The Basics of Constitutional Foreign Policy - Part 2
Ron Paul is universally mocked for his "extreme" views on foreign policy. This series of articles will introduce you to the principles that guide Ron Paul's foreign policy decisions. by Jake Morphonios
(libertarian)
Friday, January 6, 2012
In its effort to contain the spread of communism during the Cold War, the US justified certain foreign policies as necessary for the good of the country. Among these policies were efforts to rebuild Europe, rearm Germany and Japan, and form alliances with European nations. Constitutional foreign policy is aimed at the goal of preserving our national independence. With this understanding, it is possible to judge the legitimacy of foreign policies. To illustrate, we will analyze one of these post-WWII policies: the US entry into NATO.
After World War II, it was clear that the growing strength of the Soviet Union presented potential geo-political challenges to war-torn Europe. At the close of the war in 1945 the USSR moved to fortify its armies and consolidate itself under a system of communism. With most of the major European powers laboring in a state of exhaustive recovery, they knew they were in a precarious position. The US implemented the 1948 Marshall Plan to help the Europeans rebuild infrastructure, but the rising threat of the Soviet Empire cast a shadow over the continent.
To bolster the confidence of the pro-US countries in Europe, the United States signed the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. The European position was that the military might of the Americans and Canadians was necessary to offset the power of the Soviet Union. The original signers of the Treaty became known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), whose membership included Denmark, Canada, Belgium, France, Iceland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, Portugal and the United States.
The alliance of these countries, headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, formed a pact to insure the implementation of the North Atlantic Treaty. A stated goal of NATO, according to its first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, was to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” [1]
A key tenet of the Treaty stipulated that if the Soviets attacked any member of the alliance, the US and Canada would join military forces with Europe to repel them. In short, an attack on one NATO nation would be considered an act of war on all NATO members collectively. This bound the member states into a war compact should there be a military strike anywhere in Europe or North America. It would only take a spark from the Soviets to set the world ablaze in another world war.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the crumbling of the Iron Curtain, the threat of the USSR dissipated. With the Soviet Union no longer presenting any significant threat to its neighbors, NATO was no longer necessary. However, the alliance was not dissolved.
Instead, NATO essentially became the military arm of the United Nations Security Council. It launched a series of military operations in Bosnia and Yugoslavia to enforce resolutions passed by the United Nations. The Balkan interventions spanned nearly a decade. US troops were placed under the command of foreign leaders to fulfill missions that had nothing whatsoever to do with the defense or national security interests of the United States.
Complicating matters, NATO admitted to its membership several nations in Eastern Europe that had formerly comprised the Warsaw Pact with the Soviet Union. By expanding the number of member states while continuing to honor the war alliances of the pact, the odds of the US being pulled into additional foreign conflicts increased significantly.
It will be remembered that the US was pulled into Vietnam primarily out of its NATO alliance with France. The Vietnamese revolted against the imperial power of France in its effort to gain independence. When France was unable to maintain control of its vassal state, it appealed to NATO for help. The resulting intervention by the US yielded tens of thousands of unjustified American deaths.
In 2011, a populist uprising in Libya led to hostilities between Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and masses of protesters. The United Nations Security Council intervened in the conflict by passing a resolution calling for a ceasefire. Resolution 1973 [2] also authorized military action. Again, NATO member nations were expected to provide the military might to enforce the will of the United Nations. In a move that was widely condemned as unconstitutional, President Barack Obama committed US troops to the NATO operation. In response to Congressional criticism, President Obama infamously vowed the operation would last “days, not weeks”. But the military operation extended more than seven months.
Having briefly reviewed the history of the US participation in NATO, we can now consider whether these particular foreign policies were constitutionally sound methods of containing the spread of communism in defense of our national sovereignty.
It must first be understood that, at a time when America was still recovering from the economic devastation of the Great Depression, the burden of responsibility for rebuilding the infrastructure of Europe was egregious. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the government to levy taxes to erect thousands of European buildings or repair their museums. This policy did nothing to protect the United States.
Second, though the US had just finished wars with Germany and Japan, policy dictated that American weapons be gifted or sold to these countries so that they could protect themselves from potential encroachments by the communists. Again, this policy had no direct impact on the security of the United States.
Lastly, the United States’ entry into NATO committed the nation to waging war upon other countries even if those European conflicts presented no threat to our own Republic. These policies of entangling alliances and undeclared wars waged at the behest of NATO and the United Nations are unconstitutional and immoral. Such interventions lead to unforseen consequences. Reprisals resulting from unsound foreign policies are sometimes called "blowback."
Sources:
Reynolds, the Origins of the Cold War in Europe. International Perspectives, p. 13.
Jake Morphonios has worked as a political consultant and campaign strategist for over two decades and is the author of "Organizing a Grassroots Political Machine", used in the Steve Forbes 2000 Presidential campaign.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jake Morphonios only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jake Morphonios is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
