Mitt Romney’s foreign policy flaws

Our President’s latest essay on Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy, its flaws and potential setbacks in the MENA Region can be consulted at the following address:

Magazine version of the article

The full article: Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Flaws

Much talk has filled mass media since the kick off of the presidential elections, with most of the analysis and speculations hovering around what mattered most to Americans: Economy; but what about the other main segment of presidential capabilities, namely foreign policy? While Obama’sforeign policy has crystalized over the past four years in world consciousness, Mitt Romney remainsa focal point of controversy, 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 21^st century as the American century by excellence under Washington’s leadership. Such declarations ought to push the casual citizen to offer special consideration to the Republican runner up for presidency, and to develop a thorough understanding of what is widely held to be the very policies that will 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 unfolding and turmoil spanning throughout the region.

It is worth noting, before heading any further in this article, that Mitt Romney’s Foreign policy speeches have so far only communicated a set of critiques and undermining statements of Obamas’handling of key topics such as the Arab Spring, the Syrian crackdown on civilians and the nuclear potential aspirations of Iran, without pointedly communicating a clear strategy and set of policies that will define the path Washington will undergo under a republican administration. 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””[1]. The peace-through-strength line of thought has proven to be unproductive and indeed detrimental to US interests under the Bush administration. The setbacks of unilateral action coupled with disregard of the new realities of distribution of power makes a new Bush Style foreign policy unraveling in the Middle East, and on a more global scale, noxious for world cooperation and for US interests indeed. Discouragement of multilateral cooperation is not a speculation but rather a plain acknowledgement by Romney himself since he plainly declares in his Foreign policy document when discussing the Syrian crisis: “Instead of taking the initiative to establish his own transition plan, the President outsourced leadership to Kofi Annan and the United Nations”. A foreign policy based on individual aspirations to shape the politics of a certain region through unilateral action not only undermines international cooperation, but also rules out the component of diplomatic compromise, which it is worth remembering, is the driving fuel of world politics and was the only way out for the Kennedy administration during the Cuban Missiles crisis (since we are commemorating the 50^th year of the event, it worth clarifying that the secret deal with the USSR over the American missile system deployment in Turkey is the compromise that allowed the peaceful resolution of the Cuban issue, thus Realpolitik in action, not unilateral vocation for world individual leadership as Romney advocates).

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 tendency puts the US in a sensible position, a position where diplomatic efforts and compromises are the only pathway towards greater collaboration, not confrontational tensions that will shrug the new global players from elaborating friendly approaches and policies towards the US. 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 instated or emerging global actors. This is what Romney fails to account for in todays pluralistic and multifaceted world, instead clinging to the notion of American exceptionalism, exceptionalism he advocates for not only as a domestic philosophy but also as a driving foreign policy.

Mitt Romney, in his speech at the Virginia Military Institute on October 8^th, argued for the case of a 21^st century American exceptionalism, a driving philosophy that is the backbone of US foreign policy, 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. The rise of the rest is what is at the heart of discussions in the white house given the impact such rise upholds on US leadership and exceptionalism, and it is the first time since the collapse of the USSR that the US position as world superpower is under threat. Americans do believe in the uniqueness of American history, yet 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 amidst new prominent additions to the Globalized world tradition is a reality that contrasts with the typical American belief of US exceptionalism. Thus it is important to question the practicality of the policies Mitt Romney advances and through which he claims he will underscore the rise of the rest and consolidate the fading American exceptionalism.

A pivot point of Romney’s foreign policy speeches is the support of “new friends who share [US] values in the Middle East”[2], yet such assertion is neither realistic nor in line with the republican fervent policies in regard to Israel. In his website, Mitt Romney carves a foreign policy towards Israel that follows the conventional republican support of the Jewish state. Yet the unrealistic plan the republican advances for such support bypasses conventional norms of world politics and 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”^[3] is an inconsiderate approach to US interests in the region and indeed on the International arena, interests that the Republican strategy undermines in order to empower Israeli policies condemned unacceptable by the world community. Unconditional support to 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 are but few indicators that confirm the necessity for the US foreign policy to balance its support to Israel with friendlier relations with the Arab world, given the Arab mindset that links all pitfalls of the Islamic world on Israeli interference and conspiracies to harm the interests of the glorious Ummah. Thus blind support for Israel, increased military, financial and logistical supplies, or politically incorrect statements about Israeli superior culture and Palestinians lack of interest in peace are ingredients that will make the Middle Eastern soup hard to swallow for US policy makers in case 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 Rayan, 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”^[4]. 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 it 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 diplomatic active performance throughout the Globe in order to achieve what cannot be done through military might. Military intervention in Iran will have devastating effects with only an ephemeral gain 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. Todays’ 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.

Mohamed Amine Belarbi

Post-Revolutionary Egypt: What’s Next?

