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.
A pivot point of Romney’s foreign policy speeches
is the support of “new friends who share [US] values in the Middle East”[2],
yet such assertion is neither realistic nor in line with the republican fervent
policies in regard to Israel. In his website, Mitt Romney carves a foreign
policy towards Israel that follows the conventional republican support of the
Jewish state. Yet the unrealistic plan the republican advances for such support
bypasses conventional norms of world politics and global affairs compromises.
Stating that “The United States must forcefully resist the emergence of
anti-Israel policies in Turkey and Egypt” or that “The United States must work as
a country to resist the worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel”[3] is an inconsiderate approach to
US interests in the region and indeed on the International arena, interests
that the Republican strategy undermines in order to empower Israeli policies condemned
unacceptable by the world community. Unconditional support to Israel and
greater affinity with the new post-revolutionary Arab leadership are mutually
exclusive, since advocating for interference and pressure on the Egyptian and
Turkish governments through conditional aid and diplomatic stress is not the
best way to make good friends with these governments nor with the Arab nations
that share similar distrust and cynicism towards the Zionist state.
The events that unraveled in the MENA Region during the 9/11 memorial, the riots against the US embassies and the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi are but few indicators that confirm the necessity for the US foreign policy to balance its support to Israel with friendlier relations with the Arab world, given the Arab mindset that links all pitfalls of the Islamic world on Israeli interference and conspiracies to harm the interests of the glorious Ummah. Thus blind support for Israel, increased military, financial and logistical supplies, or politically incorrect statements about Israeli superior culture and Palestinians lack of interest in peace are ingredients that will make the Middle Eastern soup hard to swallow for US policy makers in case Romney heads forward with his foreign policy plans.
Mitt Romney’s foreign policy strategy, or lack
thereof, seems not only to be a personal feature, but a characteristic of the
republican campaign as a whole. Paul Rayan, the ambitious republican Vice
presidential nominee, asserted in one of his public appearances that “[by
projecting] weakness abroad, our adversaries are that much more willing to test
us, to question our resolve, and our allies are more
hesitant to trust us”[4]. Affirming that American weakness is the true motivator of the anti-American tensions unfolding in the Middle East is a narrow appreciation for the politics shaping the Middle Eastern mindset. The tense relations with the Afghan and Pakistani population are not the result of lack of military personnel in the region but the direct outcome of inconsiderate usage of drone attacks on terrorist targets and civilian gatherings. The defiance of China is not the upshot of lack of naval military units in the pacific but the consequence of economic leverage of the Chinese industry. As Obama pointed it out during the last presidential debate when addressing Romney’s call for increased budgetary allowances to the Pentagon, “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed.” Romney has to redraft the foreign policy of the US not along military quantitative intensification but through diplomatic active performance throughout the Globe in order to achieve what cannot be done through military might. Military intervention in Iran will have devastating effects with only an ephemeral gain to delay Iranian nuclear ambitions, yet active collaboration with world players can coordinate effective economic sanctions that can and are already crippling Iranian financial sector. Todays’ world, today’s distribution of power and today’s multinational ambitions for influence and control render the Reaganesque peace-through-strength obsolete and irrelevant to the dynamics of world affairs. The winner takes it all strategy that Romney intends on pursuing is not realistic given the existence of governments and third parties that are powerful enough to claim their share of the global cake.
hesitant to trust us”[4]. Affirming that American weakness is the true motivator of the anti-American tensions unfolding in the Middle East is a narrow appreciation for the politics shaping the Middle Eastern mindset. The tense relations with the Afghan and Pakistani population are not the result of lack of military personnel in the region but the direct outcome of inconsiderate usage of drone attacks on terrorist targets and civilian gatherings. The defiance of China is not the upshot of lack of naval military units in the pacific but the consequence of economic leverage of the Chinese industry. As Obama pointed it out during the last presidential debate when addressing Romney’s call for increased budgetary allowances to the Pentagon, “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed.” Romney has to redraft the foreign policy of the US not along military quantitative intensification but through diplomatic active performance throughout the Globe in order to achieve what cannot be done through military might. Military intervention in Iran will have devastating effects with only an ephemeral gain to delay Iranian nuclear ambitions, yet active collaboration with world players can coordinate effective economic sanctions that can and are already crippling Iranian financial sector. Todays’ world, today’s distribution of power and today’s multinational ambitions for influence and control render the Reaganesque peace-through-strength obsolete and irrelevant to the dynamics of world affairs. The winner takes it all strategy that Romney intends on pursuing is not realistic given the existence of governments and third parties that are powerful enough to claim their share of the global cake.
Mohamed
Amine Belarbi
You can download and consult the PDF Document here:
[1] The Economist, Mitt Romney’s foreign policy Wishful thinking,
Lexington, Oct 9th 2012
[2] Official Foreign policy
strategy of Mitt Romney, www.mittromney.com
[3] Official Foreign policy
strategy of Mitt Romney, www.mittromney.com
[4] The Economist, Mitt Romney’s foreign policy Wishful
thinking, Lexington, Oct 9th 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment