MANCHESTER, N.H. — At a routine stop at a fish and game club in New Hampshire this week, Sen. Rand Paul made a decidedly un-routine proposal to a crowd of gun rights supporters: Abolish the United Nations.
The event was one of five for the Kentucky Republican, who is moving toward a bid for president, on his first trip this year to the key presidential primary state, and this stop in particular was designed to focus on the Second Amendment.
But, during a question-and-answer session, Paul was asked about the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty, which claims to prevent terrorists or states with subpar human rights records from obtaining arms through trade. Many conservatives have opposed it for fear that it would infringe on American gun laws.
According to Steven Stefanik, who was present during the event, Paul responded by suggesting the U.N. should be dissolved entirely.
Foreign policy has been a focus of Paul during his five years in the Senate and would be an important part of the presidential campaign he is hoping to run.
But superpower policy is complicated for Paul. While he seeks on the one hand to separate himself from his father Ron Paul’s strict non-interventionism, Rand Paul has nevertheless hewed in most cases to a more libertarian definition of national interests.
In an interview with the Washington Examiner in the Granite State Wednesday, Paul expanded on his earlier U.N. remark.
“I’ve always thought that we are forced to spend a disproportionate amount of money in the U.N., and I think that’s not fair, and it also kind of annoys me that we fund countries that really have very poor human rights records themselves,” Paul said.
“I’m not against diplomacy, I’m not against having a diplomatic body, but I think us funding 25 percent of it, and then it ends up being a forum for many people who are haters of America to stand up and hate on America,” Paul added. “Some of it’s talking about funding, and some of it is talking about making it less of a busybody organization that gets involved in our sovereignty and more of an international body that talks policy and diplomatic solutions.”
Although it is early yet, foreign policy will likely remain at the forefront as the 2016 presidential race nears. Already, potential candidates are struggling to gain dominance on the issue.
In particular, Mitt Romney’s allies have pointed to his prescient foreign policy stances during his 2012 campaign as rationale for the former Massachusetts governor to run for the presidency again.
“Mitt Romney was right on these issues in the last campaign, and I expect if he runs again they will form the core of another campaign for president,” Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s longtime adviser, told the Boston Globe.
Of course, Paul begs to differ. When asked whether he agreed with Romney’s allies’ assessment that he is uniquely qualified to tackle foreign policy problems, Rand laughed heartily. “No, I don’t,” Paul said.
Paul has found key areas of common ground with Republicans like Romney. Paul pushed for an aggressive response to Russia and has backed a proposal to streamline international trade by allowing the president to negotiate deals without Congress.
But Republicans who might challenge Paul for the presidency are latching on to key differences in their foreign policy beliefs, in particular Paul’s views on military intervention.
“I’m a big fan of Rand Paul; he and I are good friends. I don’t agree with him on foreign policy,” Sen. Ted Cruz said in March. “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 abroad, but I think there is a vital role, just as Ronald Reagan did.”
Although he has stressed that he would support military force when necessary, Paul criticizes deployments he views as injudicious or ill-considered.
“In Washington, there is not a war in the world anywhere that they don’t think there should be boots on the ground,” Paul said during a stop in Manchester, N.H., Wednesday. “You know what? Sometimes we’ve gotten involved, and it’s been worse. Hillary’s war in Libya is a prime example.”
And Paul has controversially continued to call for a rollback in American foreign aid, starting with countries that show poor human rights records or anti-American sentiments. He disputes the truism that foreign aid “projects American power.”
“I think actually kind of the opposite,” Paul said at another event in Concord. “I don’t think you project American power if you borrow money from China and send it to Pakistan. In fact, ultimately, you bankrupt the nation.”
If Paul has worked to cut a foreign policy path between his father and more hawkish Republicans, he might be succeeding. Following the event in Manchester, one supporter, Larry Gagne, said he had not backed Ron Paul in 2012, but he was excited about Rand Paul.
“My perception of his dad is, he’s a strict isolationist,” Gagne said, he adding that he believed the younger Paul did not share his father’s views.
Rand’s more muscular foreign policy views, particularly his support for a more active U.S. role in Russia’s dispute with Ukraine, have stirred up suspicions among paleoconservative supporters. But these days even gung-ho former Ron Paul supporters seem at peace with Rand Paul’s divergence. In New Hampshire, each event was packed with “Paulbots,” as Ron Paul’s supporters refer to themselves.
One supporter, Tom Flaherty, carried with him a pocket constitution signed in 2010 by Ron Paul. On Wednesday, Rand Paul signed it, too, underneath his father’s name.
But Ron Paul, and his foreign policy ideas, will not be making an appearance on the campaign trail with Rand Paul, Paul told Politico in an interview this week.
“It’s just I need to represent the ideas and present ideas, because if I were to run, obviously it’s me running,” Paul said.
