Pat Buchanan in A Republic, Not an Empire


On Foreign Policy: East Europe: Focus on democracy instead of expanding NATO

That democracy is putting down roots in Eastern Europe is welcome news. But democracy was not introduced by NATO; it sprang up before NATO membership was at issue. The nation America most needs to lock onto a democratic path is Russia. Yet, by making allies of countries once part of its empire, we treat Russia as the Allies treated Germany at Versailles, rubbing its nose in its defeat... virtually designating Russia a permanent enemy. To capture a pawn we are risking a queen.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p. 14 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Base alliances on their view of US; not on democracy status

The US posture toward other nations should be based not on their internal arrangements but on their stance toward us. Just as policies and regimes pass, so, too, should alliances be temporary and transient. Whether a nation is democratic should be of less concern to us than how it views America. The form of government nations adopt is their own business. The rise of autocrats does not threaten us if we decline to make the internal affairs of other nations our central concern.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p. 14-15 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Russia: Stop humiliation now to avoid a 21st century war

If rising resentment in Russia leads to Yeltsin’s replacement with an anti-American nationalist, full blame must rest squarely with a haughty US elite that has done its best to humiliate Russia. Why are we doing this? Between the vital interests of our two nations, there is no conflict. But these proud people retain thousands of nuclear weapons. A friendly Russia is far more critical to US security than any alliance with Warsaw or Prague. If the US has one overriding national security interest in the new century, it is to avoid collisions with great nuclear powers like Russia. By moving NATO onto Russia’s front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation. Europe’s sick man of today is going to get well. When that day comes, America will face a hellish dilemma: risk confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia determined to recreate its old sphere of influence, or renege on solemn commitments an see NATO collapse.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p. 18 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Poland: NATO membership implies nuclear defense

Are we willing to use nuclear weapons to defend Eastern Europe-for that is what NATO membership means. Poland has never been a vital US interest. To assert that Poland’s democracy and frontiers are now matters over which we will fight a nuclear war is a reckless commitment. NATO is not a social club. It is a military alliance, [stating] “an armed attack on one NATO nation is to be considered an armed attack on all.” Should Russian troops skirmish with Polish troops, America could be at war.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p. 18-21 Oct 9, 1999

On Homeland Security: US hegemony will backfire to create a less secure world

Our hegemonists our confident that America’s power is too great for any to resist. History teaches otherwise. Every attempt to establish hegemony incites resentment and hostility. Weaker nations instinctively seek security in each other, creating the very combinations the hegemonists most fear. It is a law of history: The thesis calls into being the antithesis; the weak collude to balance off the strong.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p. 24 Oct 9, 1999

On War & Peace: We attacked Yugoslav territory without Congress’ approval

Before Clinton ordered air strikes on Yugoslavia in the early 1999, US forces had never fought in the Balkans. But today there are 8,000 US troops in Bosnia and a US occupation army in Kosovo. America engaged in acts of war against a nation that did not perpetrate any act of violence against the US or its allies. Clinton’s original ultimatum to Yugoslavia--to attack its troops and sovereign territory if it did not remove its forces from Kosovo--was made without the formal approval of Congress.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p. 29 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Independence, not isolationism

The message of George Washington’s Farewell Address was not to isolate America from Europe but to keep it independent of Europe. Stay out of foreign wars, Washington admonished. Look west to the mountains, the plains, the Pacific. That is where our destiny lies. Europe is the past. Avoid “permanent alliances”; devote your energies to your own country. Independence, not isolation, is the American tradition.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p. 52 Oct 9, 1999

On War & Peace: Kuwait: using force on Iraq was a non-vital imperial burden

Iraqis saw in Kuwait oil-rich and undefended land left behind by a defunct British Empire. In 1991 America had the power and will to force Iraq to disgorge Kuwait. But the day is coming when Americans will tire of imperial burdens. The Gulf, too, will come to be dominated by the most powerful of its littoral states. America must one day soon decide what is vital and what we can let go.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.102 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Manifest Destiny OK; Imperialism is not

Annexation of Texas, the Southwest, and California [in the 1800s] was Manifest Destiny, not imperialism. These lands were contiguous, largely empty, easily defensible with a small army, and involved no entanglement with the great powers of Europe. Imperialism is the rule of other peoples against their will, & most Americans recoiled at the idea of colonzing Mexico. The Mexican War was a historic inevitability. Two emerging countries collided along a disputed frontier; the stronger prevailed.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.122 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Pre-WWI US wasn’t isolationist; but expansionist

