The Strength of Non-Interventionism as a Foreign Policy

It was exciting over the weekend to hear about the launch of Ron Paul’s Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Recalling one of the infamous debates during the last election cycle, where he was booed after suggesting the “Golden Rule” be applied to foreign policy, it’s obvious that Paul’s detractors just couldn’t get with that part of his platform. Why is that?

There’s always been a gross misunderstanding on the part of those who claim that Dr. Paul’s foreign policy is just one of “minding our own business.” In reality, he has always supported open diplomacy and communication and trade with other nations. That’s the hallmark of non-interventionism. Even Reagan did that very thing with the Soviet Union; their empire fell because of internal economic struggles and an open relationship with Gorbachev. This – not provocation or pre-emptive attacks – is what brought about “glasnost” and “perestroika” and finally started the change of the Soviet Union’s policies right before its fall.

But what about all these hellish regimes like the Nazis?

In reality, if the U.S. had stuck with non-interventionism even as far back as World War I, there wouldn’t have been a negotiated treaty in 1917, no Versailles Treaty for Germany to backlash against, and probably no Nazism as a response to it – in other words, no World War II. There probably wouldn’t have been a successful Communist movement in 1917 either.

Ultimately, is a North Korea or Iran with a single nuclear weapon really more dangerous than the Soviet Union was with 27,000 nuclear weapons? What if the U.S. had attacked the Soviets just to “prevent” a conflict? How would that have worked out?

Photo: Gary Cowles

Photo: Gary Cowles