Chapter 3. 1981

The stage is often set for foreign intervention in so-called “non-binding” resolutions. Here the United States is making a dangerous commitment to Lebanon.

June 17, 1981
LEBANON: ANOTHER COMMITMENT?
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 159 was passed almost unanimously yesterday, and it should have been.

Some parts of the resolution urge peace in the Middle East and praise the character of Philip Habib. I, of course, have no problem with these.

But toward the end of the resolution are some words that require a full debate, not a quick sense-of-Congress resolution brought up under unanimous consent, all too reminiscent of previous resolutions that have meant trouble.

House Resolution 159 states:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives strongly supports diplomatic efforts to resolve the current crisis in Lebanon, and encourages the president to pursue, a comprehensive and coordinated policy in Lebanon, including the development of an effective cease-fire, resolution of the issue of Syrian missiles, and promotion of the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Lebanon.

Since when have the people of the United States become the guarantor of Lebanon? Such a promise could require the use of troops, as well as billions of tax dollars.

Are we to solve the issue of Syrian missiles by force? Or use our troops to patrol a cease-fire?

This overbroad resolution, sponsored by the leadership of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has within it the seeds of possible trouble for the United States. Congress should not have considered it in such a fashion, with Members hardly even having time to read it.

We need less meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, not more.

But this resolution could be used to justify who-knows-what use of dollars and lives in a future conflict or peacekeeping operation.

House Resolution 159 is a bad resolution, brought up without sufficient time to study its implications. It is not in our country’s interests. It should not have been passed.

October 14, 1981
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the sale of the AWACS airplanes to Saudi Arabia. I happen to think that this particular sale is probably one of the least objectionable sales that we have had, because so often we give our weapons away and that is very, very expensive. So in comparison, I think this is certainly less objectionable.

But what I complain about and what I object to, and I think many Americans agree, it that I think it is time that we ought to quit being the supplier of weapons for everybody in the world. We are also not only providing AWACS for Saudi Arabia today, we are providing 1,177 Sidewinder missiles for the planes that Saudi Arabia has already purchased from us. I believe that it is very possible that those missiles will be used against American-built airplanes already in some other country, just as I believe there is a very great potential that the AWACS airplanes will be shot down in this decade by American-built airplanes. It is for this reason that I object, and I believe that it should be a consistent policy for the security of this country that we provide security for this country and not try to be the policeman of the world, providing weapons for everybody.

For instance, in these last several decades, we helped build the trucks that the Russians used to invade Afghanistan. And our Corps of Engineers built the highway in Afghanistan that they marched in on. We give weapons to Greece, we give weapons to Turkey, and then they get together and fight. Now we are proposing we give weapons to Pakistan, yet we give aid to India. They are likely to end up in battle, since they are sworn enemies.

So I would say it is time that we looked at the policy in general of whether or not we are to be the supplier of weapons and the protector and the policeman of the world. Some suggest that the main reason is to protect the supplies of oil. Yet when you look at the statistics, we find out that only 5 percent of all our total energy needs come through the Straits of Hormuz. Even though Japan depends 100 percent on imports, and Europe nearly that much, their responsibility in securing the Mid-East is negligible. Why is it that the American taxpayer and the American soldier must assume this great burden and assume this great risk? The continuation of a policy of intervention throughout the world will one day, once again, drag America into another unnecessary war.

Mr. Chairman, while I find a sale of this nature more agreeable than an outright gift to the Saudi Arabian government, I think it is important to point out that this is not a clean sale. For example, the administration reports that the AWACS will be manned and operated by American servicemen. That means that there will be further and permanent American involvement in the Middle East. Some have sought to reassure Members of Congress by saying that the AWACS would remain under American control. I find this far from reassuring. Rather, it would more likely lead to an escalation of American involvement in any altercation in the Middle East. By permanently putting American soldiers there, we are making a commitment, whether explicit or not, that we may soon regret. So while this is a sale and not an outright gift, it is not a clean sale. That is my first reason for supporting this resolution of disapproval.

Second, there is the very real danger of this sophisticated technology falling into the hands of the enemy in the Middle East. Everyone knows what a volatile situation exists there, especially following the recent assassination of President Sadat of Egypt. We supplied the Shah of Iran with the latest in our weapons in order to shore up his government, but it fell anyway, and those sophisticated weapons and radar installations were possessed by the Khomeini and, if reports are true, shared with some Socialist and Communist governments. Dare we risk the same thing with the AWACS? The Soviet Union has nothing comparable. Are we not making a fundamental mistake in thinking that it is weapons that shore up a government? Did we not learn from the example in Iran that it is not weapons but ideas?

Again, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the American people are sick and tired of supplying, either deliberately or through accident, both sides in the conflicts since World War II. We saw this happen in Vietnam. We were shipping both wheat and weapons to the Soviet Union, who, in turn, shipped them to North Vietnam, at the same time that we were shipping wheat and weapons to South Vietnam. We have seen this happen in the border wars between India and Pakistan. We have seen it happen in the wars between Israel and her neighbors. Are we about to see it happen again in the Middle East?

Of course, the reason given for this policy is that we must maintain a balance of power. But cannot that be done at a much lower level of power by not supplying either side with the sinews of war, rather than both sides? Cannot power be balanced at a much lower level—and without U.S. involvement—simply by our staying of the situation?

How much of a commitment are we making in this sale? Are we going to be building airbases for the AWACS? I believe that we will be maintaining them and furnishing replacement parts. How far does this commitment stretch into the future? Are we offering a 90-day warranty or a 90-year warranty?

For all these reasons, I believe that it is in the best interest of the American people to disapprove this sale of advanced technology and weapons to the Saudi government. I urge my colleagues to do so.