Woodrow Wilson is said to have been the first president to lead America out of “isolation,” but this is a myth. The US was never isolationist. [In the 1800s], America was the most expansionist nation on earth, and by 1900 [under President McKinley], had become an empire. [McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt] made decisions based on what would enhance US power and glory. McKinley and TR were imperialists, not globalists; unilateralists, not multilateralists.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.178 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: US should have re-armed in 1930s when Japan invaded China

From 1921 to 1933 there was no foreign menace to cause America to re-arm. Germany was defeated, disarmed... and democratic. Japanese militarists did not take the first step toward Asian empire until 1931-32 [when] they occupied Manchuria. By invading, Japan had slammed shut the “open door” there and destroyed the political foundations of [current] treaties. At this point, [the US and UK] should have come out for naval rearmament. Neither did.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.246-8 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: War guarantees to Poland kept Hitler from attacking USSR

The British-French declarations of war [after Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939] impelled Hitler to attack in the West to secure his rear before invading Russia. By redirecting Hitler’s first blow upon themselves, Britain & France bought Stalin two extra years to prepare for Hitler’s attack--and thus saved the Soviet Union for communism. Had Britain & France not given the guarantee to Poland, Hitler would almost surely have delivered the first great blow to Stalin’s Russia. Britain & France would have had additional years to build up their air forces and armies. Had Britain & France not given the war guarantees to Poland, there might have been no Dunkirk, no blitz, no Vichy, no destruction of the Jewish populations. Ultimately, it was not Poland that benefited from Britain’s war guarantee to Warsaw -- but Stalin.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.266 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Hitler was no threat to US; sought mastery of Europe only

Following his victory [over France in 1940], Hitler made no overt move to threaten US vital interests. As of mid-1940, his actions argue that beneath the overlay of Nazi ideology, he was driven by a traditional German policy of “The Drive to the East.” In this analysis, Hitler had not wanted war with the West. Hitler saw the world divided into four spheres: Great Britain holding its empire; Japan, dominant in East Asia; Germany, master of Europe; and America, mistress of the Western Hemisphere.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.268-9 Oct 9, 1999

On Principles & Values: Original “America First” in 1940s to keep US out of WWII

The America First Committee was born in 1940, after France fell. The committee’s principles [were]:
  1. The US must build an impregnable defense
  2. No foreign power can successfully attack a prepared America
  3. American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war
  4. “Aid short of war” weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad
The leaders of America First were neither utopians nor pacifists; they believed in peace through strength.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.271-2 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: FDR forced Japan to attack US as back door to WWII

In early 1941, FDR froze all Japanese assets, cutting off trade, including oil. Without oil, the Japanese empire must wither & die.. The oil embargo was “economic war” against an oil-starved nation. FDR knew the consequences of an oil embargo & approved, because he wanted Japan to attack. A war with Japan was the only way he could take us to war in Europe. FDR seemed anxious to get into the war, [but was] elected on a promise to stay out, [so] FDR needed to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.285-7 Oct 9, 1999

On Homeland Security: Stalin & USSR caused Cold War; not Truman & US

Historians who charge America & Truman with causing the Cold War by abandoning FDR’s policy of cooperation with Stalin do both the nation and the man an injustice. The charge that America exploited its power and sole possession of the atom bomb to bully the USSR is propaganda. Truman was not the father of the Cold War, Stalin was. His betrayal of war-time pledges and outrages across Soviet-occupied Europe opened America’s eyes to the character of our ex-ally and turned the nation toward confrontation.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.307-8 Oct 9, 1999

On Homeland Security: NATO was conceived as a temporary alliance

Did America’s Cold War alliances -- NATO, CENTO, SEATO, the ANZUS and Rio pacts, and security treaties with Korea, Japan, Taiwan -- violate George Washington’s “great rule” against permanent alliances? No. When created, these were to be temporary alliances to endure only as long as the crisis endured. US troops would remain in Europe only until Europe could rise to its own feet to man its own defenses. Eisenhower estimated that would take ten years.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.310 Oct 9, 1999

