Ted Cruz on Foreign Policy
Republican Texas Senator
Two terms of the disastrous Obama-Clinton foreign policy have had one useful effect: we now know what the world starts to look like without America. The next president will have to start on day one rebuilding what they have tried to tear down. A truly conservative foreign policy would have three simple principles:
Donald TRUMP: Every single aspect of this deal is in Cuba's favor. I would probably have the embassy closed until such time as a really good deal was struck.
Q [to CRUZ]: Would you reverse course and once again break diplomatic relations with Cuba?
CRUZ: Yes, I would. And this highlights a real choice for Republican primary voters. Do you want to continue on the same basic trajectory as the last 7 years of the Obama foreign policy? When it comes to Cuba, [a deal] negotiated b Hillary Clinton and John Kerry? There's a real difference between us. Donald supported Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. And what he said right now is that he agrees in principle with what they're doing. The only thing he thinks is that they should negotiate a little bit better deals, they should be more effective. I have a fundamental disagreement and I think most Republicans and most Americans do, that we shouldn't be allowing billions of dollars to go to nations that hate us, like Cuba.
KASICH: I've been a strong supporter of Israel longer than anybody on this stage.
CRUZ: Donald and Hillary want to be neutral between Israel and the Palestinians. If I'm president, America will stand unapologetically with Israel. The notion of neutrality is based upon the left buying into moral relativism that is pitched in the media. It is not equivalent. When you have terrorists murdering innocent women and children, they are not equivalent to the IDF officers protecting Israel.
Q: So table the Assad discussion right now?
CRUZ: We have no business sticking our nose in that civil war.
Q: So you're a "no" on the no fly zones, none of that stuff, stick to just ISIS? Would you work with the Russians? If they are helping with ISIS, would you work with them?
CRUZ: Of course, we shouldn't be partnering with the Russians. Look, this is a great example of the utter failure of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy. This void in power has let Putin step in there. And anyone who believes Russia is fighting against terrorism, I got a bridge to sell them.
CRUZ: Of course, it would.
Q: Gaddafi, Saddam, Assad, if they're strongmen, they keep stability?
CRUZ: It wasn't even close that Libya under Gaddafi was better for US interests than the chaos now that is allowed jihadists to gain strength.
Q: What about Iraq under Saddam?
CRUZ: It wasn't even close.
Q: Do you think Iraq would be more stable today under a strong man like Saddam?
CRUZ: Based on what we know now, should we have gone into Iraq? No, of course not. It was based on the belief that they had weapons of mass destruction that they would use against us.
CRUZ: It will depend on the mission. I don't believe we should be engaged in nation building. I don't believe we should be trying to transform foreign countries into democratic utopias. But I do think it is the job of our military to protect this country, to hunt down and kill jihadists who would murder us.
CRUZ: Well, let's be clear when it comes to experience. What President Obama wants to do is he's run to the United Nations, and he wants to use the United Nations to bind the United States, and take away our sovereignty. Well, I spent five and a half years as a Solicitor General of Texas, the lead lawyer for the state, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, and I went in front of the Supreme Court, and took on the World Court of the United Nations in a case called Medellin v. Texas, and we won a historic victory saying the World Court, and the U.N., has no power to bind the United States, and no President of the United States, Republican or Democrat, has the authority to give away our sovereignty.
A: If I'm elected president our friends and allies across the globe will know that we stand with them. The bust of Wi You want to know what I'll do as president? It is real simple. We'll kill the terrorists, we'll repeal Obamacare, and we will defend the Constitution, every single word of it. Ted Cruz
It is not impossible, however. And in fact there is a parallel. When Jimmy Carter left the White House in 1981, America was in a similar state of paralysis, incoherence, and crisis. That all changed when a confident president, Ronald Reagan, willing to exert American leadership and defend American values, took the reins.
Likewise, I believe with true leadership--and a president unafraid to face down tyranny and call evil by its name--we can see the restoration of America to its rightful place as the leader of the free world.
Obama has encouraged a "new beginning with Iran, where since 1979 Shiite mullahs have forged one of the world's most brutal, anti-American tyrannies.
But the president was convinced he could reverse three decades of Iranian hostility with conciliation, understanding and a perceived indifference to Iranian atrocities. This is a načve worldview--the same liberal credulity espoused by Jimmy Carter and others, until they are awakened to the folly of coddling and excusing extremism. Sadly, President Obama hasn't learned that lesson.
