The truth is winning out. NATO A Positive Spin On An Ugly War 7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:3 Number two, NATO is on the verge of self-destruction. Since the purpose of NATO to defend against a ruthless Soviet system no longer exists, that is good, NATO, in choosing to break its own rules looks totally ineffective and has lost credibility. The U.S. can get out of NATO, come home, save some money and let Europe tend to its own affairs, and we can then contribute to peace, not war. NATO A Positive Spin On An Ugly War 7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:4 Number three, Tony Blair’s true character has now become known to the world. He has not only annoyed many Americans, but many Germans, French, Italians and Greeks as well. By Blair demanding more American bombs, money and the introduction of ground troops, many have become skeptical of his judgment. It is much easier now to challenge his influence over Bill Clinton and NATO, and that is not only good, but necessary. NATO A Positive Spin On An Ugly War 7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:7 Number six, NATO’s war against Yugoslovia has made it clearly apparent that world leaders place relative value on human life. This is valuable information that should be helped to restore U.S. national sovereignty. According to NATO’s policy, the lives of the Kosovars are of greater value than the Serbs, Rwandans, Kurds, Tibetans, or East Timorans. Likewise, oil and European markets command more bloodshed in support of powerful financial interests than the suffering of millions in Asia and Africa. This knowledge of NATO’s hypocrisy should some day lead to a fair and more peaceful world. NATO A Positive Spin On An Ugly War 7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:9 Number eight, interventionism in the affairs of other nations when our national security is not threatened serves no benefit and causes great harm. Our involvement with NATO and Yugoslovia has once again forcefully shown this. Although our Founders knew this and advised against it, and American Presidents for over 100 years acted accordingly, this rediscovery of a vital truth can serve us well in future years. NATO A Positive Spin On An Ugly War 7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:10 Number nine, NATO’s arrogance has once again restated another truth worth remembering: Might does not make right. NATO A Positive Spin On An Ugly War 7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:12 Number 11: NATO’s blundering policy ironically will leave a legacy that will allow rebuilding after the new world order disintegrates. NATO A Positive Spin On An Ugly War 7 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 54:13 To the bewilderment of their own leaders NATO has forcefully supported the notion of autonomy and independence for ethnic states. Instead of huge governments demanding ethnic diversity, the goal of establishing Kosovo’s independence provides the moral foundation for an independent Kashmir Kurdistan, Palestine, Tibet, East Timor, Quebec, and North Ireland and anyone else that believes their rights as citizens would be better protected by small local government. This is in contrast to huge nation states and international governments that care only about controlling wealth, while forgetting about the needs and desires of average citizens. NATO Opposing Endless War In Kosovo 10 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 56:7 No wonder there is anti-American hostility existing around the world, because we believe that we can tell everybody what to do. We can deliver an ultimatum to them. If they do not do exactly what we say, whether it is under NATO or the United Nations or by ourselves stating it, what happens, we say, “If you do not listen to us, we are going to bomb you.” NATO On The United Nations And Embassy Security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 78:6 I believe in free trade. I do not believe in protectionism. I am not a protectionist. I think people, goods, and services and ideas should flow across borders freely. But when it comes to our armaments, under the guise of the U.N. orders or NATO orders, I do not believe this should be called something favorably as internationalism and those who oppose that as being isolationists. NATO On The United Nations And Embassy security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 79:3 We ignore the rule of law; we ignore international law when it pleases us. We did not accept the United Nations role when it came to Kosovo. We did not even accept NATO when it came to Kosovo. What we did, we just totally ignored it. NATO On The United Nations And Embassy security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 79:6 So I say that we should have a policy that is designed for the sovereignty of this Nation; that we should not have troops serving under the United Nations; that we should not pretend to be a member of the United Nations and pretend to be a member of NATO and then not even follow the rules that have been laid down and that we have agreed to. NATO On The United Nations And Embassy security 19 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 79:8 Now, this does not get us out of the United Nations. It is a step in that direction, obviously. But it is a step in the right direction because I think it is the proper use of our military if we do not capitulate and put it under NATO and put it in the United Nations. We need to use our military strictly in the defense of U.S. sovereignty. NATO Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. Paul 30 March 2000    2000 Ron Paul 22:5 I am quite convinced that, when most of the Members go back to their districts, they never brag and they never say that, “I go to Washington, and I always vote for the United States to be the policemen of the world. enjoy deferring to the United Nations and NATO forces for us to pursue some of our policies overseas.” Quite frankly, I believe most of us go home and say that we do not believe that the United States should be the policemen of the world. NATO Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. Paul 30 March 2000    2000 Ron Paul 22:13 It is time to reassess this policy; to come home. We should not be the policemen of the world. The American people are not anxious for us to do this. They have spoken out. A recent poll has shown that 70 percent of the American people are very anxious for us not to be involved in policing the world. They certainly are not interested in us placing United States troops under the command of U.N. and NATO forces. NATO CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4205, FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 October 11, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 83:1 * Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4205, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 Conference Report. While Federal constitutional authority clearly exists to provide for the national defense, global militarism was never contemplated by the founders. Misnamed like most everything else in Washington, the ‘Defense’ Authorization Act thus funds U.N.