On Homeland Security: We lost Vietnam because we fought on THEIR terms

[Vietnam] was an attempt to defeat the enemy on the enemy’s terms, a concept that ran counter to every strategic principle of warfare, but appealed to the academic-minded “best and the brightest.” Although the US had more than adequate power to defeat Hanoi, it never had a strategic plan for final victory or the will to pursue such a strategy. Johnson picked the most expensive war option, and then pursued it incrementally to avoid the higher costs--a formula for failure that produced failure.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.313-4 Oct 9, 1999

On Homeland Security: US never committed to Vietnam victory; as Great Power must

Vietnam was a legitimate war of containment that could have been won... if the US had used its full conventional power and refused to set geographic limits on the use of that power. There was, and is, an argument for Vietnam; there was never an argument for fighting it as we did. It is the mark of a Great Power that when it commits itself to war, it commits itself to victory, and all the force necessary to prevail. We did not. America lost because of a collapse of will of its political elite.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.321 Oct 9, 1999

On Homeland Security: No Pax Americana for post-Cold War

A 1989 forum on a new foreign policy for an era in which no great enemy threatened [elicited] calls for imposing a “Pax Americana” or “global hegemony.” Columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote that we should “integrate” America, Europe, and Japan in a “supersovereign” entity. This “new universalism,” he wrote, “is not as outrageous as it sounds.” Not to Krauthammer, but surely to the Patriot Fathers. The Krauthammer superstate would be a betrayal of everything for which the Republic stood. In a rebuttal piece titled “America First -- and Second, and Third,” I wrote that Krauthammer’s vision was un-American, and failed “the most fundamental test of any foreign policy: Americans will not fight for it.” A nation’s purpose, I added, is to be “discovered not by consulting ideologies, but by reviewing its history, by searching the hearts of its people.” Urging adoption of a policy of “enlightened nationalism,” I wrote [that we should pursue] “total withdrawal of US troops from Europe.”
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.325 Oct 9, 1999

On Homeland Security: New World Order ties down US without vital interests

[With the collapse of the USSR], all that America had ever sought had come to pass. Yet rather than seize the opportunity to pull up our “trip wires” around the world and shed unwanted commitments -- to recapture our freedom of action and restore a traditional foreign policy -- internationalists joined with globalists to tie down America like Gulliver in some “New World Order” where US wealth and power would be put at the service of causes having nothing to do with the vital interests of the US.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.327 Oct 9, 1999

On War & Peace: Kuwait War benefited Iran; not US

I did not believe Kuwait was vital to the US. Saddam, after all, had stolen Kuwait’s oil to sell it, and Saudi Arabia could be defended without a war on Baghdad. The nation most likely to acheive hegemony in the Gulf is Iran. Iraq, a third as large and populous, was the Arab counter. If we destroyed it, Iran would be the beneficiary and the US would be left with the obligation to contain both nations, an open-ended commitment America would be unwilling to sustain.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.327 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Globalist Elites have not yielded their empire

American boys yet unborn are being committed to fight where no American soldiers have ever fought before. In a 1990 article, I wrote: “The day of realpoliticians, with their Metternichian ‘new architectures’ and balance-of-power stratagems... is over.” I was wrong. I underestimated the grip that the globalist elites have on power, and the will of these elites never to yield the bureaucratic-military empire--the existence of which gives meaning to their lives. But that hold is weakening.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.328 Oct 9, 1999

On Free Trade: “Good for global business” isn’t necessarily good for US

Global capitalists have become acolytes of global governance. They wish to see national sovereignty diminished and sanctions abolished. Where yesterday American businesses suffered damage to their good name for selling scrap iron to Japan before Pearl Harbor, today [war materiel is routinely exported] to potentially hostile nations. Once it was true that what was good the Fortune 500 was good for America. That is no longer true, and what is good for America must take precedence.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.349 Oct 9, 1999

On Homeland Security: Soldiers volunteer to defend US, not UN

The men and women of the US military volunteer to defend America -- its honor, citizens, and vital interests -- not to serve as Hessians of a New World Order. Not every beast needs to be hunted down and killed; some are best left alone to live and die in their part of the forest. No “world community” can ever replace the patria. Ultimately, men fight and die for the “ashes of their fathers and the temples of their gods”, not some New World Order. Who would give his life--for the United Nations?
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.362 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Latin America: Support Monroe Doctrine but exit Rio Pact

