The US Presidential Election Lacks a Deep Discussion of Asia

Published in Nishinippon Shimbun
(Japan) on 18 October 2012
by Editorial (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Tom Derbish. Edited by Natalie Clager.
With less than three weeks until the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 6, incumbent President Barack Obama and the Republican challenger, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, have engaged in a series of intense debates.

The second televised debate on Oct. 16 saw the two candidates trading harsh words over domestic policy and international diplomacy.

These debates can have a large impact on the outcome of the election. Candidates get a chance to directly confront each other and exchange arguments on the country's most pressing issues. The debates become an exhibition of more than just the candidates' remarks. How they answer questions, their facial expressions and their ability to project the image of a leader are all put to the test.

In the first debate — which dealt primarily with domestic policy — the challenger Romney gave a dominating performance as he invoked the high unemployment rates in the U.S. as evidence of the Obama administration's "failures." Following the debate, Romney's approval ratings increased and various polls showed him overtaking President Obama.

After such a flat performance, Obama changed his tactics and attempted an aggressive counterattack against Romney in the second debate. He tried to show concern for the middle class, and may have succeeded to a certain extent.

Both candidates seemed to view this as a crucial point in winning the election. Interruptions were common as each man sought to counter the other's arguments, and the intensity was palpable as the candidates glared at each other across the stage.

Despite these intense exchanges, the debates may not have dealt with foreign policy deeply enough to satisfy viewers from Japan and around the world.

The foreign policy issues brought up during the debate centered on the Middle East, specifically on the Iranian nuclear program and the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya. Both candidates lost the opportunity to make any substantial comments regarding Asian diplomacy.

How the U.S. plans to handle the economic rise and accelerating military development of China is the largest foreign policy concern for Japan and various other Asian countries.

Romney's statement, “On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator," displayed a confrontational attitude. In response, Obama emphasized that “the currency’s actually gone up 11 percent since I’ve been president because we have pushed them hard. And we’ve put unprecedented trade pressure on China. That’s why exports have significantly increased under my presidency." Both of these statements are part of the typical foreign policy posturing used to win votes in a presidential campaign. Neither candidate has demonstrated a clear, comprehensive Asian foreign policy.

A lack of diplomatic experience is a particularly weak point for the challenger Romney. One example of his fundamental lack of understanding came when he referred to Japan as "a nation that suffer[ed] in decline and distress for a decade or a century." In order to dispel the criticism that he is an "unskilled diplomat," Romney needs to present a large-scale Asian policy plan based on an accurate understanding of the situation.

The final debate will be held at the end of the month. It will cover foreign policy and security. Like it or not, the U.S. plays an enormous role in maintaining order in the international community. As these two candidates vie for the right to define that role, we will wait and see if they finally give Asia the consideration it deserves.


米大統領選は11月6日の投票日まで残り3週間を切り、再選を目指す民主党候補のオバマ大統領と、共和党候補のロムニー前マサチューセッツ州知事が激しいデッドヒートを続けている。

 16日には両候補による2度目のテレビ討論会が行われ、内政や外交をテーマに舌戦が展開された。

 米大統領選の討論会といえば、勝負の行方に大きな影響を与える重要なイベントだ。候補が直接対決し、焦点の政策について激論を交わす。話の中身だけでなく、受け答えや表情も含め、指導者としての人間性を試される場である。

 内政がテーマとなった初回の討論では、失業率の高さなどオバマ政権の「失政」を追及したロムニー氏が優勢との印象を与えた。その後支持率を伸ばし、一部の調査ではオバマ氏を逆転した。

 前回精彩を欠いたオバマ氏は、今回は戦術を変更し、積極的にロムニー氏を攻撃して反転攻勢を図った。中間層に配慮する姿勢をアピールし、巻き返しに一定程度成功したようだ。

 両候補ともここを勝負どころと見たのか、相手の発言をさえぎって反論したり、時には壇上でにらみ合ったりするほど熱が入っていた。

 しかし応酬の激しさとは裏腹に、日本など米国以外で大統領選に注目している人々にとっては、物足りなさが残る討論だったと言えるだろう。外交政策での掘り下げが不十分であったからだ。

 外交論議では、イランの核開発やリビアでの米領事館襲撃など、中東政策が中心となった。対アジア外交に関し、両候補とも発言が少なかったのは残念だ。

 経済的に台頭し、急速な軍事増強を続ける中国に対して、米国がどのような戦略で向き合うのかは、日本も含めたアジア諸国の最大の関心事である。

 対中政策でロムニー氏は「大統領に就任したら、中国を為替操作国に認定する」と対決姿勢を前面に出した。一方オバマ氏は「われわれが中国に圧力をかけてきたことで、元相場は上昇し、対中輸出は大幅に伸びている」と強調した。

 お互いに、有権者に向け対外強硬姿勢を競い合うという、選挙戦でお決まりのパターンにとどまり、明確で包括的なアジア戦略を提示しなかった。

 特にロムニー氏の場合、外交経験の乏しさが弱点と指摘されている。これまでに、日本を「10年あるいは1世紀にわたる衰退と苦難に陥っている国」と表現するなど、基本的な認識不足を疑わせる発言もしている。「外交下手」の批判に反論するためには、正確な認識に基づく大局的なアジア政策を示す必要がある。

 討論は今月下旬に最終回が行われる。今度は外交や安全保障が主要テーマとなる。好むと好まざるとにかかわらず、米国は事実上、現在の国際社会の秩序維持に最も大きな責任を担う国だ。その指導者の座を争う両候補が最後にアジアをどう語るのか、注視したい。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Singapore: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk Leaves America at a Turning Point

Germany: We Should Take Advantage of Trump’s Vacuum*

Israel: Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias: Congress Opens Investigation into Wikipedia

El Salvador: The Game of Chess between the US and Venezuela Continues

Germany: It’s Not Europe’s Fault

Topics

Spain: Charlie Kirk and the Awful People Celebrating His Death

Germany: Trump Declares War on Cities

Japan: US Signing of Japan Tariffs: Reject Self-Righteousness and Fulfill Agreement

Russia: Trump the Multipolarist*

Turkey: Blood and Fury: Killing of Charlie Kirk, Escalating US Political Violence

Thailand: Brazil and the US: Same Crime, Different Fate

Singapore: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk Leaves America at a Turning Point

Germany: When Push Comes to Shove, Europe Stands Alone*

Related Articles

Japan: US Signing of Japan Tariffs: Reject Self-Righteousness and Fulfill Agreement

Nigeria: 80 Years after Hiroshima, Nagasaki Atomic Bombings: Any Lesson?

Taiwan: Trump’s Japan Negotiation Strategy: Implications for Taiwan

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Japan: Iran Ceasefire Agreement: The Danger of Peace by Force