-directed peacekeeping in Kosovo and Bosnia to the tune of $3.1 billion dollars, $443 million in aid to the former Soviet Union, $172 million for NATO infrastructure (the formerly defensive alliance which recently initiated force against Kosovo), and $869 million for drug interdiction efforts by the U.S. military in an attempt to take our failed 1920’s prohibition experiment worldwide. NATO CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC — February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:89 For over 50 years, there has been a precise move toward one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our presidents claim that authority to wage war can come from the United Nations or NATO resolutions, in contradiction of our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed. US troops are now required to serve under foreign commanders and wear UN insignias. Refusal to do so prompts a court martial. NATO POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:15 For over 50 years, there has been a precise move towards one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our Presidents claim that our authority to wage wars come from the United Nations or NATO resolution, in contradiction to our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed. NATO Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 17:2 1. On the topic of the International Criminal Court, I have two questions. I am pleased that the administration, as well as the Chairman of this Committee, have spoken against the ICC treaty as an infringement upon U.S. sovereignty. As a policy matter, can you explain why the administration has not spoken similarly against the WTO, the International War Crimes Tribunal, or the idea of fighting wars based on UN or NATO resolutions and why these instrumentalities are any less threatening to our sovereignty? Also on the ICC topic, if the administration is not going to pursue ratification of the treaty, will you support my resolution, H Con Res 23, calling on the President to declare to all nations that the United States does not assent to the treaty and that the signature of former President Clinton should not be construed to mean otherwise? NATO A BAD OMEN July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:6 Milosevic obviously is no saint but neither are the leader of the Croates, the Albanians or the KLA. The NATO leaders who vastly expanded the death and destruction in Yugoslavia with 78 days of bombing in 1999 are certainly not blameless. The $1.28 billion promised the puppet Yugoslavian government is to be used to rebuild the cities devastated by U.S. bombs. First, the American people are forced to pay to bomb, to kill innocent people and destroy cities, and then they are forced to pay to repair the destruction, while orchestrating a U.N. kangaroo court to bring the guilty to justice at the Hague. NATO A BAD OMEN July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:7 For all this to be accepted, the press and internationalists have had to demonize Milosevic to distance themselves from the horrors of others including NATO. NATO A BAD OMEN July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:8 NATO’s air strikes assisted the KLA in cleansing Kosovo of Serbs in the name of assisting Albanian freedom fighters. No one should be surprised when that is interpreted to mean tacit approval for Albanian expansionism in Macedonia. While terrorist attacks by former members of the KLA against Serbs are ignored, the trial of the new millennium, the trial of Milosevic , enjoys daily support from the NATO-U.S. propaganda machine. NATO A BAD OMEN July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:10 One of the conditions for ending the civil war in Kosovo was the disbanding of the KLA. But the very same ruthless leaders of the KLA, now the Liberation Army of Presovo, are now leading the insurrection in Macedonia without NATO lifting a finger to stop it. NATO’s failed policy that precipitated the conflict now raging in Macedonia is ignored. NATO A BAD OMEN July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:13 Milosevic will be tried not before a jury of his peers but before a panel of politically appointed judges, all of whom were approved by the NATO countries, the same countries which illegally bombed Yugoslavia for 2 1/2 months. Under both U.N. and international law the bombing of Serbia and Kosovo was illegal. This was why NATO pursued it and it was not done under a U.N. resolution. NATO A BAD OMEN July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:15 NATO and U.S. leaders insist on playing with fire, not fully understanding the significance of the events now transpiring in the Balkans. If policy is not quickly reversed, events could get out of control and a major war in the region will erupt. NATO A BAD OMEN July 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 52:17 The Serbs, despite NATO’s propaganda, will not lightly accept the imprisonment of their democratically elected (and properly disposed) president no matter how bad he was. It is their problem to deal with and resentment against us will surely grow as conditions deteriorate. Mobs have already attacked the American ambassador to Macedonia for our inept interference in the region. Death of American citizens are sure to come if we persist in this failed policy. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:2 Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The rule is noncontroversial, but the bill itself, the bill to expand NATO and the foreign aid involved in it, is controversial from my viewpoint. It may not be controversial here in Washington, but if we go outside of Washington and talk to the people who pay the bills and the people who have to send the troops, they find this controversial. They think we are taken for saps as we go over and extend our sphere of influence throughout the world, and now extending into Eastern Europe. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:5 Mr. Speaker, this is one reason why I do oppose NATO. I believe that it has a bad influence on what we do. We want to extend our control over Eastern Europe, and as has been pointed out, this can be seen as a threat to the Russians. