Speech on the North Atlantic Treaty, by Sen. Robert A. Taft (R-OH)
Senator Robert Taft was son of President/Chief Justice of the United States William Howard Taft. He was Known as “Mr. Republican,” and was leader of the post-WWI and WWII non-interventionist populist foreign and domestic policy opposition to FDR’s New Deal and Harry Truman’s Fair Deal. They were consistently non-interventionist and opposed entering World War II, a position exemplified by the America First Committee. Later, most opposed U.S. entry into NATO and intervention in the Korean War. In addition to being staunch opponents of war and militarism, the Old Right populists of the postwar period had a rugged and near-libertarian honesty in domestic affairs as well.
He was mentor and role model for Congressman Ron Paul.
In his book, A Foreign Policy for Americans, Taft stated that “Fundamentally, I believe the ultimate purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the United States. The American Revolution was fought to establish a nation ‘conceived in liberty.’ That liberty has been defended in many wars since that day. That liberty has enabled our people to increase steadily their material welfare and their spiritual freedom.”
A Foreign Policy for Americans, by Robert Tafthttps://cdn.mises.org/A%20Foreign%20Policy%20for%20Americans_2.pdf
Ron Paul remains our defender of the republic, a statesman of unblemished character and principled judgment. The twelve-term congressman has for decades courageously spoken out for an American foreign policy based upon a strong national defense of the essential core principles of liberty and justice as established by the Framers, a defense of the territorial integrity of the United States and its national borders.
Both Taft and Paul knew that Peace, prudential diplomacy, free international trade and commerce, and the free exchange of ideas are the key elements to a constitutional foreign policy.
Ron Paul remains first and foremost a realist. America is financially bankrupt due to decades of reckless, irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies pursued by the Fed, the Congress, and the Executive branch of the state. Paul’s measured conservative program of strategic disengagement from the unconstitutional pre-emptive wars of the past two decades, coupled with a serious analytical reassessment of the imperial over-reach of 900 military bases in 130 nations, is the only wise course dictated by this unsustainable debt situation.
The American people know the bitter tragedy of war. They are tired of being lied to about these futile conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iran and Syria. It is their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, who were seriously maimed, irreparably disabled, and needlessly killed, never to return physically or psychologically intact as they were when they marched off to these egregious follies.
A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship, by Ron Paul https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_-138BbPZOggC/mode/1up?view=theater&ui=embed&wrapper=false
Ron Paul remains the most decisive, authoritative, and substantive consistent voice on the crucial national security issues facing our nation.
Here are Senator Robert Taft’s prescient remarks concerning why he opposed NATO:
…Why did I vote against the Atlantic Pact? I wanted to vote for it-at least I wanted to vote to let Russia know that if she attacked western Europe, the United States would be in the war. I believe that would be a deterrent to war… We issued just this warning in the Monroe Doctrine, and though we were a much less powerful nation, it prevented aggression against Central and South America. That was only a President’s message to Congress, and there were no treaty obligations, and no arms for other nations. But it was one of the most effective peace measures in the history of the world. I would favor a Monroe Doctrine for western Europe.
But the Atlantic Pact goes much further. It obligates us to go to war if at any time during the next 20 years anyone makes an armed attack on any of the 12 nations. Under the Monroe Doctrine we could change our policy at any time. We could judge whether perhaps one of the countries had given cause for the attack. Only Congress could declare a war in pursuance of the doctrine. Under the new pact the President can take us into war without Congress. But, above all the treaty is a part of a much larger program by which we arm all these nations against Russia… A joint military program has already been made… It thus becomes an offensive and defensive military alliance against Russia. I believe our foreign policy should be aimed primarily at security and peace, and I believe such an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace. A third world war would be the greatest tragedy the world has ever suffered. Even if we won the war, we this time would probably suffer tremendous destruction, our economic system would be crippled, and we would lose our liberties and free system just as the Second World War destroyed the free systems of Europe. It might easily destroy civilization on this earth…
There is another consideration. If we undertake to arm all the nations around Russia from Norway on the north to Turkey on the south, and Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway and. Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint it may not seem unreasonable. They may well decide that if war is the certain result, that war might better occur now rather than after the arming of Europe is completed…
How would we feel if Russia undertook to arm a country on our border; Mexico, for instance?
Furthermore, can we afford this new project of foreign assistance? I think I am as much against Communist aggression as anyone, both at home and abroad; certainly more than a State Department which has let the Communists overrun all of China… But we can’t let them scare us into bankruptcy and the surrender of all liberty, or let them determine our foreign policies. We are already spending $15,000,000,000 on our armed forces and have the most powerful Air Force in the world and the only atomic bomb. That, and our determination to go to war if Europe is attacked, ought to be sufficient to deter an attack by armed force.
We are spending $7,000,000,000 a year on economic aid to build up those countries to a condition of prosperity where communism cannot make internal progress. Shall we start another project whose cost is incalculable, at the very time when we have a deficit of 1,800,000,000 dollars and a prospective deficit of three to five billion? The one essential defense against communism is to keep this country financially and economically sound. If the President is unwilling to recommend more taxes for fear of creating a depression, then we must have reached the limit of our taxpaying ability and we ought not to start a new and unnecessary building project.. .
But, finally, I believe there is only one real hope of peace in the world to come-an association of nations binding itself to abide by a law governing nations and administered by a court of legal justice. Such a judicial finding must not be subject to veto by any nation and there must be an international force to enforce the court’s decree. Such a plan can only succeed if the public opinion of the world is educated to insist on the enforcement of justice.
The United Nations looks in this direction but it can be improved and should be. This pact might have set up such a system between the nations of western Europe. It unfortunately did not do so. We should undertake to make it a model to which the United Nations may later conform. But as set up, it is a step backward-a military alliance of the old type where we have to come to each others’ assistance no matter who is to blame, and with ourselves the judges of the law.
2:02 am on March 1, 2025
The
Best of Charles Burris
[…]
