Three years ago on spring break, I sat in the U.S. Senate viewing gallery as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky argued why Montenegro should not be admitted into the United Nations. The Senate floor was half empty, and no one seemed to be taking interest in his speech. Despite his efforts, Montenegro was admitted by a vote of 98-2. In a country where politics is increasingly becoming red versus blue, how was the vote such a landslide? How could Senators be so sure?
I was taken aback by how little the Senators cared about the decision they were making, merely popping their heads in through the chamber doors to cast their vote. For sake of discussion, I am not going to take a stance on the issue, but rather just present both sides and let you, the reader, decide.
The first side I will examine is that the U.S. should not admit countries to global alliances without considering the consequences of doing so. Senator Paul cited two main reasons to not admit Montenegro in his speech: the economic and military consequences, as they relate to what the U.S. would gain from the alliance. Paul stated that a developing country such as Montenegro could do little to help the U.S. economically or militarily, while the U.S. would be expected to do this regardless. Maybe this is selfish thinking, or maybe he has a point. How far should the U.S. expand its aid for nothing in return? Is it this country’s civic responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves, or are we unnecessarily risking the lives of soldiers for a country that cannot help us in a time of an attack? He said in his speech, and these words still stuck with me to this day, “Should the U.S. fight other countries’ wars?” Senator Paul believes that it’s not worth the consequence of losing a mother or father’s sons and daughters. The same could be said for economic aid. Senator Paul argued that our country has enough problems that require financial assistance at home, and billions of dollars should not be spent in some other country where we would get nothing but a thumbs-up and a nice “thank you” for assisting.
On the other hand, many believe that the U.S. has a duty to help developing nations such as Montenegro. Each and every one of us has won the lottery by being born here. Whether you love or hate this country, we are extremely privileged to be here. With that being said, many believe that it is our duty to help foreign nations in need, whether economically, or whether militarily. A country that is under persecution from a ruler or another foreign body deserves the same chance at freedom as us. Just as the French played a crucial role in the freedom of Americans during the Revolutionary War, we too could play a similar role for a developing country. Imagine if the French, a global superpower at the time, did not help the U.S. Would we be the country that we are today? Would we even be a country at all? This attitude can be applied across the globe, but rather this time, we are the ones pushing these nations to freedom and prosperity. Furthermore, along similar lines, our country spends billions of dollars on our defense budget that could potentially be allocated to other developing countries that need this assistance to survive. U.S. aid could be the difference between life and death for thousands of citizens, and it appears selfish to not economically contribute to an ally who needs it the most.
The reason I chose to not argue on one side of this issue is because, quite frankly, I cannot decide which side I am in agreement with. I see Senator Paul’s argument about saving the lives of American soldiers and saving dollars for U.S. programs that need it, but at the same time I feel we have a duty to help other countries across the world. I really like my analogy about the French in the revolutionary war: would you and I even be here today without their help? We have the power to help in a similar manner. Regardless of what you believe, I believe this was a great experience to discuss and share with you all. Thank you for reading.
Senator Rand Paul’s argument for not supporting Montenegro and focus on helping Americans is a prime example of the Republican Party’s inherent contradiction. They claim to stay out of global affairs in the interest to better the lives of Americans. But they fail to do either frankly. If they actually cared about Americans, they would support robust social safety nets like universal healthcare, universal income, and many other public services. Instead, they constantly cut taxes, cutting our public education budget while pumping the military-industrial complex full of billions of dollars. When you mentioned that Rand Paul said that “Should the U.S. fight other countries’ wars?”, I agree that we shouldn’t fight in wars at all, but the Republican Party has a record of going back on this ideal when they see that there is money to made through war. The destruction found through out the Middle East can be directly traced to American intervention in the region in the pursuit of oil. To this day, America is supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons used to bomb schools and hospitals in Yemen. Overall, what Senator Rand Paul makes sense and is something I do believe in, but the issue is that he and others in the Republican Party are bad actors and don’t pull through on their promises. As to the other side’s point that we should help the citizens of other countries to find freedom, I completely agree. That is how it should be in practice, but throughout history, when we fight for people’s freedom in their country, it has unforeseen negative impacts. For example, when the French supported the American rebels in the Revolutionary War, they had no idea that the colonies they were supporting would evolve into a global empire. Even more recently, when the U.S. killed Saddham Hussein in the name of freedom, they never expected a right-wing paramilitary to take control of the region and wreak terror all over the world. While I do believe it is the duty of powerful nations to help those in developing countries, military action is definitely not the way to do it.
Jake- I appreciate how you impartially examine both sides of this argument, and I agree that how much foreign aid the US lends is a difficult topic to make a decision on. I think what’s also important to consider is how beneficial to other countries US aid really is. How much help can we provide to other countries when people are dying without access to healthcare in our own country, or when there are over half a million homeless people here that aren’t receiving any aid? There are also undeniable shortcomings in American foreign policy and actions, not to mention that we know very little about what the military actually does in other countries as recently there have been numerous reports on females being illegally detained and sexually assaulted by US military personnel. I think there is a really widespread view of American exceptionalism and it creates the belief that US troops are indeed helping in other countries when really we might be hurting more than helping. The US military also has an overwhelming global presence with troops stationed in more than 150 countries around the world, and about 160,000 troops are outside of the US, which is not exactly helping any revolutionaries in wars to bring freedom to their country like the French involvement in the US revolutionary war. Also consider that we neglected our treaty with France to help in their revolutionary war as they helped in ours- so what does that say about historical American political ethics?