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:6 NATO does not have a good record since the fall of the Soviets. Take a look at what we were doing in Serbia. Serbia has been our friend. They are a Christian nation. We allied ourselves with the KLA, the Kosovo Muslims, who have been friends with Osama bin Laden. We went in there and illegally, NATO illegally, against their own rules of NATO, incessantly bombed Serbia. They had not attacked another country. They had a civil war going on, yet we supported that with our money and our bombs and our troops, and now we are nation-building over there. We may be over there for another 20 years because of the bad policy of NATO that we went along with. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:7 Mr. Speaker, I think we should stop and think about this, and instead of expanding NATO, instead of getting ready to send another $55 million that we are authorizing today to the Eastern European countries, we ought to ask: Has it really served the interests of the United States? NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:8 Now that is old-fashioned, to talk about the interests of the United States. We are supposed to only talk about the interests of internationalism, globalism, one-world government. To talk about the interests of the United States in this city is seen as being very negative, but I would say if we talk about U.S. security, security of the United States of America and our defense around the country, it is very popular. Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the fact that I have brought together bipartisanship here and got time from both sides. I deeply appreciate that, especially since I am taking the opposition to this bill. I do rise in opposition to expanding NATO. I do not think it is in the best interests of the United States. The one thing that I would concede, though, is that everyone in this Chamber, I believe, every Member agrees that our country should be strong; that we should have a strong national defense; and that we should do everything conceivable to make our country safe and secure. I certainly endorse those views. It just happens that I believe that membership in organizations like NATO tends to do the opposite, tends to weaken us and also makes us more vulnerable. But that is a matter of opinion, and we have to debate the merits of the issue and find out what is best for our country. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:10 We have this debate now mainly because we have had the demise of the Soviet system, and there is a question on what the role of NATO should be and what the role of NATO really is. It seems that NATO is out in search of a dragon to slay. It appeared that way during the Kosovo and Serbian crisis, where it was decided that NATO would go in and start the bombing in order to help the Kosovars and to undermine the Government of Serbia. But our own rules under NATO say that we should never attack a country that has not attacked a member nation. So this was sort of stretching it by a long shot in order to get us involved. I think that does have unintended consequences, because it turns out that we supported Muslims, the KLA, in Kosovo who were actually allies of Osama bin Laden. These things in some ways come back to haunt us, and I see this as an unintended consequence that we should be very much aware of. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:11 But overall I oppose this because I support a position of a foreign policy of noninterventionism, foreign noninterventionism out of interest of the United States. I know the other side of the argument, that United States interests are best protected by foreign intervention and many, many entangling alliances. I disagree with that because I think what eventually happens is that a country like ours gets spread too thin and finally we get too poor. I think we are starting to see signs of this. We have 250,000 troops around the world in 241 different countries. When the crisis hit with the New York disaster, it turned out that our planes were so spread out around the world that it was necessary for our allies to come in and help us. This is used by those who disagree with me as a positive, to say, “See, it works. NATO is wonderful. They’ll even come and help us out.” I see it as sad and tragic that we spent last year, I think it was over $325 billion for national defense, and we did not even have an AWACS plane to protect us. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:15 With this victory, however, NATO’s raison d’etre was destroyed. The alliance was created to defend against a Soviet system that as of 1991 had entirely ceased to exist. Rather than disbanding, though, NATO bureaucrats and the governments behind them reinvented the alliance and protected its existence by creating new dragons to slay. No longer was NATO to be an entirely defensive alliance. Rather, this “new” NATO began to occupy itself with a myriad of non-defense related issues like economic development and human rights. This was all codified at the Washington Summit of 1999, where the organization declared that it would concern itself with “economic, social and political difficulties ..... ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states.” The new name of the NATO game was “interventionism”; defense was now passé. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:16 Nowhere was this “new NATO” more starkly in evidence than in Yugoslavia. There, in 1999, NATO became an aggressive military force, acting explicitly in violation of its own charter. By bombing Yugoslavia, a country that neither attacked nor threatened a NATO member state, NATO both turned its back on its stated purpose and relinquished the moral high ground it had for so long enjoyed. NATO intervention in the Balkan civil wars has not even produced the promised result: UN troops will be forced to remain in the Balkans indefinitely in an ultimately futile attempt to build nations against the will of those who will live in them. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:17 Mr. Speaker, we are now called on to endorse the further expansion of a purposeless alliance and to grant $55.5 million dollars to former Soviet Bloc countries that have expressed an interest in joining it. While expanding NATO membership may be profitable for those companies that will be charged with upgrading the militaries of prospective members, this taxpayer subsidy of foreign governments and big business is not in the interest of the American people. It is past time for the Europeans to take responsibility for their own affairs, including their military affairs. