AN interesting essay in support of a national policy of thoughtful non-interventionism has recently appeared written by Representative Ron Paul. I include an excerpt of it. The balance can be found here. Rep. Paul is the author of the recently published "An American Policy of Freedom".

The Original American Foreign Policy

by Rep. Ron Paul
"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." – George Washington

I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.

But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?

   
Get Ron Paul's new book, hot off the press!
   
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."

Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

---

Policy, of course, is best defined by understanding purposes. If the United States once had a national purpose, beyond its own economic expansion, it has been badly obscured by the many clouds of conflict confusion generated over the last few decades, from Somalia to Kabul and Seoul. I would be interested to hear what people think. IS there such a thing as "purpose" for a group as large and motley as the United States? If so, what policies would best serve that purpose in defining how the nation should deal with other nations and individuals?

A