On foreign policy, the claim that Barr is a Ron Paul former Republican can be seen to immediately disintegrate. Ron Paul campaigned bravely and consistently for a foreign policy of non-intervention, which he called the foreign policy of our founders. This has a clear, non-nuanced meaning - the US government should not interfere in the affairs of foreign nations, should not station troops in foreign lands, and should not attempt to influence foreign politics through any means, whether foreign aid or warfare.
Barr does not hold a position remotely resembling this bold vision for America. Let's see what Barr desires to waste our lives and treasure on:
- "The entire South American continent has long chafed under the benign neglect of one U.S. administration after another."
- "While Washington's current national security worldview remains focused like a laser beam on Iraq and Afghanistan, fires smolder and burn elsewhere. Shifting at least a portion of that concern and those resources to South America, and especially to the Andean region that currently is near the boiling point, is critical to our security. " http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=931
What Barr so arrogantely refers to as "benign neglect" is precisely the foreign policy our founders urged us to follow, and which Ron Paul campaigned for. If it is true that the entire continent has "chafed" under this policy, then those who are so irritated might do well to consult with the Afganis, the Iraqis, the Vietnamese, the Koreans, and the citizens of the 150 other countries in which the United States presently has troops. They will soon learn what a blessing this neglect is. The phrase benign neglect, by the way, is commonly used in reference to the British policy towards its American colonies. It was the end of this neglect which inspired the colonies to rise up in rebellion - does Barr believe that our founders instead should have chafed under the neglect and cried out for more intervention? Further, does Barr really believe that imperial terminology is appropriate towards foreign nations? Apparently, he does.
- "Recognizing Colombia's essential role in our country's campaign against illicit trafficking in cocaine, the Bush administration and prior Congresses have responded to Mr. Uribe's efforts by funding "Plan Colombia" to the tune over its seven-year lifespan of more than $5.0 billion. While critics interpret the fact that Colombian-processed cocaine stills arrives in our country as evidence Plan Colombia should be defunded or dramatically reduced, in reality this support for Colombia's efforts will continue as an essential component of our anti-drug program. If Congress truly wants the plan work better, the solution would be not to dry up funding but to provide more flexibility for its implementation."
- "To the west, Ecuador's leaders, too, are taking steps against U.S. interests, such as declaring that the agreement allowing American anti-drug and intelligence-gathering planes to operate out of the airbase at Manta will not be renewed when it expires in 2009. Colombia's southwestern neighbor -- Peru -- also is watching closely how well President Uribe fares in convincing the Congress to provide meaningful economic and military assistance at this juncture."
- "A Uribe administration strengthened by renewed American anti-drug assistance and a Free Trade Agreement -- the other key component of U.S.-Colombian shared interests sought by Mr. Uribe -- will not likely result in a complete turnaround of regional anti-American actions and sentiment. But it definitely would stanch the bleeding. These days that would constitute a major victory."
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/articles/48/no-way-to-treat-a-friend/
Barr, known in Congress as a staunch drug warrior, clearly has not reformed much since those years. Cocaine trafficking is only illicit because of laws prohibiting the drug, formerly used as a common cough suppressent and headache remedy. Those are laws that libertarians should be repealed, not strengthened. Yet Barr, who wishes to run as the Libertarian candidate, believes that it is an appropriate use of our tax dollars to pay Columbia billions of dollars to enforce drug laws. Meanwhile, Barr believes that it is self-evidently horrific that Ecuador will not permit American spies and drug police to operate out of its airbases. This is only true on the basic assumption that the American government owns the world, has the right to spy on citizens of foreign countries and to enforce laws abroad, and has some legitimate claim to the property of other countries. At least Barr has the sense to support free trade, apparently holding to a twist on Mises' observation regarding borders: Barr thinks that bullets and goods should both cross borders.
- "Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran."
- "Should Washington simply sit back and leave Iran alone — free to support terrorist groups and regimes in other countries, including Iraq, and to develop a nuclear capability? Of course not. Even considering that our lengthy and continuing occupation of Iraq has greatly strengthened Ahmadinejad, the United States has a clear and legitimate stake in what happens in Iran and with regard to matters in which that regime is involved elsewhere." http://www.bobbarr2008.com/articles/28/we-rush-to-war-in-iran-at-our-own-peril/
On Iran, Barr does oppose a rush to war - but believes it would be foolish to rule out the possibility of attacking Iran. Iran's offenses, the reader will recall, include performing nuclear experiments permitted under every treaty it has signed, and supposedly intervening in the internal affairs of its neighbor Iraq. Of course, there is another nation intervening in those affairs: the United States, which invaded the country, arrested and executed its leader, and installed a puppet government. The sheer hypocrisy of American harping on supposed Iranian offenses is almost too much to bear. The libertarian can only respond to this absurdity with the sensible policy solution - stop intervening in foreign affairs. Barr, though, favors sanctions on Iran - without explaining just what Iran has done to deserve sanctions, other than having the wrong kind of theocracy. Yet again, we must recall Mises' warning - "When goods cannot cross borders, bullets will." Iran might be supporting terrorist groups - for which the United States acts as primary recruiter. He is concerned that Iran might support bad regimes in other countries. It seems that some North American country propped up the Shah of Iran for years, supported Saddam Hussein, and armed the Taliban to fight hte Russians. Again, that this is acceptable but Iran's interference in nearby affairs only makes sense on the assumption, which Barr apparently holds, that the US owns the world. Incredibly, he acknowledges that past intervention has produced exactly the opposite of the hoped-for results, and in the next breath calls for yet more intervention.
- His [John Bolton's] willingness, perhaps even his relish, to remind those at the United Nations that the United States is a free and sovereign nation and will not sit idly by as the United Nations attempts to interfere with or diminish our sovereignty or obstruct our nation's security goals is legendary.http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=805
This was written in praise of John Bolton when the neocon stepped down as US Ambassador to the UN. Seemingly forgotten is the importance of other nations' sovereignty and their own security goals - goals like, say, not being bombed by the United States.