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea November 7, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 95:19 Rather than offer our blessings and open our pocketbooks for the further expansion of NATO, the United States should get out of this outdated and interventionist organization. American foreign policy has been most successful when it focuses on the simple principles of friendship and trade with all countries and entangling alliances with none. NATO The War On Terrorism November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:33 The fear I have is that our policies, along with those of Britain, the UN, and NATO since World War II, inspired and have now awakened a long-forgotten sleeping giant- Islamic fundamentalism. NATO Stimulating The Economy February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:60 6. Limits exist on how extensive our foreign commitments should be. We have our military limits. It’s difficult to be everyplace at one time, especially if significant hostilities break out in more than one place. For instance, if we were to commit massive troops to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and Iran were to decide to help Iraq, and at the same time the North Koreans were to decide to make a move, our capacity to wage war in both places would be limited. Already we’re short of bombs from the current Afghanistan war. We had to quit flying sorties over our own cities due to cost, while depending on NATO planes to provide us AWACs cover over U.S. territory. In addition, our financial resources are not unlimited, and any significant change in the value of the dollar, as well as our rapidly growing deficits, could play a significant role in our ability to pay our bills. NATO The Price Of War 5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:54 We should all be aware that war is a failure of relationships between foreign powers. Since this is such a serious matter, our American tradition as established by the founders made certain that the executive is subservient to the more democratically responsive legislative branch on the issue of war. Therefore, no war is ever to be the prerogative of a President through his unconstitutional use of executive orders, nor should it ever be something where the legal authority comes from an international body such as NATO or the United Nations. Up until 50 years ago, this had been the American tradition. NATO Republic Versus Democracy 29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:67 Once it is recognized that ultimate authority comes from an international body, whether it is the United Nations, NATO, the WTO, the World Bank or the IMF, the contest becomes a matter of who holds the reins of power and is able to dictate what is perceived as the will of the people in the world. NATO Reconsider The Direction Of Our Foreign Policy 20 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 37:3 Once this war has ended we should seriously reconsider the direction of our foreign policy. The American people have seen the ineffectiveness of our reliance upon our socalled “NATO allies” and the United Nations. Hopefully this will lead us to reconsider our role in these organizations. I hope this will be the last time Americans fight under the color of U.N. resolutions. Once this war is completed I hope we will reassess our foreign entanglements, return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of non-intervention, and return to the standard of our own national security. NATO Don’t Expand NATO! March 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 25:1 Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I do so because further expansion of NATO, an outdated alliance, is not in our national interest and may well constitute a threat to our national security in the future. NATO Don’t Expand NATO! March 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 25:2 More than 50 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to defend Western Europe and the United States against attack from the communist nations of Eastern Europe. It was an alliance of sovereign nations bound together in common purpose - for mutual defense. The deterrence value of NATO helped kept the peace throughout the Cold War. In short, NATO achieved its stated mission. With the fall of the Soviet system and the accompanying disappearance of the threat of attack, in 1989-1991, NATO’s reason to exist ceased. Unfortunately, as with most bureaucracies, the end of NATO’s mission did not mean the end of NATO. Instead, heads of NATO member states gathered in 1999 desperately attempting to devise new missions for the outdated and adrift alliance. This is where NATO moved from being a defensive alliance respecting the sovereignty of its members to an offensive and interventionist organization, concerned now with “economic, social and political difficulties...ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states,” in the words of the Washington 1999 Summit. NATO Don’t Expand NATO! March 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 25:3 And we saw the fruits of this new NATO mission in the former Yugoslavia, where the US, through NATO, attacked a sovereign state that threatened neither the United States nor its own neighbors. In Yugoslavia, NATO abandoned the claim it once had to the moral high ground. The result of the illegal and immoral NATO intervention in the Balkans speaks for itself: NATO troops will occupy the Balkans for the foreseeable future. No peace has been attained, merely the cessation of hostilities and a permanent dependency on US foreign aid. NATO Don’t Expand NATO! March 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 25:4 The further expansion of NATO is in reality a cover for increased US interventionism in Europe and beyond. It will be a conduit for more unconstitutional US foreign aid and US interference in the internal politics of member nations, especially the new members from the former East. NATO Don’t Expand NATO! March 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 25:5 It will also mean more corporate welfare at home. As we know, NATO membership demands a minimum level of military spending of its member states. For NATO’s new members, the burden of significantly increased military spending when there are no longer external threats is hard to meet. Unfortunately, this is where the US government steps in, offering aid and subsidized loans to these members so they can purchase more unneeded and unnecessary military equipment. In short, it