The next president should restate the US position that the Monroe Doctrine is the cornerstone of American foreign policy, and that the US will consider it unacceptable for any hostile regime to create a bastion in this hemisphere. But the US should disavow any right or intention to intervene in any Latin American country that does not threaten us or its neighbors. As for the Rio Pact, the US should give notice of its withdrawal. We do not need military allies in this hemisphere to defend ourselves.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.369 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Quebec: Offer seceding provinces alliances or statehood

Canada has not been a security concern in this century. That is changing. Quebec may declare independence, and the Maritime and Western provinces could separate from Ottawa. Americans may profoundly regret a breakup of Canada, but we are not a disinterested party; Canada is the most important country on earth for us. Should it come apart, the US should offer trade agreements and security alliances to each successor state, and statehood itself, should any breakaway Canadian province wish it.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.370 Oct 9, 1999

On Homeland Security: Annex Greenland

As for Greenland, the last great empty space in the Western Hemisphere, this huge island should remain permanently inside the US defense perimeter, and eventually be formally annexed by the US. Greenland lacks the requisites of nationhood.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.370 Oct 9, 1999

On Immigration: Limit immigration to 250,000 per year

The most immediate and serious problem facing the US in this hemisphere lies in mass immigration. It should become the US policy in the year 2000 to declare that the era of mass immigration has ended, that henceforth 250,000 new immigrants will be permitted each year, and that illegal immigration will be halted - and illegal immigrants returned home.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.370-3 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Cuba: US interest is peaceful transfer of power after Castro

As for Cuba, The US Cold War policy of isolation and containment succeeded. Cuba is no longer a strategic colony of a hostile empire or a threat to Central America or the Caribbean. The threat from Cuba today lies in the potential for political upheaval with the passing of Castro and Castroism. A million refugees could be sent fleeing toward Florida. America’s interests dictate a peaceful transfer of power. Castro may be the enemy of America; the Cuban people are not.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.373 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Puerto Rico: No statehood; eventual independence

The campaign to make Puerto Rico the 51st state must be defeated. Puerto Rico is a nation, with its own language, history, culture, and flag. To make this island a state means making America a bilingual nation and denying to Puerto Rican patriots and nationalists, forever, their right to join the family of nations. We cannot do that and remain true to or anticolonial heritage. Puerto Rico should forever retain the right of self-determination.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.373 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Truculent but contained China is no threat

As China has grown powerful, it has grown truculent. Beijing has disrupted Taiwan’s elections, invaded offshore islands, sold missiles to Iran, sold nuclear technology to Pakistan, and persecuted Christians, Tibetans, and dissidents. Yet, despite its bellicosity, China does not today threaten any vital US interest, & its emergence as a world power need not mean inevitable conflict. For China is already contained - by geography. [The only likely point of conflict without] a blue-water fleet. is Taiwan
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.374 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Dissolve Asian security treaties, they’ll defend themselves

While the US should maintain military relations with the friendly states of Asia, we should dissolve all security treaties that require us to go to war, instantly, in the event of an attack on Thailand, Australia, or the Philippines. No vital interest of ours is at risk in those nations. Only by taking away the security blanket will we shock Free Asia into doing what is should have done long ago: organize militarily, as it has economically, to provide for the common defense.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.376 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Support Free Asia with materiel but no troops

So long as the US guarantees the security of the nations of Free Asia, they, like Europeans, will never undertake to provide for, or to pay for, their own defense. The US should thus unilaterally declare in force the Nixon Doctrine: in future Asian wars, America will provide the weapons of defense for free nations, but Asian soldiers, sailors, and airmen must do the fighting. As the century closes, we should end our role as a front-line fighting state in Asia, and become Free Asia’s arsenal of democracy.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.376 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Don’t aggravate Beijing, but don’t appease

US policy toward China should be neither to aggravate bor to appease Beijing. But allowing China to run near $60 billion annual trade surpluses at our expense, while we guarantee low-interest loans to Beijing from the World Bank, is appeasement. American imports and investments there are financing military forces that may one day threaten Asia and the US fleet. As trade and aid have not made China more reasonable, the US should treat China as the Great Power rival it claims to be.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.376-7 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Supporting role only in case of Chinese attacks

Should China move against any of its neighbors, including Taiwan, these nations would surely arm to defend their liberty. But the first defense perimeter of Free Asia should be manned by Asians themselves, united in regional alliances, with the US relegated to a supporting role. Like Shakespeare’s Fortinbras, it has been the role of America to come in at the end, not at the beginning of the family wars of Asia and Europe. Let other nations play Hamlet.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.377 Oct 9, 1999

On Free Trade: Impose tariffs on China; end World Bank loans

Beijing does not deserve the same preferential treatment as Britain. The US should negotiate a reciprocal treaty with China that imposes on its goods at least the same tariffs and taxes Beijing imposes on ours, and we should veto any additional World Bank and Asian Development Bank loans to China. These are nothing but foreign aid.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.377 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Korea: Replace US troops with Koreans

With twice the population of the North and 20 times its economic power, South Korea, with access to US weapons and US strategic support, is capable of manning its own defense. American troops on the DMZ should be replaced by South Koreans; the US should remove its forces from the peninsula; and any US participation in a future Korean war should be restricted to air and naval support.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.378 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Japan: share burdens(defense) & benefits(trade) equitably

America has a vital interest in ensuring that Japan’s industrial might and military potential are not placed in any global balance against us. Yet in this partnership, Tokyo has done most of the taking. Japan runs up huge trade surpluses, while denying Americans fair access to its markets. America is obligated to fight for Japan; Japan has no corresponding obligation. We need a new partnership agreement by which the burdens and benefits, risks and responsibilities, are more equitably shared.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.379 Oct 9, 1999

On Energy & Oil: Energy independence by developing Caspian pipelines

Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.381 Oct 9, 1999

On Energy & Oil: Explore ANWR; reconsider nuclear power & oil import fee

Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.381 Oct 9, 1999

On War & Peace: Iran & Iraq: Abandon dual containment strategy

It is time to abandon a sterile policy of dual containment for a more active diplomacy , especially with Iran. Nothing Iran’s regime has done, despicable as it may be, compares with what Mao’s men did. As for Saddam, murderous though he may be, he is not a threat to America. Should he use a weapon of mass destruction... his destruction would be total -- and he knows it.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.381 Oct 9, 1999

On War & Peace: Israel: Provide for self-defense, but concede land for peace

Israel will not know peace as long as it occupies Arab land.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.382-3 Oct 9, 1999

On War & Peace: Palestine: a flag, a land, a capital in Jerusalem

Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.383 Oct 9, 1999

On Homeland Security: UK, France, & Germany should defend Europe

With the Cold War won, it is time that Europe re-assumes full responsibility for its own defense. Western Europe has never been more secure. France & Great Britain, with nuclear weapons, are capable of defending themselves. A united and democratic Germany is fully capable of resuming its historic role of defending Central Europe. How long should 260 million Americans have to defend 360 million rich Europeans -- from 160 million impoverished Russians?
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.384-5 Oct 9, 1999

On War & Peace: Balkans: Let Europe police their own backyard

The Balkan wars that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia have lasted for nearly a decade, but until we attacked Belgrade in 1999, America remained unaffected. We have no vital interest in that blood-soaked peninsula to justify a permanent military presence. The Balkans are not our backyard; they are Europe’s backyard, and responsibility for policing the peninsula belongs to them, not us.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.385 Oct 9, 1999

On Foreign Policy: Russia: Offer EU membership instead of encirclement

Wounded and amputated, bereft of its cubs, the Russian bear should not be provoked. Rather than encircling Russia, let us enlarge Russia’s stake in peace. Bringing Russia into the European Union would be a far wiser guarantee of Europe’s security than a threat to go to war to defend their frontiers. By moving NATO onto Mother Russia’s front porch, we are driving her into the arms of Beijing and creating a hostile alliance it is in our vital interest to prevent.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.385-6 Oct 9, 1999

On Homeland Security: Transfer NATO Army to Germany & Navy to France

The US should withdraw all its ground troops from Europe and amend the NATO treaty so that involvement in future European wars is an option, not a certainty. Transfer command of NATO ground forces to a German general, and, after detaching the US Sixth Fleet, transfer NATO’s southern command to a French admiral. The role of America in Europe should not be as a frontline fighting state, but as the arsenal of democracy and strategic reserve of the West.
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.385-6 Oct 9, 1999

The above quotations are from A Republic, Not an Empire, by Pat Buchanan.
Click here for other excerpts from A Republic, Not an Empire, by Pat Buchanan.
Click here for other excerpts by Pat Buchanan.
Click here for a profile of Pat Buchanan.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org
(We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Feb 22, 2019