Now the full document can be consulted entirely in PDF format in Scribd and Issuu.

Note:

This document is the intellectual property of both Mohamed Amine Belarbi and the Arab Institute for Youth Policy Making. Any copy or redistribution of part or of the entire essay ought to include a reference to both parties. This essay is referenced as a publication of the AIYPM sourcing in its branch in Morocco, the MIYPM.
You can consult the AIYPM blog on the following address: www. aiypm.co.cc

Full Document:

View this document on Scribd

Why a war on Iran profits everyone

Whether in the stormy streets of Lebanon or behind the closed doors of the Mossad, words and words again have been spilled on Iran’s nuclear program, and most importantly on an imminent attack on Khomeini’s’ stronghold as a pre-emptive option to avoid the emergence of a nuclear mushroom over Tel Aviv. The controversy is fierce, and the implications are far reaching both regionally and internationally. Taking the decision to fire a couple of Tomahawks over Natanz facility or wiping out the Bushehr nuclear reactor is easy for some officials in the Knesset, but the real nature of such decision is no different than the ‘halted’ decision to fire nukes on Havana at the time of the Kennedy administration in the 60s. Only difference: this time we don’t have brilliant decision makers of Kennedy’s caliber.
In this article, I will not spend chapters elaborating on the chaos an attack on Iran would engender, but rather I wish to draw a positive picture of what everyone has to gain from a military action against the Islamic Republic.
First focal point I’ll build on is ultimately related to another tragedy ongoing right now, a tragedy which victims amount to more than 10 000 and whose audience overpassed the 6 billion viewers. Lots of troubles yet no one is making bald moves, all what is being actively used are expired excuses copied from the encyclopedia RealPolitika at the detriment of the civilians massacred in AlHoula, Edlib and Dir Ezzour by the Assad mercenaries.

What have we to gain from a potential attack on Iran in regards to the Syrian Crisis? An individual with decent understanding of world alliances and regional features of the Middle East can pinpoint to the answer: An inevitable fall of the regime in Syria, and a long awaited victory of the Syrian revolution!

Well, what if I’m not that knowledgeable in world politics and international relations; could you enlighten me Mr. Belarbi on how an attack on Iran could speed up the collapse of the Assad regime? Sure. A key ally to the regime in Syria is, as most of us know, Iran whose unconditional support to the Allaouite center of power made it possible for Assad to survive so far the revolution, along of course with the strategic back up of Moscow and Beijing.
Teheran has been indulging in tremendous efforts to secure logistical and military support to the Syrian regime, let alone a fierce supply of advisors and defense strategists summoned by the Ayatollah and either flown or put on the line with Assad security chiefs and police. Giving lessons on ‘how to end dissidence and shut down rebellion’ is nothing new for Teheran, and sharing this invaluable knowledge with a key partner in the region is no more than a duty friends owe to each other. This is far from being the product of speculations and hypothetical scenarios as the UN and several western powers have condemned the shipping of arms and weapons from Iran and Russia to Syria over the past months, weapons which this time are not conventional missiles and rifles, but gear specially used by police forces to storm demonstrations and fight dissidents and rebels.

This being said, a potential military action in Iran could divert the Khomeini administration from Syria, and instead give it enough troubles to focus solely on the internal crisis and divert its entire logistical and military arsenal to fight back the Zionist coordinated assault on the nation. The Assad regime deprived from the flow of weapons coming from Persia, it will be impossible to sustain the level of operations against the rebels, giving thus the revolution the opportunity to revitalize across the country.

But Mr. Belarbi, if the Syrian regime doesn’t get weapons from Iran, they could just as well turn to someone else; they got a couple of friends ready to send in supplies and ammunitions, don’t they?
Well indeed, Syria has several key allies, but the business Syria does with Iran is different in nature from the one it could conduct with Russia and China. Syria was not in need of cash in order to receive weapons from Iran as the incentive of Khomeini and Ahmadi Nejad was both sectarian and political, yet when it is business with Moscow, the primary currency is money, not good will, and that’s something Bashar Al Assad doesn’t have at the moment given the fact that the country doesn’t have fountains of oil to lean on nor operating industries to finance its purchases with. As Farid Zakaria repeated once and again, Assad is running out of cash!
The other good news for Syrian rebels in case an attack is undertook against Iran is that the F-16 and drones used in an attack on Teheran could just as well gather intelligence data on Assad troops and then send the intel to the rebels who could operate more efficiently against the regimes’ squads. The air force deployed against Iran nuclear facilities and the ground troops sent on the ground if the conflict escalates will be of great resource to the revolutionaries, both supplying them with weapons and with intelligence reports. The story then would advance as it did in Libya: as the locations of Assad troops becomes easy, and as the Qatari weapons are supplied to the rebels by the ground troops operating in Iran, the days of the Syrian regime would be numbered, and the victory certain for the Syrian opposition. Voilà!