Much analysis and speculation in the mass media since the kick off of the presidential elections has hovered around what matters most to Americans: Economics; but what about the other main segment of presidential capabilities, namely foreign policy? While Obama’s foreign policy has crystallized over the past four years in world consciousness, Mitt Romney’s remains a point of controversy. This is 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” through excellence under Washington’s leadership. Such declarations ought to push the casual citizen into developing a thorough understanding of what may become the very policies that 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 turmoil spanning the region. 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””.
This line of thought has proven to be unproductive and indeed detrimental to US interests under the Bush administration. The idea that Romney discourages multilateral cooperation is not speculation, but is plainly acknowledged by Romney himself. His Foreign Policy document, for example, criticizes the Syrian president for “outsourcing” leadership to Kofi Annan and the United Nations. A foreign policy based on attempts to shape regional politics through unilateral action not only undermines international cooperation, but also rules out the component of diplomatic compromise, which it is worth remembering was the only way out for the Kennedy administration during the Cuban Missile crisis.
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 puts the US in a position where diplomatic efforts and compromises are the only pathway towards greater collaboration. 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 global actors. This is what Romney fails to account for in today’s pluralistic and multifaceted world, instead clinging to the notion of American exceptionalism, which he advocates as a driving force for 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 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. It is the first time since the collapse of the USSR that the US position as world superpower is under threat. 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 is a reality that contrasts with the belief of US exceptionalism. Thus it is important to question the practicality of the policies Mitt Romney advances.
A pivotal point of Romney’s foreign policy speeches is the support of “new friends who share [US] values in the Middle East”, yet such assertion is neither realistic nor in line with Romney’s conventional Republican policies in regard to Israel. On his website, Mitt Romney carves a foreign policy towards Israel that follows the conventional Republican support of the Jewish state. Furthermore, the plan the Republican advances for support bypasses conventional norms of 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” is an inconsiderate approach to US interests in the region and would empower Israeli policies that are condemned as unacceptable by the world community.
Unconditional support for 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 confirm the necessity for the US foreign policy to balance its support to Israel with friendlier relations with the Arab world. Thus blind support for Israel, increased military, financial and logistical supplies, or politically incorrect statements about a superior Israeli culture and Palestinians lack of interest in peace are ingredients that will make the Middle Eastern soup hard to swallow for US policy makers if 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 Ryan, 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”.
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 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 active diplomatic performance throughout the globe in order to achieve what cannot be done through military might. Military intervention in Iran will have devastating effects with the only ephemeral gain being 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. Today’s 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.
