Establishing A Federation of Freedom

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, this week, we saw major world leaders interfacing with the United States on topics covering the economy, diplomacy, and security engulfing the major hemispheres of the globe. Worldwide and domestic reaction suggests that no clear outcomes are perceivable. An uncertain and perhaps less secure future seems to loom.

Consequently, Americans today are faced with many questions, some formulated by ourselves and some offered by our world neighbors.

They ask: What is the role of the United States in the world?

We ask: ``What right do we have to take on that role? What responsibility would we shed if we took no leadership in global affairs?

Our allies and even our enemies may be asking: What can we expect from the United States in the future?

My own question would be this: How can the United States continue to be a force for good in the world?

To answer these questions, we need to look no further than how we govern ourselves and what we even believe is the purpose of any government.

What is the purpose of government? Simply put, it is to protect against evil, to execute justice against those committing wrong to others, to promote what benefits society, and to deter what harms it.

When the United States was established, we held some basic truths to be self-evident, namely, all of us are created equal, and we have been endowed with certain inalienable rights. Among them are the right to life, the right to live free, and the right to pursue one's happiness. We believe that governments are instituted to secure those rights, not take them away, and that the best form of government to do that would therefore be one that could only draw its power from the consent of the people, not by the people's coercion or coercing them.

Therein lies the insight that the world seeks on U.S. motivations, that the consistent role of the United States in foreign policy in the last century found our Nation in conflict with those that would use coercion, not only abusing their own people, but extending that abuse to others.

In looking to the future, no single week of diplomacy, no statements of mixed signal, no amount or shift or heft can erase the fundamental nature of how Americans view our relations with each other and other nations. It is in our DNA, whether clouded by temporary setback or assertive advance.

After World War I, when the entire system of governance of the most dominating power shifted from monarchies, nations struggled to find some form of governance for their own self-determination.

The competition between self-rule and authoritarianism saw the rise of Imperial Japan and their violation of human rights and the sovereignty of China, and that set the United States on a policy of economics, trade, and military defense that ultimately would place us in horrific conflict in the Pacific Coast.

The rise of European dictators that swept the rights of man off the map of Europe compelled us to energize our entire industrial might and willpower to ensure their complete destruction.

The realignment of governments of dominant nations into two spheres of thought after World War II meant that those that would govern themselves and enjoy the fruits of their labor and pursue happiness would come into direct conflict with those that would coerce their own people into centralized, socialist servitude in exchange for their security, for some respect, and a place on the world stage. Consequently, the United States found itself in conflict along these lines on the Korean Peninsula, in Southeast Asia, and in the Middle East.

Upon examination of our policies in the last century, many have been hypercritical, suggesting that the United States somehow used its position and power to promote its own brand of coercion rather than to be a force for good in the world. Whether one holds a bias towards one view or the other, the answer can be found with these questions:

Would the world have been better or worse economically and politically without our intervention into the defense of South Korea in 1950?

Would the world be better off economically and politically without our collective security efforts in Europe and the formulation of NATO?

Would the world be better off without our securing of the planet's oceans for all the world to use in free trade and commerce?

Would the world be better or worse economically and politically without our policy of the right of Taiwanese defense?

Would the world be better or worse without our support to Columbia, our intervention in Kuwait and the Balkans as we closed the last century?

These are questions to ponder, but as we examine what our economic and political map of the last century might look like if all of these nations were tipped in favor of coercive governments vice those of self-determination, one thing is clear: the actors promoting coercion rather than liberty appear much the same as we enter a new era.

Our lines of conflict today are much as they have always been with nations that lack democratic rule, that show disregard for the rule of law, that fail to respect basic human rights, that violate intellectual and private property, that manipulate their economies, that restrict commerce, and that close their doors to cultural and educational exchange.

So we find ourselves with old enemies in a new era, not always defined by particular nations, as governments shift and what were once bitter enemies 50 or 100 years ago are now vital partners and friends with us. But the old enemies will always be those against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

While our enemies ideologically may be consistent, we would not always know it when examining our foreign policy and economic efforts in this century. For much of this century, under bipartisan administrations, we have experimented with the notion that we can somehow embrace those with a diametrically opposed form of governance and view of liberty and that our goodwill will somehow be reciprocated with their conversion to good behavior.

So far, that path has led us to political and economic imbalance with lasting consequence. Worse, it may be placing us on a path of monumental conflict as enemies of liberty and self-determination use newfound resources to coerce global spheres beyond what the world ultimately will be willing to bear.

The path to that conflict, though, is not inevitable, but it will take a strategic vision that is severely lacking in our Nation today. Rather than focus on sovereign states or regions of the globe to maintain our security, we need to embrace the idea of curbing enemies of liberty and their ability to extend their reach wherever they may be found.

