Diplomacy: The Poverty of the Republicans
It is understood that foreign policy plays no role in the American election. Tuesday, November 6, voters will decide on the basis of one criterion: the economy. It is a shame for the incumbent president, Barack Obama, who, with cut and thrust, struck down his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, on the subject of diplomacy, Monday evening, October 22.
The elegant seaside resort of Boca Raton, Florida housed the third and final debate between the two men, devoted to the foreign policy of the United States. It is not an insult to the former Massachusetts governor, who proved his talent in the first two debates, to note that he has nothing to say on American diplomacy, neither how to drive it nor of its contents. Should we blame the effects of humid heat of the Florida climate?
The only droning attack used ad nauseam by an uncomfortable Mitt Romney consisted of criticizing Obama's diplomacy as lacking "strength," "leadership," or determination. But on the method Mr. Romney would have taken to slow Iran's nuclear program, he had nothing. On the policy he would have had toward the "Arab Spring," nothing. On the conduct that he would adopt toward Syria, nothing. On the manner through which he would have exited Afghanistan, with him the victor in, as he claims, nothing. On the necessity of maintaining a balanced relationship with the partner-adversary that is China, nothing.
Going back over the debate, you will not find in the Republican a sketch of an idea, a breath of originality, the beginning of a vision. He intends to massively increase the country's military budget, but does not say how it will be financed, as he announces, at the same time, that he will reduce taxes... This adds budgetary irresponsibility to the poverty of substance in his positions. A recipe for disaster.
Mr. Romney is a victim of Republican divisions on foreign policy. Torn between neoconservatives, isolationists, ultranationalists and realists, the party does not have a line. It is nostalgic for the aftermath of the Cold War when the United States exerted an unparalleled dominance. This is not a policy.
Obama endured many setbacks at the beginning of his mandate. He reached out to Iran, China, Russia. He wanted to found a multilateralism with emerging powers suited to the beginning of the 21st century. He saw a way to address the major issues of the day: nuclear proliferation, global warming, etc. Many illusions. To which was added his failure on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
However, he extracted the United States out of the Iraqi tragedy, promised to leave Afghanistan, in short, defined a line permitting a reorientation of his diplomacy toward the continent of the future — Asia. He ended things with bin Laden and led a merciless struggle against terrorism.
Aggressive during the debate, Obama is a prudent realist; Mr. Romney appears very inconsistent.
The elegant seaside resort of Boca Raton, Florida housed the third and final debate between the two men, devoted to the foreign policy of the United States. It is not an insult to the former Massachusetts governor, who proved his talent in the first two debates, to note that he has nothing to say on American diplomacy, neither how to drive it nor of its contents. Should we blame the effects of humid heat of the Florida climate?
The only droning attack used ad nauseam by an uncomfortable Mitt Romney consisted of criticizing Obama's diplomacy as lacking "strength," "leadership," or determination. But on the method Mr. Romney would have taken to slow Iran's nuclear program, he had nothing. On the policy he would have had toward the "Arab Spring," nothing. On the conduct that he would adopt toward Syria, nothing. On the manner through which he would have exited Afghanistan, with him the victor in, as he claims, nothing. On the necessity of maintaining a balanced relationship with the partner-adversary that is China, nothing.
Going back over the debate, you will not find in the Republican a sketch of an idea, a breath of originality, the beginning of a vision. He intends to massively increase the country's military budget, but does not say how it will be financed, as he announces, at the same time, that he will reduce taxes... This adds budgetary irresponsibility to the poverty of substance in his positions. A recipe for disaster.
Mr. Romney is a victim of Republican divisions on foreign policy. Torn between neoconservatives, isolationists, ultranationalists and realists, the party does not have a line. It is nostalgic for the aftermath of the Cold War when the United States exerted an unparalleled dominance. This is not a policy.
Obama endured many setbacks at the beginning of his mandate. He reached out to Iran, China, Russia. He wanted to found a multilateralism with emerging powers suited to the beginning of the 21st century. He saw a way to address the major issues of the day: nuclear proliferation, global warming, etc. Many illusions. To which was added his failure on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
However, he extracted the United States out of the Iraqi tragedy, promised to leave Afghanistan, in short, defined a line permitting a reorientation of his diplomacy toward the continent of the future — Asia. He ended things with bin Laden and led a merciless struggle against terrorism.
Aggressive during the debate, Obama is a prudent realist; Mr. Romney appears very inconsistent.