I strongly oppose this ill-conceived, counterproductive legislation. This represents exactly the kind of unconstitutional interventionism the Founding Fathers warned us about. It is arrogant and dangerous for us to believe that we can go around the world inserting ourselves into civil wars that have nothing to do with us without having to face the unintended consequences that always arise. Our steadily-increasing involvement in the civil war in Sudan may well delay the resolution of the conflict that appears to be proceeding without our involvement. Just today [Nov. 19], in talks with the UN, the two sides pledged to end the fighting.
The fact is we do not know and cannot understand the complexities of the civil war in Sudan, which has lasted for 39 of that country’s 48 years of existence. Supporters of our intervention in Sudan argue that this is a clear-cut case of Sudan’s Christian minority being oppressed and massacred by the Arab majority in the Darfur region. It is interesting that the CIA’s World Factbook states that Sudan’s Christians, who make up 5 percent of the population, are concentrated in the south of the country. Darfur is a region in the mid-western part of Sudan. So I wonder about this very simplistic characterization of the conflict.
It seems as if this has been all reduced to a few slogans, tossed around without much thought or care about real meaning or implication. We unfortunately see this often with calls for intervention. One thing we do know, however, is that Sudan is floating on a sea of oil. Why does it always seem that when we hear urgent clamor for the United States to intervene, oil or some other valuable commodity just happens to be present? I find it interesting that so much attention is being paid to oil-rich Sudan while right next door in Congo the death toll from its civil war is estimated to be 2 to 3 million – several times the estimated toll in Sudan.
At a time when we have just raised the debt ceiling to allow more massive debt accumulation, this legislation will unconstitutionally commit the United States to ship some 300 million taxpayer dollars to Sudan. It will also freeze the U.S. assets of certain Sudanese until the government of Sudan pursues peace in a time-frame and manner that the U.S. determines.
Inserting ourselves into this civil war in Sudan will do little to solve the crisis. In fact, the promise of U.S. support for one side in the struggle may discourage the progress that has been made recently. What incentive is there to seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict when the U.S. government promises massive assistance to one side? I strongly urge my colleagues to rethink our current dangerous course toward further intervention in Sudan. We may end up hurting most those we are intending to help.
Read more by Ron Paul
- What the FBI/FISA Memo Really Tells Us About Our Government – February 5th, 2018
- Who to Believe on Washington’s Korea Policy, Tillerson or Trump? – December 18th, 2017
- Is North Korea Really a ‘State Sponsor of Terrorism’? – November 27th, 2017
- Why Are We Helping Saudi Arabia Destroy Yemen? – November 20th, 2017
- Neocons Hijack Trump’s Syria Policy – October 30th, 2017