Mitt Romney, the New American Hawk
His tone is that of an American nationalist who knows nothing of doubt — or the world today. In terms of foreign policy, Mitt Romney, the man who will challenge Barack Obama in November, is a mix of Ronald Reagan and, especially, Bush Junior ("W").
He is a right-wing Republican — at least judging from his rare forays into foreign policy matters. He presents himself as a hawk. He promises to be a president who will put China, Russia, Iran and several others back in their place. Those who dare to defy America's supremacy, which he plans to "restore," had better watch out.
As has been the case since the end of the Cold War, international issues have barely been mentioned in the campaign. They took a back seat this week during the Republican convention that gathered in Tampa, Florida. On Tuesday, Aug. 28, the former governor of Massachusetts was named the official Republican nominee for the Nov. 6 election.
This election has only one subject: the economy. Yet, the way he addresses foreign policy questions says something about Romney. And, incidentally, it is of great interest to the rest of the world...
First of all, his approach is rather cavalier. In 2007-2008, candidate Obama took time during his campaign to visit Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the U.K. Not Romney. He took three short trips in August. In London, he showed his sense of diplomacy and the high esteem in which he holds Europeans by expressing doubts about Great Britain's ability to organize the Olympic Games!
He didn't take a big risk in then going on to flatter Poland, the most pro-American country on the old continent. Finally, he went to Jerusalem to tell the Israelis that a president Romney would approve all of their decisions, no matter what.
"I Am an Unapologetic Believer in the Greatness of America"
Those were his actions. As for the rest, the rhetoric, the elegant New England patrician had a choice to make: stay true to his original political family, the moderate Republicans. In foreign policy, they are prudently interventionist, like Robert Zoellick, former head of the World Bank, a realist chosen by Romney to prepare the “transition” (in the event of victory).
Or, the Republican candidate could follow the rightward drift of his party and align himself with the hard-liners: a mix of neo-conservatives and ultra-nationalists. Out of conviction or cynicism, he has opted for the latter. His rhetoric confirms it.
He unreservedly celebrates the glory of the United States. "I am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of this country," he writes. "I believe our country is the greatest force for good the world has ever known." He sees no reason why the twenty-first century, like the previous one, should not also be an "American Century."
Naturally "good," America must have free reign, and its military supremacy must be preserved at all cost. Romney has promised that the country's defense budget — nearly $700 billion — will never go below today's level: 4 percent of the GDP. He has even promised to increase it. He intends to add 100,000 troops to the American Army.
He denounces Obama's tendency to compromise at the international level; the Democrat is too accommodating. The Republican, on the other hand, would re-establish the absolute supremacy of the United States. He described Russia as "our number one geopolitical foe." He has warned China: On his first day in the White House, Romney will label China as a "currency manipulator," and will implement trade sanctions. He has warned Iran: He will support an Israeli offensive — implying that the United States may even participate. He has made firm commitments regarding Afghanistan: It is out of the question to end the war until the Taliban have been defeated.
In the International Herald Tribune, Roger Cohen puts it nicely: "I’ve not seen a war that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan don't want to fight." We know that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is close to American Republicans. And for Mitt Romney, the feeling is mutual: His Middle Eastern policy is to do whatever "Bibi" tells him to do.
As If the World Hadn't Changed Since 2001
Leaving aside the fact that his defense policy risks increasing the budget deficit — a habit among Republicans — what is most troubling is a foreign policy stance dating back ten, twenty or thirty years. His rhetoric is from an old recipe, which consists of affirming U.S. primacy loud and clear, first and foremost, because of its powerful army.
It is strangely reminiscent of Bush, Jr. the day after the 2001 attacks, this combination of ultra-nationalism and cowboy-booted idealism. As if the world hadn't changed; as if Iraq and Afghanistan hadn't revealed the limits of the American war machine; as if new powers hadn't emerged, like Brazil, Turkey or Indonesia, which intend to contest Western preeminence; as if the American economy wasn't closely tied to China's.
Obama is also convinced of the need for America to remain the world's strategic superpower. He readily admits this, but has sought to maintain this position under early twenty-first century conditions, not yesterday's.
Romney's vision is a caricature of reality. Internally, he touts a financial deregulation cocktail, tax breaks and smaller government — all the things that led to the 2008 crisis!