The task is not impossible. In fact, the ingredients of it are all around us, already identified by our practices rather than by our politics. What is needed is to articulate a long-range strategic vision, something rare in Washington, to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And here it is. Here is the vision: The answer lies in the collective efforts of the nations who have democratic, free, stable governance.

What if the vast bulk of our trade were exclusively with those nations? What if the economic systems, to our mutual benefit, were intertwined exclusively with those nations? What if our information and innovation sharing were only with those countries? What if our militaries partnered in mutual security with these countries?

Now, I know what you are thinking: Don't we already have some of this? Ingredients, yes; a baked cake, no. We find ourselves still embracing those that would use their power to coerce rather than to promote, to thieve, to steal, to manipulate, and use our openness to advance their power, and we worry that our individual effort may not be enough to contain the dangers that lie ahead economically, diplomatically, or, worse, even militarily.

And yet, if our discourse with other nations were to place the bad actors on the outside rather than on the inside, there is no collective effort that they could muster to withstand our combination.

If we were to form a federation of freedom among the no-kidding democratic nations of the world, we could simply do what our own individual governments do, but on a mutually benefitting scale: protect against evil, uphold justice against those committing wrong to others, promote what benefits society, and deter what harms it. Those standing against these principles would find themselves on the outside of trade, on the outside of diplomacy, on the outside of military security, and they would be unable to leverage our freedoms and use them against us.

Ask yourself these questions:

Is a superior economy better in the hands of those that would protect intellectual and physical property or with those who do not?

Are diplomatic alliances better made with those that respect the rule of law and national sovereignty or with those who do not?

Is the sharing of information better exchanged with those who use knowledge to promote good, empower, and entrust their own citizens with the free-flowing press or with those who use it to take away those things?

Is superior military might better in the hands of those that promote the value of life and individual liberty, or is it better in the hands of those who do not?

Is the existence of a collective superior strength better in the hands of partners using their force for good or in the hands of those who will use it to usurp, suppress, and oppress?

The ingredients of a federation for freedom are all around us. Like it or not, the United States may be the only nation with the resources to lead such an effort as it accidently found itself in the last century.

For those rejecting such a notion that America must lead, I am reminded of Obadiah 11, where it says: ``On the day you stood aloof . . . you became as one of them.''

We can no more abrogate our mantle of leadership of the free world than the free world can wish for a global construct absent American security and economy. What remains is to ditch the notion that the United States is somehow a force for bad in the world and that we need to recede our position.

We must ditch the notion that the United States violates human rights rather than is foremost in securing human rights globally, and we must abandon the premise that we have no right to lead on the ideals with which we have governed ourselves since 1789. We know no other path. It is in our DNA.

If the United States were to lead and form a federation of freedom, we would have the commercial development to create competitive markets and unite in mutually beneficial innovative advancements. We would have the diplomatic strength to unite on human rights. We would have the ability to promote underdeveloped nations with the skills and structure necessary through our cultural exchanges and our institutions of higher learning, while exchanging the same through our partners.

We would have the collective strength to protect shipping lanes and ward off those wishing to usurp free trade or pirate the commerce as it passes by, and we would have the collective strength to withstand the most active of coercive actors. We would be a beacon for those wishing to find their way into such a federation rather than falling subject to coercive friends and neighbors wishing to enslave others into an authoritarian future.

What of the federation? What would these nations look like. How about this: 7 of the G7; 16 of the G20, and 75 nations, whose democratic index places them high enough on the list to maintain a government ruled by their own people as they secure their liberty.

A federation of freedom nations would have this in common: free elections, respect for the rule of law, basic human rights, stable economics, a free economy united in free trade among federation members, protections for intellectual and private property, and open arms for cultural and educational exchange. The good news is much of this exists, it is just not organized and it is not led.

To our authoritarian competitors, or worse, the pariah states of the globe, here is a simple truth: History has shown that our historical enemies do not have to be our future enemies. However, one thing is certain: Our future enemies will continue to be those that are opposite of the ideals that formed our American mindset for freedom and liberty, whether we want to recognize that as the American people or not.

So to the American people, I urge you to call on this Congress to support such a federation.

To the President, I say, Mr. President, this could not only be your moment, but it could be what the freedom-loving people of the world hope you would be in a leader. Organize and lead such a federation.

The concept is simple; its execution most difficult. Its reward: prosperity and security on a grand scale.

And let the world be assured, despite mixed signals, spurtive advancements or setbacks, the habits of the American people still offer hope because of how we govern ourselves. To our enemies, that hope should also offer warning.

Let us, therefore, embark with such democratic like-minded nations to secure such a federation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source