Vivek Ramaswamy is Right: Get America Out Of the U.N. and NATO

vivek ramaswamy nato
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 <>, via Wikimedia Commons

Millennial GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has captured the curiosities of young conservative voters and has managed to qualify for the next presidential debate in November. The last debate, and many of his public comments on Ukraine, Taiwan, and now Israel have garnered him considerable criticism from the Republican Party and the other candidates, most notably former Ambassador Nikki Haley.

Suppose one closes their eyes and listens to Vivek Ramaswamy speak on politics and policy. In that case, you’d almost swear you could hear the familiar voice of former President Donald Trump.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Mr. Ramaswamy’s stance on foreign policy.

Recently, the young candidate was asked about his thoughts on the former President’s distaste for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and his response, while short, summarizes what neoconservatives and Warhawks are terrified might be happening to the Grand Old Party. 

It is reasonable

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy was asked about his thoughts regarding the United States withdrawing from NATO, to which he said:

“It’s a reasonable idea that I have considered.”

He went on to add this unsolicited teaser:

“I am also open to reevaluating U.S. involvement in the U.N.”

These statements make Vivek one of two possible future leaders of the United States who aren’t keen on maintaining the status quo on American involvement in international organizations. Donald Trump often threatened to pull the United States out of NATO when he was in the seat, (extracting concessions from miserly fellow members in the process) and all indications show that if he were to get re-elected, he would try to make good on this threat.

RELATED: As War Drums Pound, Study Finds Two-Thirds of Active Duty US Military Are Overweight or Obese

Trump campaign sources have told reporters that he’s been adamant that he doesn’t want any “NATO lovers” in his next administration. It’s important to note that there is always a caveat to any of Donald Trump’s threats.

The prolific deal maker has said numerous times that he would be willing to keep the U.S. in NATO if the other nations increased their defense spending and if there was a reevaluation of the founding principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all.

These are provocative statements given the expectation the world and political establishment have set for U.S. involvement in international affairs, but perhaps provocative is what is needed.

Not just catchphrases

Vivek Ramaswamy is an acquired taste. It remains to be seen how much popularity he will be able to muster as a fresh face on the biggest stage. On the surface, and as his challengers attempt to paint him, he seems to be a snappy young man with quick retorts that are easily translated into social media clips. 

However, there is more under the surface to Mr. Ramaswamy. For example, he wrote out his foreign policy positions in-depth for The American Conservative, titled, A Viable Realism and Revival Doctrine in a rare display of political transparency. 

Within this essay, he explains what he would do to change the dynamic of NATO, writing:

“European manpower should be the primary defense of Europe’s frontiers, with America as a balance of last resort.”

He goes on to write:

“No longer will America subsidize European weakness.”

And my personal favorite:

“We will be Uncle Sucker no more.”

These statements shouldn’t be controversial, particularly from anyone on the right. Yet, Vivek is Public Enemy #1 (OK, #2) of the establishment due to these very views.

Terrible experience

Mr. Ramaswamy gets attacked on less the details of his foreign policy objectives and more on his specific comments on Ukraine, Taiwan, and now Israel. Vivek has not been shy about his disagreement that supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia is in the best interests of the United States.

And recently, he encouraged lawmakers not to approve the aid package to Israel unless the U.S. holds Israel to specific requirements:

“The U.S. should be clear with Israel that further U.S. support is contingent on Israel identifying clear objectives for success in Gaza and a coherent plan for what comes after toppling Hamas even if Israel is successful in doing so.”

Statements like those are what earned him this sharp rebuke from GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley:

“You have no foreign policy experience and it shows.”

RELATED: GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell Supports President Biden’s $100 Billion Package For Israel, Ukraine

And yet it was foreign policy veterans and wonks like Ms. Haley that forced us into the last forever war that ended after 20 years with not just the disastrously executed withdrawal from Afghanistan but no tangible success for the United States. And how is Iraq doing these days? Syria? 

The “experience” of the neoconservatives did wonders for Libya. Just take a look at the new open-air chattel slave markets.

Perhaps, in this case, experience isn’t preferred anymore for American taxpayers tired of conflicts with no clear objectives.

The truth of the matter is the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations should know better how little the international community cares about countries like Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan.

Making my point 

It wasn’t just NATO that Vivek is considering leaving; he also hinted at the United Nations as a possibility. It takes just a fraction of research and knowledge of the United Nations to agree that it no longer serves it’s stated purpose, if it ever did. 

Exhibit A: The United Nations Security Council. The U.N. charter gives the Security Council the following:

“primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”

The bottom line up front is that the Security Council is involved in anything related to war. The council is made up of 15 countries, ten of which are rotating members elected by the U.N. General Assembly and serve for two-year stints.

The other five are permanent members who are the following:

  • United States
  • Russia
  • China
  • France
  • United Kingdom

If any permanent member vetoes a resolution, it automatically kills it. Given that Russia and China are rarely ever of the same mind as the United States, this setup is prime for perpetual gridlock.

Exhibit B: The United Nations Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Council is charged to be an:

“…inter-governmental body within the United Nations system responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe…”

Back in 2018, when the U.S. left the council, Ambassador Haley rightly stated:

“For too long, the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.”

RELATED: Secretary Blinken Claims U.S. Is Ready for War – DoD Realities Say He’s Wrong

Referencing three members of the council well known for their human rights abuses in China, Russia, and Venezuela, she went on to say:

“Human rights abusers continue to serve on, and be elected to, the council.”

The point Nikki made back in 2018 is the same overarching point Trump and Vivek make now about the U.N. and NATO. Nothing about these organizations has anything to do with peace and security.

They are precisely orchestrated to stoke the flames of war and instability to the benefit of the world elite and to the detriment of the American taxpayer. Vivek might not have any foreign policy experience, but it doesn’t make him wrong. 

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

USAF Retired, Bronze Star recipient, outspoken veteran advocate. Hot mess mom to two monsters and wife to equal parts... More about Kathleen J. Anderson

Mentioned in this article::