CRUZ: Well, look, Fidel Castro and Raul Castro, they never miss a chance to push propaganda. You know, what I can tell is, the Castro brothers have put in place a brutal regime that oppresses their citizens, that murders their citizens, that tortures and imprisons their citizens. And the Castros are never shy to jump up and engage in some propaganda to criticize the United States.
CRUZ: What we appear to know right now is it appears to have been a Buk Russian missile, and that kind of technology is not randomly found on the streets. That likely found its way into the hands of Russian rebels and Russian separatists in Ukraine because of Putin's direct involvement.
Q: So, how would you get Putin to stop?
CRUZ: We should do a number of things. One, we need vigorous sanctions. We need sanctions that target the Russian energy sector, the Russian financial sector that put serious consequences for what Putin is doing. Two, we should immediately reinstate the antiballistic missile batteries in Eastern Europe that President Obama canceled in 2009 in an effort to appease Russia. And three, we need to open up the export of liquid natural gas, which will help liberate Ukraine and Eastern Europe.
CRUZ: Well, you know, I just got back last week from traveling to Israel and Ukraine and Poland and Estonia. One of the things Ambassador Rice said that was absolutely correct is that American is the indispensable leader. But what our allies are expressing over and over again is that leadership is missing. And the most frequent thing you hear when you talk to an ambassador, a foreign minister of our friends and allies is they pull you aside quietly in hushed tones; they say, "Where is America?" When America's weak, when the American president is weak, it leaves our friends and allies vulnerable.
CRUZ (VIDEO TAPE): A critical reason for Putin's aggression has been President Obama's weakness. That Putin fears no retribution. You better believe Putin sees in Benghazi four Americans are murdered and nothing happens. There is no retribution. You better believe that Putin sees that in Syria, Obama draws a red line and ignores the red line.
Q: (ON CAMERA): So how would you stand up? What would you do? Military action?
CRUZ: No. No, look, not at all.
Q: Sanctions? Would you do sanctions?
CRUZ: Absolutely, yes. There are a host of things we can do. Let's rewind the clock a little bit. #1, don't demonstrate weakness for five years. We have seen historically over and over again tyrants respond to weakness. We keep making that mistake with Putin. Putin is a KGB thug. When the protests began in Ukraine, the president should have stood unapologetically, emphatically for freedom. And when the US doesn't speak for freedom, tyrants notice.
CRUZ: I'm a big fan of Rand Paul. I don't agree with him on foreign policy. I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world. And I agree with him that we should be very reluctant to deploy military force aboard. But I think there is a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did. When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," when he stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," those words changed the course of history. The United States has a responsibility to defend our values.
More important than aid is expanding economic trade expanding mutually beneficial commerce, helping open the door for energy to flow to Ukraine in the private market," Cruz said. He added Russia should be kicked out of the G-8, and that the United States shouldn't wait on its allied for further action which should include initiating plans to move forward with the missile defense system in Europe.
"My foreign policy views are different from both of them, and I would suggest (those views) represent a third point on the triangle," Cruz said. "I agree with John McCain that we should be a voice for freedom, but I agree with Rand Paul that we should be exceedingly reluctant to employ U.S. military force. I don't think it's the job of the military to engage in nation building."
In a letter published in the Politico on April 18, 2014, under the headline "A Bipartisan Message to Iran", Sen. Ted Cruz thanked President Barack Obama for signing his bill into law:
"Let me say this: Those who hate Israel hate America. And those who hate Jews hate Christians," Cruz said as the audience's heckling increased. "If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you," Cruz told the audience as he walked off the stage amid a mixed chorus of cheers and boos.
Instead of providing clarity, the Obama administration offers tortured semantics. The interim agreement over Iran's nuclear program is referred to as a display of "international unity." And now, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was euphemistically designated "an uncontested arrival."
This is the language of fools. Appeasement, historically, leads to more and more violence. Bullies and tyrants are only encouraged when the US uses words that willfully ignore the reality of the threats the US and our allies face.
Ironically, this administration's effort to avoid conflict at all costs makes conflict all the more likely. Putin knows there will be no serious reprisals for aggression from an American president who was only waiting for his re-election to give him the "flexibility" to make additional concessions at the negotiating table.
Excerpts from Letter from 73 Senators to Secretary of State Kerry We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to seek membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC), because the Palestinian Authority is not a state and its express intent is to use this process to threaten Israel.
Pres. Abbas' effort contravene the spirit of earlier agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and erodes the prospect for peace. Therefore, the US must make clear that joining the ICC is not a legitimate or viable path for Palestinians.
