Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

Jesse Helms on Foreign Policy


Replace $1 in foreign aid with $2 in private charity

I pledge that for every dollar we take out of bureaucratic overhead, I will support a matching dollar increase in US assistance delivered through these private and faith-based charities. In other words, every one dollar that is cut from bureaucracy will translate into two dollars in real relief for the world’s neediest people.

If you reduce the size of the bureaucracy by 5%, I will help you fight for a 5% increase in US assistance; if you reduce the bureaucracy by 10%, I will champion a 10% increase.

Source: Press Release, “Faith-based charities” Mar 8, 2001

Cut US foreign aid bureaucracy

Source: Press Release, “Faith-based charities” Mar 8, 2001

UN lives off of US; we resent UN calling US a deadbeat

This is the first time that a US Senator has addressed the UN Security Council. It is important that this body have greater contact with the elected representatives of the American people, and that we have greater contact with you. We must endeavor to understand each other better. And that is why I will share with you some of what I am hearing from the American people about the United Nations.

Since I became chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have received thousands of letters from Americans expressing their deep frustration with this institution. They know instinctively that the UN lives and breathes on the hard-earned money of the American taxpayers. And yet they have heard comments here in New York constantly calling the US a “deadbeat.”

They see the majority of the UN members routinely voting against America in the General Assembly. The American people hear all this; they resent it, and they have grown increasingly frustrated with what they feel is a lack of gratitude.

Source: Address to the United Nations Security Council Jan 20, 2000

Pay UN only with condition that they REFORM

Last year, the American people contributed a total of more than $1.4 billion dollars to the UN system in assessments & voluntary contributions. The American taxpayers also spent an additional $8.7 billion from the US military budget to support various UN resolutions and peacekeeping operations around the world.

The money we spend on the UN is not charity. It is an investment from which the American people rightly expect a return. They expect a reformed UN that works more efficiently, and which respects the sovereignty of the US. Some here may contend that the Clinton Administration should have fought to pay the arrears without conditions. I assure you, had they done so, they would have lost.

Congress has written a check to the UN for $926 million, payable upon the implementation of previously agreed-upon common-sense reforms. Now the choice is up to the UN. I suggest that if the UN were to reject this compromise, it would mark the beginning of the end of US support for the UN.

Source: Address to the United Nations Security Council Jan 20, 2000

The UN serves nation-states, not the other way around

Many Americans sense that the UN has greater ambitions than simply being an efficient deliverer of humanitarian aid, a more effective peacekeeper, a better weapons inspector, and a more effective tool of great power diplomacy. They see the UN aspiring to establish itself as the central authority of a new international order of global laws and global governance. This is an international order the American people will not countenance.

The UN must respect national sovereignty. The UN serves nation-states, not the other way around. This principle is central to the legitimacy and ultimate survival of the United Nations, and it is a principle that must be protected.

The American people do not want the UN to become an “entangling alliance.” Americans look with alarm at UN claims to a monopoly on international moral legitimacy. They see this as a threat to the God-given freedoms of the American people, a claim of political authority over Americans without their consent.

Source: Address to the United Nations Security Council Jan 20, 2000

Businesses are not in the business of expanding democracy

The argument has been advanced that only by exposing the Chinese government and the Chinese people to our values through expanded trade and investment can we help bring about real political change in China. I have always been skeptical about this, because businesses are not in the business of expanding democracy.

Businesses exist to make money, and I certainly have no problem with that. But let’s be honest. American businesses, even if viewed in the most charitable light, are not likely to lift a finger to promote democracy in China.

And the powerful lure of the potentially huge Chinese market has obviously clouded the judgment of some of our top companies and their executives. With regret, I have concluded that some of America’s top businesses have been willing to supplicate to the Communist government of China, hoping that the Chinese government will allow them to someday make a profit there.

Source: Statement to Congress Sep 13, 2000

Voted NO on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons.

Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would require sanctions against China or other countries if they were found to be selling illicit weapons of mass destruction.
Bill HR.4444 ; vote number 2000-242 on Sep 13, 2000

Voted YES on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion.

