How will Mitt Romney Challenge President Obama on Foreign Policy?

The Republican presidential candidate's 'foreign policy' tour in July was designed to burnish his geopolitical credentials; however it was marred by a series of gaffes. Romney drew the ire of British politicians and commentators by questioning whether the UK was ready to host the Olympics. In Israel, Romney declared Jerusalem to be the Israeli capital, something no American Administration has done, in respect of the sensitivity of the issue in negotiations with the Palestinians. Romney also asserted while in Jerusalem that Israel's culture and the 'hand of providence' explained its stronger economic performance vis-à-vis Palestine. These controversial statements provoked an angry response from Palestinian officials. Yet if the former Governor of Massachusetts and Bain private equity executive thwarts President Obama's bid for a second term, it remains opaque what Romney's approach to global affairs would be. How would a Romney foreign policy be different from the current Administration? Would it differ substantially from that of the last Republican President, George W Bush? How would a nascent Romney administration confront what his campaign's website describes as a 'bewildering array of threats and opportunities'?

The Romney overseas tour provided very little in the way of substance to answering these questions. The trip was crafted from a public relations perspective to showcase Romney on the world stage as a Presidential and statesmanlike figure representing his country abroad. Much of it consisted of symbolism rather than illuminating Romney's foreign, defence and security policies. As the candidate himself made plain in an interview during the tour with CNN, when questioned how his foreign policy as President would be different from the last President Bush, Romney responded: 'Well, first, I have to note that as tradition for our nation, I, being on foreign soil, avoid speaking about a new foreign policy or my foreign policy or doing that in a place that would in any way detract from the president's effort to pursue his own foreign policy. So I really can't... I can't go down that path.'

The Obama/Clinton foreign policy record

Traditionally foreign, defence and security policy has been perceived as policy strength for the Republican Party. Republicans have often successfully caricatured Democrats as being 'soft' or 'weak' on maintaining strong defences and asserting robust American leadership on the world stage. President Obama was routinely derided during the 2008 Democratic primaries and during the General Election for his lack of international experience and grasp of foreign and military affairs. Yet, during the 2012 election cycle, foreign policy is now viewed as a strong point for the Democrats and one of the Obama Administration's greatest assets. If the 2012 Presidential election was to be dominated by foreign and national security policy, like the 2004 Bush v Kerry contest, most observers of the American political scene agree President Obama would be on much stronger ground than he is today. As it is, the 2012 vote is redolent of 1992 and its defining Clinton campaign slogan 'it's the economy, stupid'.       

In part, the command that the Obama Administration has over international affairs is due to several notable policy successes, chief among them, the killing of Osama Bin Laden and significant parts of Al-Qa'ida's leadership and the Libyan intervention. Obama's appointment of his primary rival to the State Department, former First Lady and New York Senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has earned the Administration plaudits for its conduct of international relations from across the US political spectrum and throughout the capitals of the world. Hillary Clinton has become the most travelled Secretary of State in American history, visiting 102 countries in just three and half years.  Indeed commentators have taken to asserting Mrs. Clinton has 'restored America's mission to the world'. Secretary of State Clinton is now the most popular and highly regarded public official in the United States and this wider foreign policy success is confirmed on the US domestic scene, and is routinely reflected in public opinion surveys which give the President and his administration high marks for rebuilding America's global image and relationships.  The President's re-election campaign cites the dismantling of Al-Qa'ida leadership and the robust sanctions against Iran as evidence of this effectiveness.      