Israel is a major strategic partner of the US and is facing increasing pressure from those who seek to delegitimize its very existence. The only realistic and sustainable path to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Supporting argument: (Heritage Foundation, "U.S. Should Not Join the ICC," Aug. 18, 2009): The ICC prosecutor is exploring a request by the Palestinian National Authority to prosecute Israeli commanders for alleged war crimes committed during the recent actions in Gaza. Palestinian lawyers maintain that the Palestinian National Authority can request ICC jurisdiction as the de facto sovereign even though it is not an internationally recognized state. By countenancing Palestine's claims, the ICC prosecutor has enabled pressure to be applied to Israel over alleged war crimes, while ignoring Hamas's incitement of the military action and its commission of war crimes against Israeli civilians. Furthermore, by seemingly recognizing Palestine as a sovereign entity, the prosecutor's action has created a pathway for Palestinian statehood without first reaching a comprehensive peace deal with Israel. This determination is an inherently political issue beyond the ICC's authority.
Congressional Summary: States that it is US policy to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, and that the US Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem by 2017.
Supporters reasons for voting YEA: (Times of Israel ): Congressional legislation would force the Obama administration to change longstanding US policy and move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The bill challenges presidential authority on a key foreign policy question. The bill strikes the language in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 that gave the president waiver authority to delay the move. Every president since Bill Clinton has signed a presidential waiver every six months in order to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv, citing concerns that a move to Jerusalem would upset the prospects for a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1980, but the US, like all other countries, maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv.
Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (The Morning Call, April 16, 1984) The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and the National Association of Arab Americans (NAAA) have begun a "multifaceted protest" opposing moving the US. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Israel annexed East Jerusalem from Jordan after capturing it in the 1967 war but assured free access to religious shrines. The nations of the Arab League argue that the Israelis are in Jerusalem as an "army of occupation" and they have never recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. One compromise would be the placement of the American Consulate in Jerusalem with the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. Secretary of State George P. Shultz cautioned that a relocation "would fan Islamic extremism, possibly inciting a wave of violence against our citizens, diplomats and installations in the region."
Congressional Summary: S.Res.6/H.Res.11 objects to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, which characterizes Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal and demands cessation of settlement activities.
Opposing argument: (Cato Institute, Dec. 19, 2003): In principle, separation seems the best answer to stop the killing. For this reason, a security fence makes sense--if it actually separates Jew from Arab. Unfortunately, to protect a number of disparate Israeli settlements erected in the midst of Palestinian communities, Israel currently is mixing Jew and Arab and separating Arab from Arab. Thus are sown the seeds for conflict. After 36 years of occupation, the land remains almost exclusively Arab. The limited Jewish presence is the result of conscious colonization. The settlements require a pervasive Israeli military occupation, imposing a de facto system of apartheid. Separation offers the only hope, but separation requires dismantling Israeli settlements.
|Other candidates on Foreign Policy:||Ted Cruz on other issues:|
George P. Bush
Cristina Tzintzun Ramirez
Senate races 2019-20:
AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I) vs.
AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Tuberville(R) vs.
AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.Harrington(L) vs.
AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs.Kelly(D)
CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs.Hickenlooper(D) vs.
DE: Coons(D,incumbent) vs.
GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Warnock(D) vs.Collins(R) vs.Tarver(D) vs.
GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Hazel(L) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Terry(D)
IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Greenfield(D) vs.
ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Jordan(D) vs.
IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.
KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.Marshall(R) vs.Bollier(D) vs.
KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.
LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Perkins(D) vs.
MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.O`Connor(R) vs.Ayyadurai(R) vs.
ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Gideon(D) vs.
MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R) vs.Squier(G)
MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.Lewis(R) vs.Overby(G) vs.
MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.
MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Bullock(D) vs.
NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.
NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R)
NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Messner(R) vs.
NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Mehta(R) vs.
NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Lujan(D) vs.Ronchetti(R) vs.Walsh(L) vs.
OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Broyles(D) vs.
OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Perkins(R) vs.
RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R)
SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Harrison(D) vs.
SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Ahlers(D) vs.
TN: Alexander(R,retiring) vs.Hagerty(R) vs.Bradshaw(D) vs.
TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent) vs.Hegar(D) vs.
VA: Warner(D,incumbent) vs.
WV: Capito(R,incumbent) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.
WY: Enzi(R,retiring) vs.Lummis(R) vs.Ben-David(D) vs.
Senate Votes (analysis)
815 A Brazos, PMB 550, Austin, TX 78701