is nothing more than corporate welfare for the US military industrial complex. NATO Don’t Expand NATO! March 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 25:6 The expansion of NATO to these seven countries, we have heard, will open them up to the further expansion of US military bases, right up to the border of the former Soviet Union. Does no one worry that this continued provocation of Russia might have negative effects in the future? Is it necessary? NATO Don’t Expand NATO! March 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 25:7 Further, this legislation encourages the accession of Albania, Macedonia, and Croatia - nations that not long ago were mired in civil and regional wars. The promise of US military assistance if any of these states are attacked is obviously a foolhardy one. What will the mutual defense obligations we are entering into mean if two Balkan NATO members begin hostilities against each other (again)? NATO Don’t Expand NATO! March 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 25:8 In conclusion, we should not be wasting US tax money and taking on more military obligations expanding NATO. The alliance is a relic of the Cold War, a hold-over from another time, an anachronism. It should be disbanded, the sooner the better. NATO The Lessons of 9/11 April 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 27:39 Also contributing to this bi-partisan, foreign policy view is the notion that promoting world government is worthwhile. This involves support for the United Nations, NATO, control of the world’s resources through the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, and the Law of the Sea Treaty—all of which gain the support of those sympathetic to the poor and socialism, while too often the benefits accrue to the well-connected international corporations and bankers sympathetic to economic fascism. NATO Military Appropriations 26 May 2005    2005 Ron Paul 53:4 I also strongly object to the appropriation of U.S.taxpayer funds for, as the bill states, “the acquisition and construction of military facilities and installations (including international military headquarters) and for related expenses for the collective defense of the North Atlantic Treaty Area.” NATO is a relic of the Cold War and most certainly has no purpose some fifteen years after the fall of the Soviet Union. As we saw in the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia, having outlived its usefulness as a defensive alliance, the Organization has become an arm of aggressive militarism and interventionism. NATO deserves not a dime of American taxpayer’s money, nor should the United States remain a member. NATO The Blame Game December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:11 After we left Lebanon in the 1980s, the Arab League was instrumental in brokering an end to that country’s 15-year civil war. Its chances of helping to stop the fighting in Iraq are far better than depending on the UN, NATO, or the United States. This is a regional dispute that we stirred up but cannot settle. The Arab League needs to assume a lot more responsibility for the mess that our invasion has caused. We need to get out of the way and let them solve their own problems. NATO Foreign Policy 17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:11 Since the administration is so enamored of democracy, why not have a national referendum in Iraq to see if the people want us to leave? After we left Lebanon in the 1980s, the Arab League was instrumental in brokering an end to that country’s 15-year civil war. Its chances of helping to stop the fighting in Iraq are far better than depending on the United Nations, NATO, or the United States. NATO National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007 11 May 2006    2006 Ron Paul 35:4 This bill sends overseas hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid. For example, this bill will send almost $400 million as aid to Russia. Additionally, the bill will send $200 million to help build additional NATO bases overseas, even though the Cold War has been over for more than 15 years. NATO National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007 11 May 2006    2006 Ron Paul 35:6 The bill also opens the door for more military interventionism overseas, directing the Pentagon to report to Congress on any current or planned U.S. military activities in support of peacekeeping missions of U.N. or NATO forces in Sudan. NATO Statement on H Res 997 1 April 2008    2008 Ron Paul 16:1 Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution calling for the further expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia . NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary. When NATO struggled to define its future after the Cold War, it settled on attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia, which had neither invaded nor threatened any NATO member state. NATO Statement on H Res 997 1 April 2008    2008 Ron Paul 16:2 This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. The governments that arose from these street protests were eager to please their US sponsor and the US , in turn, turned a blind eye to the numerous political and human rights abuses that took place under the new regimes. Thus the US policy of “exporting democracy” has only succeeding in exporting more misery to the countries it has targeted. NATO Statement on H Res 997 1 April 2008    2008 Ron Paul 16:3 NATO expansion only benefits the US military industrial complex, which stands to profit from expanded arms sales to new NATO members. The “modernization” of former Soviet militaries in Ukraine and Georgia will mean tens of millions in sales to US and European military contractors. The US taxpayer will be left holding the bill, as the US government will subsidize most of the transactions. Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts as unrelated to our national interest as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. The idea that American troops might be forced to fight and die to prevent a small section of Georgia from seceding is absurd and disturbing. NATO Statement on H Res 997 1 April 2008    2008 Ron Paul 16:4 Mr. Speaker, NATO should be disbanded, not expanded. NATO Statement on H. R. 6599, Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Appropriations 1 August 2008    2008 Ron Paul 57:3 The bill will transfer more than $200 million to NATO, an organization with no purpose that should be disbanded immediately, for the construction of NATO facilities in countries where we have no business having our military in the first place. Texas Straight Talk NATO Stopping the President's New Little War 15 February 1999    Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 4 ... Cached A common practice since World War II has been the presidential commitment of our troops to battle without congressional approval, despite constitutional requirement to the contrary. Continuing in this dubious tradition, President Clinton recently announced he would be sending American troops, under NATO command, into strife-ridden Kosovo. NATO Burning bridges 29 March 1999    Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 10 ... Cached Our determination to be involved in the dangerous civil war may well prompt a stronger Greek alliance with their friends in Serbia, further splitting NATO and offending the Turks, who are naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the Albanian Muslims. NATO Playing with matches in the powder keg 05 April 1999    Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 7 ... Cached Finally, Americans awoke to the troubling news that three American soldiers were captured by Serbian forces and paraded on state television. Their capture reflects the basic problem with our foreign policy. These men were in Macedonia as NATO troops with a UN "peace-keeping" mission that ended in February. The reason they were still in the region -- and specifically near the Serbian border -- is unclear. NATO Playing with matches in the powder keg 05 April 1999    Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 8 ... Cached What is clear is that no one seems to know what to do with them; they are not -- regardless of the media's sensationalist headlines -- "prisoners of war," for there is simply no declared war. Are they prisoners of peace? Are they trespassers? Under whose legal jurisdiction do they fall? It was not lost on American troops that the Administration and NATO leaders were nonplussed by the capture. NATO Time to Change Priorities 08 November 1999    Texas Straight Talk 08 November 1999 verse 3 ... Cached Ending involvement in NATO would provide tax cut opportunity and boost health care, education NATO Time to Change Priorities 08 November 1999    Texas Straight Talk 08 November 1999 verse 5 ... Cached Unfortunately, in this week's legislative package was a bill expressing support for continued US involvement in NATO. Although simply a "sense of Congress resolution," the fact that only 133 Representatives voted "no" says so much about the problem we face today. NATO Time to Change Priorities 08 November 1999    Texas Straight Talk 08 November 1999 verse 9 ... Cached I have never been in favor of the foreign aid giveaway that is NATO. Frankly, the entanglement in European affairs so central to this organization runs completely contrary to the ideas of our nation's founders. These brave men understood that freedom cannot survive within the confines of a centralized state. How much worse then is the fate of American liberty when the arms of government are so extended that they reach, not simply to every nook and cranny of our own nation, but also to cover much of the globe as well? NATO Time to Change Priorities 08 November 1999    Texas Straight Talk 08 November 1999 verse 11 ... Cached Institutions like NATO are among the very worst of the global bureaucracies that always seem to continue to exist in search of a problem. The Soviet Union is no longer a force in the world, still NATO goes on, in search of a mission. And worse still, rather than finding problems to solve, it rather ends up creating new problems. This year, the NATO alliance conducted its first offensive war, involving itself in the internal affairs of a nation that neither attacked nor threatened any member of NATO. This, of course, violated the NATO treaty. As long as we continue to delegate matters of foreign affairs to our President and international bureaucrats worldwide, these problems will continue, and indeed worsen. NATO Overall Review 27 December 1999    Texas Straight Talk 27 December 1999 verse 10 ... Cached Still, we have a long way to go. As US participation in this year's aggressive and treaty-violating NATO war in Kosovo proves, many in positions of leadership believe it is Washington's role to control not only every nook and cranny of our own country, but also to police every street corner in the world. NATO Relations with Russia 31 January 2000    Texas Straight Talk 31 January 2000 verse 5 ... Cached Shortly after his replacement Vladimir Putin came to power, a very somber event occurred. Namely, the Kremlin granted him more power to use nuclear weapons. The first reason given for this change in policy was that the expansion of NATO had caused the Russians to see a threat drawing closer to them which had not been previously perceived. The second reason - the war in Yugoslavia had made it apparent that there is now a NATO precedent for launching an attack into a country that had not itself attacked any NATO member. NATO The Big Lie 13 March 2000    Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2000 verse 3 ... Cached NATO's Campaign of Deception in Kosovo NATO The Big Lie 13 March 2000    Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2000 verse 4 ... Cached Citizens of a free country ought to expect they won't be burdened with the kind of propaganda barrage that has come to be associated with Nazi "interior ministers" such as Josef Goebbles or Soviet "media spokesmen" like Vladimir Posner. However, the more information that comes out about the NATO war in Kosovo, the more evident is the fact that NATO made an apparent "policy decision" to lie about Serbian atrocities. It seems the western democracies "stole a page from the play books" of their former totalitarian adversaries in Germany and the Soviet Union. NATO The Big Lie 13 March 2000    Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2000 verse 5 ... Cached Writing recently in Liberty Magazine, David Ramsey Steele points out that in Kosovo we were told before the bombings that there was mass genocide occurring, the figure of "100,000 or more" was tossed around even though there was no evidence to back-up this claim. One media pundit suggested the number would be a quarter-of-a-million dead. NATO even gave a name to this "campaign of mass genocide," it was dubbed "Operation Horseshoe" but, as Steele says, the factual basis for the existence of such a genocide is spurious at best. In fact, Steele likens it to the Bryce report that reported falsified claims of genocide in Belgium in World War I. NATO The Big Lie 13 March 2000    Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2000 verse 6 ... Cached Later after the NATO bombs began dropping, the official NATO