Externally, his tone is the same as the one heard before the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters. The nostalgia of candidate Romney for the ideological world of "W" is a bad sign.
He is a right-wing Republican — at least judging from his rare forays into foreign policy matters. He presents himself as a hawk. He promises to be a president who will put China, Russia, Iran and several others back in their place. Those who dare to defy America's supremacy, which he plans to "restore," had better watch out.
As has been the case since the end of the Cold War, international issues have barely been mentioned in the campaign. They took a back seat this week during the Republican convention that gathered in Tampa, Florida. On Tuesday, Aug. 28, the former governor of Massachusetts was named the official Republican nominee for the Nov. 6 election.
This election has only one subject: the economy. Yet, the way he addresses foreign policy questions says something about Romney. And, incidentally, it is of great interest to the rest of the world...
First of all, his approach is rather cavalier. In 2007-2008, candidate Obama took time during his campaign to visit Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the U.K. Not Romney. He took three short trips in August. In London, he showed his sense of diplomacy and the high esteem in which he holds Europeans by expressing doubts about Great Britain's ability to organize the Olympic Games!
He didn't take a big risk in then going on to flatter Poland, the most pro-American country on the old continent. Finally, he went to Jerusalem to tell the Israelis that a president Romney would approve all of their decisions, no matter what.
"I Am an Unapologetic Believer in the Greatness of America"
Those were his actions. As for the rest, the rhetoric, the elegant New England patrician had a choice to make: stay true to his original political family, the moderate Republicans. In foreign policy, they are prudently interventionist, like Robert Zoellick, former head of the World Bank, a realist chosen by Romney to prepare the “transition” (in the event of victory).
Or, the Republican candidate could follow the rightward drift of his party and align himself with the hard-liners: a mix of neo-conservatives and ultra-nationalists. Out of conviction or cynicism, he has opted for the latter. His rhetoric confirms it.
He unreservedly celebrates the glory of the United States. "I am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of this country," he writes. "I believe our country is the greatest force for good the world has ever known." He sees no reason why the twenty-first century, like the previous one, should not also be an "American Century."
Naturally "good," America must have free reign, and its military supremacy must be preserved at all cost. Romney has promised that the country's defense budget — nearly $700 billion — will never go below today's level: 4 percent of the GDP. He has even promised to increase it. He intends to add 100,000 troops to the American Army.
He denounces Obama's tendency to compromise at the international level; the Democrat is too accommodating. The Republican, on the other hand, would re-establish the absolute supremacy of the United States. He described Russia as "our number one geopolitical foe." He has warned China: On his first day in the White House, Romney will label China as a "currency manipulator," and will implement trade sanctions. He has warned Iran: He will support an Israeli offensive — implying that the United States may even participate. He has made firm commitments regarding Afghanistan: It is out of the question to end the war until the Taliban have been defeated.
In the International Herald Tribune, Roger Cohen puts it nicely: "I’ve not seen a war that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan don't want to fight." We know that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is close to American Republicans. And for Mitt Romney, the feeling is mutual: His Middle Eastern policy is to do whatever "Bibi" tells him to do.
As If the World Hadn't Changed Since 2001
Leaving aside the fact that his defense policy risks increasing the budget deficit — a habit among Republicans — what is most troubling is a foreign policy stance dating back ten, twenty or thirty years. His rhetoric is from an old recipe, which consists of affirming U.S. primacy loud and clear, first and foremost, because of its powerful army.
It is strangely reminiscent of Bush, Jr. the day after the 2001 attacks, this combination of ultra-nationalism and cowboy-booted idealism. As if the world hadn't changed; as if Iraq and Afghanistan hadn't revealed the limits of the American war machine; as if new powers hadn't emerged, like Brazil, Turkey or Indonesia, which intend to contest Western preeminence; as if the American economy wasn't closely tied to China's.
Obama is also convinced of the need for America to remain the world's strategic superpower. He readily admits this, but has sought to maintain this position under early twenty-first century conditions, not yesterday's.
Romney's vision is a caricature of reality. Internally, he touts a financial deregulation cocktail, tax breaks and smaller government — all the things that led to the 2008 crisis!
Externally, his tone is the same as the one heard before the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters. The nostalgia of candidate Romney for the ideological world of "W" is a bad sign.
Netenyahu’s poodle.