Where there is often audacity in U.S. domestic politics, foreign policy requires a of subtlety and guile in combination with military and economic projection.The challenges for ‘President Romney’ would be similar in the beginning, but Romney’s foreign policy certainly differs from Barack Obama’s in a few key ways—most notably, he has promised to add $2 trillion to the military budget.
We found the difference, subtle and otherwise, in how ‘President Romney’ would approach 10 countries at the forefront of American international relations.
Now keep in mind this is just talk, which is a far cry from action. Nonetheless talk has been a huge focus of the Romney campaign with regard to Libya, in regard to exactly what Obama said. Terror attack or not?
The truth is that the words do, in fact, matter. Romney's legal justification for further military action hinges on an 'act of terror' committed upon U.S. citizens on, technically, U.S. soil (consulate or embassy).
But expanding a, in all likelihood, drone bombing campaign into Libya has its diplomatic drawbacks as well.
'Mexico and the United States must take immediate action on the problem of violent drug cartels operating across our shared border… In light of the severity of the cartel problem and the sheer firepower and sophistication of the criminal networks we are facing, the United States and Mexico should explore the need for enhanced military-to-military training cooperation and intelligence sharing.'
Romney has criticised Obama for not acting forcefully enough to stop Iran from developing nuclear-weapons capability.
He'll tighten sanctions on Iran, but Obama won those sanctions with tough opposition from Russia and China.
In fact, Russia and China 'watered down' the most recent sanctions on Iran, according to BBC, while Brazil said the sanctions bore unnecessary risk on the goodwill of everyday Iranian people.
Russia and China both have veto votes on any official U.N. sanctions, so if a Romney White house hopes to impose more Iranian sanctions, they'll have to play nice with the Chinese.
All along the biggest difference between the two candidates with regard to Israel seems to be that Romney is rather encouraging and Obama discouraging with regard to possible air strikes on Iran.
Though Israel's rhetoric would certainly change under Romney (more aggressive, to be certain), they cannot pull off a competent strike without American help -- and as has been fleshed out by here at BI, the American resources would be quite extensive.
Several countries have expressed negative feelings about a strike on Iran. Nonetheless, Mitt Romney would almost certainly take a harder military stance, more likely to strike, on Iran and their nuclear program.
Romney has expressed that, for the rebels 'who share our values,' he would 'ensure they obtain' heavy weapons to take out 'tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.'
Romney would attempt to increase sanctions against Bashar al-Assad's regime, do whatever it takes to 'identify, secure, and prevent the export of Syria's WMD stockpiles' and work closely with the oppositions 'to plan for a peaceful post-Assad government.'
'Withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan under a Romney administration will be based on conditions on the ground as assessed by our military commanders with the goal of completing the transition of combat operations to the Afghan Army by the end of 2014.'
However, at the debate on October 22 he said 'we're going to be finished by 2014. And when I'm president, we'll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014. The commanders and the generals there are on track to do so. We've seen progress over the past several years.'
'Pakistan should understand that any connection between insurgent forces and Pakistan's security and intelligence forces must be severed.'
Romney wants to make sure that 'the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region are rid of the Taliban and other insurgent groups' would continue the drone war--during the foreign policy debate he said he supports to the CIA's covert drone war in Pakistan.
Referring to Afghanistan as well as Pakistan, Romney states that the U.S. 'enjoys significant leverage over both of these nations. We should not be shy about using it.'
Romney has said he'll 'label China a currency manipulator' as one of his first acts of office.
Really, he's not that extreme. Under President Romney, the U.S. would seek to establish something called the 'Reagan Economic Zone.' The zone would 'codify the principles of free trade' and incentivized uniform participation in an open market, the borders of which would encompass most of the developed world.
Though Romney admits that 'China is unlikely to accede' to the agreement, his platform assumes that their 'exclusion' from the zone would encourage sacrifice on their part.
Basically this boils down to cutting off food aid to the North Korean people. The country, which has the GDP of North Dakota and 50 times the population, is largely starving.
So Romney promises he'll dangle the carrot in front of North Korea's nose, and use leverage with China to encourage nuclear disarmament.
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.