claim was dropped to around 10,000 as it became clear no mass graves or killing fields even existed. The actual number of people found in the reported mass-graves totals slightly more than 2,000, a far cry from the hundreds of thousands that we were told originally. The loss of 2,000 lives is a great tragedy, but there are more Americans than that killed domestically every year and it hardly warrants the kind of violent response we saw in Kosovo. In fact, Mr. Steele states that Kosovo was safer than any major U.S. city prior to the NATO bombing. Moreover, as Steele shows, it is hardly evident that each of those bodies was killed as a result of a campaign of genocide. NATO The Big Lie 13 March 2000    Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2000 verse 7 ... Cached Finally, Steele points out that the stories about Kosovo came not only from NATO officers but also from officials of the United Nations as well as from our own government. However, a few sources closely followed developments and seemed to get the story about right. Pablo Ordaz of El Pais magazine, Audrey Gillan of the London Review of Books and even two members of an inspection team sent to Kosovo for the purpose of investigating purported mass graves all challenged the stories of the propaganda machine. NATO The Big Lie 13 March 2000    Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2000 verse 8 ... Cached Steele also shows that while we were told of ethnic cleansing and Kosovars who were being forced from their homes, the truth of the matter is they were being forced from their homes because of the danger and destruction being caused by NATO bombing in the region. If anything, this so-called ethnic cleansing appears as a direct result of NATO action. In fact, as Steele states, now that NATO and the KLA have control of Kosovo there have been widespread reports that the people we were supposedly protecting, the Kosovars, are now engaged in a murdering spree against the Serbians. NATO The Cost of War 01 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2000 verse 8 ... Cached Germany is, of course, a NATO member, so this is hardly a report biased toward Serbia. This report showed that, on all of these issues on which the administration rails, this NATO bombing campaign was a disaster. NATO The Cost of War 01 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2000 verse 9 ... Cached As a physician I am most concerned with public health, so let's begin there. Because of repeated bombings targeted against chemical factories, NATO has turned Serbia into a sort of toxic soup. The soil is laced with toxins. Because of embargoes, the locals must largely eat locally grown food, and it is contaminated. People fear that feeding their children is akin to poisoning them. Medical personnel point out that the most certain effect of the bombings will be an increase in cancer rates, not just now but literally for generations to come. NATO The Cost of War 01 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2000 verse 12 ... Cached All of the environmental and health care legislation the administration pushes, saying they want a healthier and cleaner world, will not have even one-tenth of the impact that this NATO bombing campaign had. The true environmental and health policy legacy of the Clinton-Gore administration is the toxic spoils of Serbia. NATO The Cost of War 01 May 2000    Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2000 verse 14 ... Cached The bottom line is this, Americans continue paying a price for the NATO war on Kosovo, and I expect that the price will continue to be paid. At some point, we will almost certainly be asked to pay to clean-up Clinton's mess in Serbia with a new foreign aid package. Plus, we can expect future generations of Serbs to be bent on getting even with the westerners who they hold responsible for inflicting these long-term pains upon their nation and its populace. NATO UN War Crimes Tribunal Cannot Create Peace 09 July 2001    Texas Straight Talk 09 July 2001 verse 3 ... Cached Former Yugoslav President Milosevic appeared last week before the UN war crimes tribunal in the Netherlands, despite his insistence that the court has no authority to prosecute him. UN leaders, particularly those from NATO aligned countries, have been eager to promote his arrest and pending trial as a victory for international peace. The problem, however, is that longstanding ethnic feuds in the region (both the former Yugoslavia and northern Greece) have not been resolved. The west can congratulate itself that Milosevic has been removed from power, but it cannot guarantee that the vacuum will not be filled by another equally bloodthirsty leader. NATO UN War Crimes Tribunal Cannot Create Peace 09 July 2001    Texas Straight Talk 09 July 2001 verse 5 ... Cached We should recognize that the Yugoslav people themselves are far more ambivalent about the Milosevic trial. In fact, the CNN bureau chief in Belgrade recently characterized the local reaction as mixed, stating that most Serbs would have preferred to see Milosevic tried in a Serbian court, for crimes such as embezzlement and corruption against the Serb people. He also stated that many Serbian people see themselves as victims of NATO and UN aggression, and that most feel the tribunal in the Hague is biased against Serbs. In fact, he states that most feel the recent pledge of money from western nations for rebuilding was simply a direct pay-off for Milosevic's extradition. So while the UN loves to congratulate itself as the world's peacemaker, it rarely is viewed that way by the citizens it claims to have rescued from their own corrupt leaders. Most people understandably resent having foreign armies invade their countries to determine the outcome of disputes within their own borders. We cannot expect nations defeated by UN armies to simply accept the subsequent verdicts rendered against them in UN war crimes courts. NATO U.S. Armed Forces Should Protect American Soil 22 October 2001    Texas Straight Talk 22 October 2001 verse 6 ... Cached Examples of the ill effects of our misguided policies are not hard to find. Consider the Coast Guard, whose seemingly obvious mission is to secure America's coastlines. So why are Coast Guard vessels busy patrolling Mediterranean waters and the shoreline of Colombia? Similarly, why do we need the help of German NATO AWACS planes to patrol American skies when we have 33 of our own? Are all 33 being used overseas? NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea 12 November 2001    Texas Straight Talk 12 November 2001 verse 2 ... Cached Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea 