Much talk has filled mass media since the kick off
of the presidential elections, with most of the analysis and speculations
hovering around what mattered most to Americans: Economy; but what about the
other main segment of presidential capabilities, namely foreign policy? While
Obama’s foreign policy has crystalized over the past four years in world
consciousness, Mitt Romney remains a focal point of controversy, not only
because republicans developed the bad habit of ruining their nations’ foreign
policy, but also because of the thundering statements of Mitt who vowed to
redefine the 21st century as the American century by excellence
under Washington’s leadership. Such declarations ought to push the casual
citizen to offer special consideration to the Republican runner up for
presidency, and to develop a thorough understanding of what is widely held to
be the very policies that will shape the world we live in.
I will walk you through Mitt Romney’s Foreign
Policy, with special focus on the republicans’ strategy with regard to the
Middle East given the current unfolding and turmoil spanning throughout the
region.
It is worth noting, before heading any further in
this article, that Mitt Romney’s Foreign policy speeches have so far only
communicated a set of critiques and undermining statements of Obamas’ handling
of key topics such as the Arab Spring, the Syrian crackdown on civilians and
the nuclear potential aspirations of Iran, without pointedly communicating a
clear strategy and set of policies that will define the path Washington will
undergo under a republican administration. Although unclear and suspiciously
similar to the key fundamental pivots of Obama’s foreign policy, Romney’s
driving philosophy for handling world challenges can be, as written in the
Economist’s Lexington notebook, best characterized as a “[…] Reaganesque talk
of achieving “peace through strength””[1].
The peace-through-strength line of thought has proven to be
unproductive and indeed detrimental to US interests under the Bush administration. The setbacks of unilateral action coupled with disregard of the new realities of distribution of power makes a new Bush Style foreign policy unraveling in the Middle East, and on a more global scale, noxious for world cooperation and for US interests indeed. Discouragement of multilateral cooperation is not a speculation but rather a plain acknowledgement by Romney himself since he plainly declares in his Foreign policy document when discussing the Syrian crisis: “Instead of taking the initiative to establish his own transition plan, the President outsourced leadership to Kofi Annan and the United Nations”. A foreign policy based on individual aspirations to shape the politics of a certain region through unilateral action not only undermines international cooperation, but also rules out the component of diplomatic compromise, which it is worth remembering, is the driving fuel of world politics and was the only way out for the Kennedy administration during the Cuban Missiles crisis (since we are commemorating the 50th year of the event, it worth clarifying that the secret deal with the USSR over the American missile system deployment in Turkey is the compromise that allowed the peaceful resolution of the Cuban issue, thus Realpolitik in action, not unilateral vocation for world individual leadership as Romney advocates).
unproductive and indeed detrimental to US interests under the Bush administration. The setbacks of unilateral action coupled with disregard of the new realities of distribution of power makes a new Bush Style foreign policy unraveling in the Middle East, and on a more global scale, noxious for world cooperation and for US interests indeed. Discouragement of multilateral cooperation is not a speculation but rather a plain acknowledgement by Romney himself since he plainly declares in his Foreign policy document when discussing the Syrian crisis: “Instead of taking the initiative to establish his own transition plan, the President outsourced leadership to Kofi Annan and the United Nations”. A foreign policy based on individual aspirations to shape the politics of a certain region through unilateral action not only undermines international cooperation, but also rules out the component of diplomatic compromise, which it is worth remembering, is the driving fuel of world politics and was the only way out for the Kennedy administration during the Cuban Missiles crisis (since we are commemorating the 50th year of the event, it worth clarifying that the secret deal with the USSR over the American missile system deployment in Turkey is the compromise that allowed the peaceful resolution of the Cuban issue, thus Realpolitik in action, not unilateral vocation for world individual leadership as Romney advocates).
The rise of China as a global economic engine, and
the resurgence of Russian interests in the Middle East coupled with the
emergence of new Arab governments with a less pro-American leadership tendency puts
the US in a sensible position, a position where diplomatic efforts and
compromises are the only pathway towards greater collaboration, not
confrontational tensions that will shrug the new global players from
elaborating friendly approaches and policies towards the US. The usage of power
can be adopted as foreign policy framework only if a nation is declared as sole
superpower and is safe from any potential resistance by instated or emerging
global actors. This is what Romney fails to account for in todays pluralistic
and multifaceted world, instead clinging to the notion of American
exceptionalism, exceptionalism he advocates for not only as a domestic
philosophy but also as a driving foreign policy.
Mitt Romney, in his speech at the Virginia Military
Institute on October 8th, argued for the case of a 21st
century American exceptionalism, a driving philosophy that is the backbone of
US foreign policy, by stating that “It is the responsibility of our president
to use America’s great power to shape history – not to lead from behind,
leaving our destiny at the mercy of events”. The American exceptionalism is
held to be true today only in the domain of military dominance, yet the
emergence of the current economic powers (BRICS) has shattered this concept as
detailed in the "Post American World" by Fareed Zakaria. The rise of
the rest is what is at the heart of discussions in the white house given the
impact such rise upholds on US leadership and exceptionalism, and it is the
first time since the collapse of the USSR that the US position as world
superpower is under threat. Americans do believe in the uniqueness of American
history, yet the debt leverage China has and its trade advantage over the US,
the shift of educational and financial capital towards the East and the
cultural dilution of American culture amidst new prominent additions to the
Globalized world tradition is a reality that contrasts with the typical
American belief of US exceptionalism. Thus it is important to question the practicality
of the policies Mitt Romney advances and through which he claims he will
underscore the rise of the rest and consolidate the fading American
exceptionalism.
