Ellen Bork complains about Ron Paul’s “bad record on China”:

In 2008, Paul was the only member of the House of Representatives to vote against a resolution calling on Beijing to end its crackdown in Tibet, pursue a substantive dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, release political prisoners, and allow human rights monitors into Tibet.

As I understand it, Rep. Paul regularly votes against any resolution that puts the U.S. Congress in the position of dictating how other governments should behave. He doesn’t think that Congress or the U.S. government as a whole has any business telling other states what they should be doing. Here is his statement opposing a resolution that condemned Iran for its post-election crackdown in 2009 (via Doherty):

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives [bold mine-DL]…..I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

I suppose one could object that symbolic resolutions that have no effect on policy do not represent “meddling” in the affairs of other states, but supporters of these resolutions must believe that they are some form of meddling. They wouldn’t bother to vote for them otherwise. It also can’t be stressed enough that these resolutions do nothing to help the dissidents in question, and the one thing they might achieve in the real world is that they provide the regimes that persecute them with another excuse to tar dissidents as disloyal or as agents of a foreign power. To the extent that these resolutions sour U.S. relations with other states or encourage antagonistic policies toward them, they are even less desirable.