12 November 2001    Texas Straight Talk 12 November 2001 verse 4 ... Cached Consider our participation in NATO, which commits American military forces to conflicts that serve no national interest. Congress voted last week to expand NATO and increase the number of countries we are obligated to defend, even while our own military forces are stretched far to thin around the globe. Department of Defense figures show that 250,000 American troops are deployed on 6 continents and 141 nations. When we suffered the September 11th attack on our own shores, we were forced to call on foreign nations to supply AWACS planes and defend our domestic airspace! Our military entanglements, especially NATO, have left us relying on foreigners to defend us- yet this is exactly what the globalists want. They want us to lose our sense of national sovereignty, so that America's national defense becomes a matter of international consensus. Only by removing ourselves from NATO and the UN can we reassert our fundamental right to defend our borders without the approval or participation of any international coalition. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea 12 November 2001    Texas Straight Talk 12 November 2001 verse 5 ... Cached NATO is an organization that has outlived its usefulness. It was formed as a defensive military alliance, designed to protect western Europe against the Soviet threat. With the Soviet collapse in 1991, however, NATO bureaucrats (and the governments backing them) were forced to reinvent the alliance and justify its continued existence. So the "new NATO" began to occupy itself with issues totally unrelated to defense, such as economic development, human rights, territorial disputes, religious conflicts, and ethnic rivalries. In other words, "nation building." The new game was interventionism, not defense. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea 12 November 2001    Texas Straight Talk 12 November 2001 verse 6 ... Cached The new approach manifested itself in Yugoslavia in the late 1990s. The defensive alliance became a military aggressor, in direct violation of its own charter. When NATO bombed Yugoslavia, a country that had neither attacked nor threatened a NATO member state, it turned its back on its stated purpose and lost any credibility it once had. Predictably, the NATO strikes failed to produce peace or stability in the former Yugoslavia, and UN occupation forces likely will remain in the Balkans indefinitely. NATO Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea 12 November 2001    Texas Straight Talk 12 November 2001 verse 8 ... Cached As the world's foremost military power, it always seems that our money, our weapons, and our troops play the primary role in any NATO military action. It's a one-way street, however, as our NATO partners are not so enthusiastic about defending us. Some NATO states have refused outright to participate in our campaign in Afghanistan, while presumably reliable allies like France and Germany have expressed serious doubts. Only England, with whom we share a very strong kinship regardless of NATO, fully supports our actions. It's time for America to recognize that the interests NATO serves are not our own. NATO What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean? 16 December 2002    Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 3 ... Cached With this goal of regime change in mind, the administration recently announced plans to spend nearly $100 million training an Iraqi militia force to help overthrow Hussein. A NATO airbase in southern Hungary will be used for military training. The problem, however, will be choosing individuals from at least five different factions vying for power in Iraq, including the fundamentalist Kurds in the north. Given the religious, ethnic, and social complexities that make up the Middle East, do we really believe that somehow we can choose the "good guys" who deserve to rule Iraq? NATO The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq 09 June 2003    Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 9 ... Cached This policy threatens the long-term health not just of our economy but domestic spending on items like education and social security. While some of us in Congress raised these concerns prior to the beginning of the war with Iraq, our questions went unanswered. Instead of focusing on how this commitment would almost certainly drain our resources for years to come, the policy debate wrongly focused almost exclusively on whether we would have the “moral support” of our “allies” and international organizations such as NATO and the UN. NATO The 9-11 Commission Charade 23 August 2004    Texas Straight Talk 23 August 2004 verse 6 ... Cached Our nation will be safer only when government does less, not more. Rather than asking ourselves what Congress or the president should be doing about terrorism, we ought to ask what government should stop doing. It should stop spending trillions of dollars on unconstitutional programs that detract from basic government functions like national defense and border security. It should stop meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations, but instead demonstrate by example the superiority of freedom, capitalism, and an open society. It should stop engaging in nation-building, and stop trying to create democratic societies through military force. It should stop militarizing future enemies, as we did by supplying money and weapons to characters like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It should stop entangling the American people in unholy alliances like the UN and NATO, and pledge that our armed forces will never serve under foreign command. It should stop committing American troops to useless, expensive, and troublesome assignments overseas, and instead commit the Department of Defense to actually defending America. It should stop interfering with the 2nd amendment rights of private citizens and businesses seeking to defend themselves. NATO Interventionism? Isolationism? Actually, Both. 21 October 2007    Texas Straight Talk 21 October 2007 verse 5 ... Cached Some have questioned these votes, arguing that they are meaningless statements of opinion. However, I have always been more skeptical, and careful, about voting for these measures. Last week’s reaction by Turkey , a long term ally and NATO member, shows that Congress should be a lot more restrained in sticking our government’s nose into the affairs of other nations. Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance. Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see. Home Page    Contents    Concordance   E-mail list.