Romney and American Exceptionalism

The Romney critique of the Obama foreign policy is centred upon the thesis of American exceptionalism - the idea that the United States is different from other countries in that it has a specific mission to spread liberty and democracy in accordance with American values and interests - and an assertion that, by engaging in a more multilateral and consensual diplomacy, President Obama has in fact weakened and eroded American power. 'Governor Romney believes in American exceptionalism, that we are great not just because of our military and economic power but also because of our values. The current President does not. He believes in engagement, which has often not worked', says Richard Williamson, a leading Republican foreign policy specialist and adviser to the Romney campaign.  On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney contrasts his vision of American greatness with what he claims is Barack Obama's proclivity for apologising for it. The 'President doesn't have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do', Romney has charged, echoing the line of attack that Ronald Reagan deployed against Jimmy Carter's rhetoric regarding a national 'crisis of confidence' during the 1980 Presidential election. Governor Romney has argued that re-electing the President will result in Iran having a nuclear weapon - without explaining how this will occur. He has lambasted the Obama administration for not taking 'more assertive steps' to force out the repressive regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad - yet Governor Romney and his campaign team have said he is not 'anxious to employ military action'. He charged that President Obama gave comfort to the Taliban by announcing a timeline for withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, though has also indicated he accepts the very same 2014 timeline that he is critical of the President for embracing. Christopher Preble, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, says he does not yet see 'a huge difference' between the foreign policy approaches of Obama and Romney. 'A lot is made of Romney's tough talk with respect to Russia and Iran and China, but even there it's not like I see a dearth of toughness on the part of President Obama', Preble said.

Foreign Policy and Presidential Politics

The 2012 Presidential election is one which has been and will continue to be dominated by domestic issues, overwhelmingly the health of the US economy and jobs. Unless a major international incident or terrorist attack occurs between now and November, foreign policy will not feature heavily. Due to his business career Romney's policy expertise lies mainly within the field of financial and business matters.  This 'domestic' election is reinforced with the selection of Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as Romney's Vice-Presidential running mate. Like Romney, Ryan has no background in international affairs or defence and security matters. As Chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee he has built up a portfolio concentrated on fiscal matters. As Susan Cornwell and Sam Youngman have pointed out the addition of Ryan to the Republican ticket confirms that Romney 'sees the November contest with President Barack Obama as a referendum over the U.S. economy and the size of the federal budget'.  Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Centre for Politics, has defined Ryan as a 'generic Republican on foreign policy'. Beyond the standard Republican Party positions on Afghanistan, the Middle East, defence spending and America's role in the world, Ryan has not fleshed out a distinctive foreign, defence and security policy doctrine of his own.      

One area where sharp policy differences exist is defence spending. In January, President Obama outlined a vision for the Army and Marines which included reductions of 100,000 troops, designed to create a leaner and more cost effective military. The Obama Administration has committed itself to continued growth in the defence budget over the next decades, but the rate of spending growth would slow. In opposition, Governor Romney has called for increasing active-duty military personnel by 100,000 troops and bolstering the US Navy. Romney has also indicated under his watch an increase in defence spending would occur - by ensuring that the budget would not fall below 4 per cent of the nation's GDP. However, details are vague as to how this increase would be financed, which some analysts' project would add more than $2 trillion in government spending over the next decade.

As with many policy issues throughout his political career, whether it is economics, social or cultural matters, Governor Romney's positions have been fluid. Foreign policy has been no exception. The Romney of 2012 has adopted markedly different foreign, defence and security positions than the Romney of 2008. His campaign advisers attribute these shifting positions to changes in global relations over the last four years. During the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries, Romney stood for more collaboration with the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation. Now in 2012 Romney has stated he will issue an executive order branding China a currency manipulator, a policy which will undoubtedly antagonise Beijing.  In a spring CNN interview, he curiously labelled Russia the United States 'No. 1 geopolitical foe'. Yet despite this Cold War-era language, paradoxically Russia represents another instance in which Governor Romney and President Obama don't differ much, despite the rhetoric. Romney has assailed Obama as trying to appease the Russians by scrapping a Bush Administration plan to build a missile-defence system in Eastern Europe, and replacing it with a different plan to be completed by 2020. Yet again however, Romney says he is willing to commit to the same timeline.