Adoption of the conference report on the 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill provided $12.7 billion for foreign aid programs in 2000.
Status: Conf Rpt Agreed to Y)51; N)49
Reference: H.R. 2606 Conference Report; Bill H.R. 2606 ; vote number 1999-312 on Oct 6, 1999

Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions.

To kill a proposal limiting President Clinton's ability to impose economic sanctions on foreign nations.
Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)53; N)46; NV)1
Reference: Motion to table the Lugar Amdt #3156.; Bill S. 2159 ; vote number 1998-201 on Jul 15, 1998

Voted YES on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech.

This amendment would have limited NATO Expansion to only include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
Status: Amdt Rejected Y)41; N)59
Reference: NATO Expansion limit-Warner Amdt. #2322; Bill NATO Expansion Treaty #105-36 ; vote number 1998-112 on Apr 30, 1998

Voted NO on $17.9 billion to IMF.

Would provide $17.9 billion for the International Monetary Fund.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)84; N)16
Reference: McConnell Amdt #2100; Bill S. 1768 ; vote number 1998-44 on Mar 26, 1998

Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.

Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.
Status: Conf Rpt Agreed to Y)74; N)22; NV)4
Reference: Conference Report on H.R. 927; Bill H.R. 927 ; vote number 1996-22 on Mar 5, 1996

Voted NO on ending Vietnam embargo.

Ending U.S. trade embargos on the country of Vietnam.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)62; N)38
Reference: For. Reltns. Auth. Act FY 94 & 95; Bill S. 1281 ; vote number 1994-5 on Jan 27, 1994

  • Click here for definitions & background information on Foreign Policy.
  • Click here for policy papers on Foreign Policy.
  • Click here for SenateMatch answers by Jesse Helms.
  • Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Foreign Policy in The Forum.
Other candidates on Foreign Policy: Jesse Helms on other issues:
NC Gubernatorial:
Mike Easley
NC Senatorial:
Elizabeth Dole
Erskine Bowles
John Edwards
Lauch Faircloth
Richard Burr

Presidential:
George W. Bush
(Republican for President)
V.P.Dick Cheney
(Republican for V.P.)
Sen.John Kerry
(Democratic nominee for Pres.)
Sen.John Edwards
(Democratic nominee for V.P.)
Ralph Nader
(Reform nominee for Pres.)
Peter Camejo
(Reform nominee for V.P.)
David Cobb
(Green nominee for Pres.)
Michael Badnarik
(Libertarian nominee for Pres.)
Michael Peroutka
(Constitution nominee for Pres.)
2004 Senate Races:
(AK)Knowles v.Murkowski v.Sykes
(AR)Holt v.Lincoln
(AZ)McCain v.Starky
(CA)Boxer v.Jones v.Gray
(CO)Coors v.Salazar v.Randall v.Acosta
(CT)Dodd v.Orchulli
(FL)Castor v.Martinez
(GA)Isakson v.Majette v.Buckley
(IA)Grassley v.Small v.Northrop
(IL)Obama v.Keyes
(IN)Bayh v.Scott
(KY)Bunning v.Mongiardo
(LA)John v.Vitter
(MD)Mikulski v.Pipkin
(MO)Bond v.Farmer
(NC)Bowles v.Burr
(ND)Dorgan v.Liffrig
(NH)Granny D v.Gregg
(NV)Reid v.Ziser
(NY)Schumer v.Mills v.McReynolds
(OH)Fingerhut v.Voinovich
(OK)Carson v.Coburn
(OR)Wyden v.King
(PA)Hoeffel v.Specter
(SC)DeMint v.Tenenbaum
(SD)Daschle v.Thune
(UT)Bennett v.Van Dam
(VT)Leahy v.McMullen
(WA)Murray v.Nethercutt
(WI)Feingold v.Michels
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare

Other Senators
House of Representatives
SenateMatch (matching quiz)
HouseMatch
Senate Votes (analysis)
House Votes