Mitt Romney Throws America’s Allies Under Bus for Political Gain
Mitt Romney Throws America’s Allies Under Bus for Political Gain
by David Solimini and Benjamin Lowe
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.
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.
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.
13 Responses to “Mitt Romney Throws America’s Allies Under Bus for Political Gain”
the comments area at TMV is for comments about the topic of the post, not about the writers or other commenters. Please read the commenter’s rules for civil discussion at the top of the Home page if you havent already. Thanks.
Hmmm… maybe a grasp of international relations isn’t Romney’s strong suit. If so, his international policy as prez might not be so hot.
In what way are they a valuable ally to the US?
I agree that “America will very carefully reconsider our relationship” with any nation that votes contrary to our vote—re: Israel-Palestine—at the UN, is a pretty strong and loaded statement.
There will be many other votes at the UN on matters of national importance to the US where UN members will not vote the way we would wish them to. If we would pursue Romney’s proposed policy, we would very soon be “reconsidering” our relationships with pretty much every other nation on the planet—possibly including Great Britain, Germany, France, etc.
It was somewhat over the top, but, what the heck, these are the Republican primaries and sillier things have been said and will be said.
Had Romney said that we should “reconsider” our relationships with “allies” such as Pakistan et al when they clearly act in a way detrimental to our national security, I would have agreed.
Agree, DDW. Romney’s comment seem pretty heavy-handed. There may be issues so important to the US that we will have to re-examine our relationships with allies who disagree with us, but this isn’t one of them.
The words “carefully reconsider” are inflammatory? Since when? This political correctness has gone way, way too far.
If your brother borrowed a shirt and brought it home ripped to shreads, would you “carefully reconsider” loaning him another? If your best friend called your little sister a very unflattering name, would you “carefully reconsider” your relationship with him?
Saying that Romney “threw allies under the bus” by using this term is goofy.
Mal I agree saying this is throwing our allies under the bus is also going overboard, but in diplomatic-speak Romney is saying vote with us otherwise you may not be our friends any more. That is a bit more extreme than the issue merits. Personally I don’t think Palestine should gain recognition from the UN until they work out some issues, but clearly many of our traditional allies disagree.
Dg, you may consider shoring up the base appeal to be disingenuous for any candidate at any time, but Romney’s choice of words evidence he is trying to maximize that effect and come as close to the line as possible yet leaves enough ambiguity to walk it back at some point with some further clarification. The recent talk about Christie was initiated by those who feel the R candidate field lacks the strong foreign policy persona. I’ll bet the Romney team spent some time crafting the exact phrasing of this statement. More independents ultimately break more pro-Israel than Pro-Palestinian.
This author takes a small comment and goes crazy with allegations and accusations. This is like an article I’d see as I’m checking out at the grocery store. Idiots read this stuff and idiots form opinions off this stuff.
@malcontent
It’s code dude. Nothing PC about it.
Another mountain and a lost molehill. If we look at a candidate’s remarks as carved in stone and without the benefit of counsel from advisors, we will nail them all. Please reconsider “throwing” anything under the bus.
CO I see your point but it is disheartening to see statements made that are not meant to reflect long term policy but to get votes. It is something that almost all politicians do but pandering to the base still shouldn’t be viewed as a positive.
I don’t know that I agree on your evaluation of Christie. To me his main advantage is he comes across as genuine and has an authenticity that Romney does not. If anything this latest statement illustrates Romney’s lack of authenticity. Christie looks to have the ability to be elected on his positives, where Romney depends mainly on Obama’s negatives.
Thank you for a thoughtful, reasoned and reasonable argument on this topic.
The ‘fast and loose’ talk on the campaign trail is worrisome to those who prefer a more nuanced approach to world diplomacy. It’s fine to say things like this in a private conversation with a country’s representative – quite another to “send a message” to countries who are led by (usually) men of questionable competence, mental state or motives.
Thank you for providing a site for the ‘moderate’ viewpoint.
Haven’t we had quite enough of cowboy diplomacy for one century? Even if it’s dressed in a $5000 suit, has coiffed hair, and a business background?