Continuity trumps Change

During the 2008 Presidential election, few of the foreign policy elite would have ventured that the counter-terrorism strategy pursued by President Obama would have aggressively continued the policies inherited from the Bush administration. Obama's 2008 campaign officials continually maintained that facilities such as Guantanamo Bay would be immediately closed within the first few days of Obama entering the White House.  Guantanamo is still open for business, three and a half years later after the Administration encountered opposition in Congress to its closure and practical challenges as to where the detainees would be transferred to. President Obama ventured during a YouTube debate in the summer of 2007 that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Syria, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba with no pre-conditions during his first year in office. No such meetings ever occurred. Whilst winding down combat operations in Iraq under the terms of an agreement put in place by the outgoing Bush Administration, the President decided to surge in Afghanistan sending in more troops after a lengthy internal policy review in an attempt to stabilize the Afghan theatre and ward off outright defeat at the hands of the Taliban. Drone strikes against militants in Pakistan, Afghanistan and around the world have proliferated under Obama. It has been leaked that the President personally oversees the process of drawing up a 'kill list' of those who will be targeted. This continuity has led some Republicans, such as Condoleezza Rice, to praise the Obama Administration for its foreign policy in relation to counter-terrorism and it's continued use of the 'tools' left behind by President Bush.

With an incumbent administration pursuing a robust counter-terrorist programme similar in substance if not in style to that of the conservative Bush Administration and with the over-all foreign policy of President Obama rated as competent and effective, it is difficult political and policy terrain for a challenger such as Mitt Romney to lay out an opposing thesis which differentiates himself and his international vision and gains traction among the elite and public in general.  To date, Romney has not articulated a clear, coherent and detailed foreign, defence and security policy alternative. 

Despite the partisan hyperbole and rhetorical flourishes, most analysts, commentators and the foreign policy establishment agree there are no major foreign policy divides between the Obama and Romney campaigns at the moment, apart from the arithmetic of defence spending. The only major change detected is stylistic. Under a Romney presidency, the United States would likely revert to a more unilateral posture, reminiscent of the Bush Administration, based on the premise of 'American exceptionalism'. The more multi-lateral, networked, consensus building approach of President Obama and Secretary Clinton, which has striven to create and leverage alliances and coalitions through 'smart power' engagement, would be downgraded. Yet, from Afghanistan to the Arab Spring, from the Eurozone crisis to the US pivot towards the Asia-Pacific and the rise of China, the big strategic issues and questions facing the United States will retain a high degree of continuity in terms of policy making, as has been the case with American foreign policy from administration to administration throughout the decades.

Spot the Difference: Comparing Obama and Romney

Defence	Will increase spending on defence roughly estimated at $2tn over next 10 years.	Has announced spending cuts of roughly $500bn.
China	Has promised to declare China a 'currency manipulator', be more robust on trade matters with China and halt government purchases of Chinese goods until Beijing signs a procurement agreement.	Will continue a policy of constructive engagement and partnership with China, avoiding overt confrontation with emphasis on human rights. Has announced strategic 'pivot to Asia', opening of a new Marine Corps base in Australia.
Afghanistan and 'War on Terror'	Will continue drone strikes and special operations while drawing down troops in Afghanistan. Has accepted 2014 timeline for withdrawal with caveat that he would only withdraw if the Generals on the ground recommended that step.	Will continue drone strikes and special operations while drawing down troops in Afghanistan. Committed to ending the war by 2014.
Iranian Nuclear Programme	Continuation of sanctions policy and negotiations without ruling out a military option.	Continuation of sanctions policy and negotiations without ruling out a military option, though preference for diplomatic outcome.
Syria	Will support rebels in Syria while keeping American forces out of the conflict.	Will support rebels in Syria while keeping American forces out of the conflict.
Russia	Has labeled Russia America's number one geopolitical foe. Will end 'reset' in relations between Washington & Moscow. Will review the NEW START arms control treaty.	Will continue 'reset' including drive to full normalisation of trade relations.  Committed to maintenance of NEW START Treaty.
Europe	Will maintain strong alliances and work in close consultation with European partners.	Will maintain strong alliances and work in close consultation with European partners.