In seinem Gastbeitrag für Amerika wählt blickt Joshua Clapp, Managing Editor von atlantic-community.org, auf die außenpolitischen Positionen von Barack Obama und Mitt Romney. Der Artikel ist am 15. Oktober 2012 erstmals auf Atlantic Community erschienen.
Tuesday marked the second US presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. The debate, in a town meeting format, included not only domestic policy but also foreign policy. How do the two candidates approach the outside world? Here is a look at five main foreign policy issues.
The US presidential race has changed dramatically. In the first debate, Romney decisively changed the narrative of the race when facing a flat and meandering president. The most recent opinion polls show a closer race than ever before, with some even giving Romney a small lead.
The second presidential debate offers Obama a chance to regain his footing. Since the format will incorporate foreign policy, the president should emphasize what has been seen as his strong point, from killing bin Laden to winding down the war in Iraq. Romney in turn might counterpunch with the recent administration fiasco surrounding the Benghazi attack. But no matter how each candidate approaches the debate, one thing is certain: they will stress their ’strong‘ differences in this fight to the political death.
However, how much difference is there actually between Obama’s and Romney’s foreign policy? Strident rhetoric is part of a political campaign, especially for a challenger unburdened by the duty of governing. So despite emphasizing distinctions, connections also abound. Here is a look at five foreign policy issues, exploring the differences and similarities between the president and the governor.
1. Trade
US-European trade links are vitally important, with the United States and European Union having one of the most integrated economic relationships in the world.
In general, while the two US political parties have contrasting views on expanding free trade, the presidential candidates are actually fairly similar with regards to trade policy. Despite protests from his union allies, Obama eventually helped pass free trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama. Romney would certainly support such initiatives.
In line with his pivot towards Asia, the president has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a regional free trade agreement amongst nations on both sides of the Pacific. It is unclear where exactly Romney stands on the Asia pivot – he apparently favors the broad idea of more engagement with the region but has criticized the pivot as under-resourced. Nevertheless, in the spirit of bipartisanship, both candidates have made sure to bash China as the economic boogeyman.
Despite the personal similarities on trade policy, a President Romney would most likely have an easier time of passing significant trade deals since Republicans support free trade more than the Democratic Party. This is significant when one takes into account that Romney has stated he supports a transatlantic free trade area. The agreement would be a boon to both American and European economies. In principal, Obama has indeed supported deeper economic integration between Europe and the United States, but his administration has not pursued an agreement with any vigor – a reflection of the greater opposition to trade deals from within his own party.
2. Conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan
The president has rejected any kind of heavy intervention in the Syrian conflict. He has ruled out suggestions that the US help create safe zones for civilians. Obama has however authorized covert support for the rebels. Romney has called for openly arming the Syrian opposition with heavier weapons as part of a larger critique on the president’s Middle East policy and foreign policy in general, recently outlined in the governor’s major foreign policy speech. As for Afghanistan, both support the plan to transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. Romney has not offered any clear contrasts to Obama’s Afghanistan policy.
3. Israel-Palestine
A newly elected President Obama might re-focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and make another stab at the problem, something he tried early in his presidency without much success. Romney would likely not worry so much about the conflict and concentrate on other foreign policy areas. However, a President Romney might surprise some people: While Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have a chilly relationship, Netanyahu and Romney have a close personal relationship going back years. Perhaps this personal connection might make Netanyahu more willing to work with Romney.
4. Iran
Romney has produced tough rhetoric on Iran. However, Romney does not propose any major changes regarding US policy on Iran. In his major foreign policy speech, the governor promised to tighten sanctions on Iran – something Obama is already carrying out in addition to covert action against the Iranian regime. Both candidates have not ruled out the use of force as a last resort.
It is however important to point out the slight differences in Romney’s and Obama’s rhetoric. The president has stated, „I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.“ Romney has repeatedly stressed preventing Iran from even acquiring a „nuclear capability“. How this might actually translate into action is another question however.
5. Russia
Romney has taken a harder rhetorical stance against Russia, epitomized by his widely reported „No. 1 geopolitical foe“ remark that he later tried to soften. The governor has in general criticized Obama’s reset policy. Romney condemned the New Start Treaty, arguing against ratification, and would likely re-evaluate the treaty as president. As such, one concrete change with a Romney administration could be in arms control policy. Much like Obama, the governor also supports a NATO missile defense system. Despite the similar position, Romney has used missile defense to hit Obama, especially after the president’s statement to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about flexibility after US elections.
This points to a simple fact: the challenger must seek stark policy contrast with the incumbent and offer something ‚different.‘ Romney appears to be succeeding in this endeavor for the time being.
0 Kommentare