Guest post by David Solimini and Benjamin Lowe
David Solimini is the Communications Director for the Truman National Security Project. Benjamin Lowe is a Fellow at the Truman National Security Project. Their statements are not endorsed by their employer. They can be reached at dsolimini@gmail.com and ben.lowe@gmail.com.
This week, Mitt Romney clumsily waded into the discussion of Israel and Palestine. By calling for a wholesale re-evaluation of relations with dozens of countries, he called more than his own judgment into question.
Strong alliances are an essential element of American power. They are difficult to build, important to maintain, and essential in a world of inter-connected economies and cross-border security threats. It is in this essential context that leading conservative voices have engaged in a perilous race to the bottom on issues of American national security.
Most recently, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney suggested that the United States reconsider a number of long-standing alliances purely to further domestic political considerations. On Tuesday, right-wing radio show host Jordan Sekulow asked Romney how he would handle the application by Palestine for statehood recognition by the UN if he were president. Romney responded:
Putting aside what's already happened, at this stage the president should make it very clear that we stand with Israel, that this is very important to the United States of America and that any nation that votes against Israel and against the United States in the vote in the United Nations will recognize that America will very carefully reconsider our relationship with that nation.
Defenders of Romney's position might say it was an important statement in support of Israel. Critics would note that there are far better ways to demonstrate support for an independent Jewish state free from terrorism – a position he shares with President Obama. Romney went farther than he needed to go, apparently in an attempt to place political distance between himself and the president. Had the words he uttered – "America will very carefully reconsider our relationship with that nation" – actually come from the mouth of a sitting president, the impact would have been significant.
The former governor's answer to a straightforward question is revealing to the point where one might wonder if Romney realizes the enormity of the job he seeks. These are not quarterly earnings reports or 10K filings, these are nations – some of which have nuclear weapons and thousands of our troops stationed in them.
Let us consider exactly what Romney suggested:
Romney would be open to re-analyzing our relationships with China, the world's most populous nation; Russia, the nation with the most nuclear weapons in the world; India, the world's largest democracy; and Brazil and South Africa, two of the world's largest developing nations. Our relationship with Russia is essential to the prevention of a second Cold War. India is America's best bulwark against China in the East and Pakistan to the North.
Romney would be open to re-analyzing our relationships with China, the world's most populous nation; Russia, the nation with the most nuclear weapons in the world; India, the world's largest democracy; and Brazil and South Africa, two of the world's largest developing nations. Our relationship with Russia is essential to the prevention of a second Cold War. India is America's best bulwark against China in the East and Pakistan to the North.
Also among those who would fall afoul of Romney's domestic political concerns include Spain, France, Norway, and Ireland, some of America's longest held friendships.
If a president were to say what would-be-President Romney said, we would be forced to ask what it means to "reconsider" these relationships. Would a President Romney take the same actions in re-evaluating our relationship with China, our largest trading partner, as he would with Ireland? Would a President Romney cut funding to the efforts to stabilize Iraq over its vote on Palestinian statehood? Would he pull out of the 2016 Olympic Games because of Brazil's statement of support, or shut down the $160 billion per year in American goods sold to countries supporting the UN resolution?
And what of our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would we stop the rebuilding efforts essential to peace in Iraq over this issue, even if it meant stretching out our military presence there?
Governor Romney's willingness to use our international alliances for political gain will likely be seen by many as deeply troubling. America's interests are clearly served by a stable solution to the conflicts in the Middle East, and Israel is a valuable if sometimes imperfect ally. It's also in our interests for ostensibly credible candidates not to make inflammatory policy proclamations for political gain.
Romney's comments cannot be taken in isolation. It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that he is exercising the political triangulation he is famous for and is simply catching up with some of the clumsier comments of his peers on the campaign trail. Michele Bachmann, for example, believes the Arab Spring is a problem for which she must assign the blame to President Obama. It is a familiar and troubling playbook from the ex-governor.
Keeping America safe requires that we exercise delicate diplomacy backed by the effective and powerful force of our military. We have seen both exercised with deftness under President Obama, with relationships improving between us and our allies and precisely targeted strikes taking out more of our enemies than the Bush Administration managed to accomplish. America is not well-served when the talk is tough but the strategic considerations are ignored.
