Foreign Policy perception of the US Presidential Candidates is being watched by The World.
Israel.
Both support Israel, as expected and assure that if Israel is attacked they will rush to its rescue.
Iran.
Both men say they would do whatever is necessary to keep Iran from a nuclear weapon, and both expressed support for the sort of crippling sanctions the president has already put in place.
Syria.
Both of them do not want to get involved in Syrian affairs(though they will after they come to power)
Both want to pull out from Afghanistan and Continue Drone Attacks.
On US ‘Enemy’ priorities.
For Obama’ it is Terrorism;for Romney it is Russia.
On Defense Spending.
Romney ‘desire is to build more Naval ships, like his desire to spend more on defense, is tied to a belief in the importance of a robust U.S. military presence around the world.
Romney has vowed to mandate that military spending be set at 4 percent of gross domestic product..
Obama wants the military to focus more on nontraditional threats like al Qaeda, and no longer wants the United States to serve as the world’s policeman. He noted on Monday that America spends more on the military than the next ten countries combined – which you only say if you think America is carrying too large a burden.
That is a cut in Military spending, put it in an ambiguous way.
Romney has been personally very forthcoming on the likely policies of his administration towards Pakistan in the context of the developments in Afghanistan. He has not left the articulation of his views to his senior aides as he seems to have done in the case of India.
During a TV debate on November 11, 2011, Romney said: “The right way to deal with Pakistan is to recognise that Pakistan is not a country like other countries, with a strong political centre that you can go to and say, “Gee, can we come here? Will you take care of this problem?” This is, instead, a nation which is close to being a failed state. I hope it doesn’t reach that point, but it’s a very fragile nation. It really has four centres of power: the ISI, which is their intelligence services, the military, separate group. You have the political structure, and of course, the fundamentalists. And so we have to work with our friends in that country to get them to do some of the things we can’t do ourselves. Bringing our troops into Pakistan and announcing at a stage like this that, as President, we would throw American troops into Pakistan, could be highly incendiary in a setting like that. Right now, they’re comfortable with our using drones to go after the people that are — that are representing the greatest threat.”
Romney further said in the same debate: “We have agreement with the people that we need to have agreement with to be able to use drones to strike at the people that represent a threat. And one of the things we have to do with our foreign aid commitments, the ongoing foreign aid commitments. You start everything at zero. But one of the things we have to do is have understanding with the various power bases within the country that they’re gonna have to allow us, or they themselves go after the Taliban and Haqqani network to make sure they do not destabilise Afghanistan, particularly as we’re pulling our troops out.”
During a national security debate on Afghanistan in the CNN on November 22, 2011, Romney said: “We spent about $450 billion so far.
Obama shares the same view albeit in measured tones.
India.
India relations are always conditioned by US perception of Pakistan and China.
Obama.
‘Just days into President Barack Obama’s term, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and India’s External Affairs Minister agreed to “further strengthen the excellent bilateral relationship” between the two countries. Soon afterward, President Obama issued a statement asserting that, “Our rapidly growing and deepening friendship with India offers benefits to all the worlds citizens”, and that the people of India “should know they have no better friend and partner than the people of the United States.” As part of her confirmation hearing, Hillary Clinton told US senators she would work to fulfill President Obama’s commitment to “establish a true strategic partnership with India, increase our military cooperation, trade, and support democracies around the world.”
Despite such top-level assurances from the new US Administration, during 2009 and into 2010, many in India became increasingly concerned that Washington was not focusing on the bilateral relationship with the same vigor as did the previous. Many concerns arose in New Delhi that the Obama Administration was overly focused on US relations with China in ways that would reduce India’s influence and visibility. In addition, the government of India was concerned that America was intent on deepening relations with India’s main rival, Pakistan, in ways that could be harmful to Indian security and perhaps lead to a more interventionist approach to the Kashmir problem, that a new US emphasis on nuclear nonproliferation and arms control would lead to pressure on India to join such multilateral initiatives as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty, and that the Administration might pursue (so-called) protectionist economic policies that could adversely affect bilateral commerce in goods and services.
New Delhi has also long sought the removal of Indian companies and organizations from US export control lists, seeing these as discriminatory and outdated. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake contends that much progress has been made in this area, with less than one-half of one percent of all exports to India requiring any license.
India also continued to seek explicit US support for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. However, the Obama Administration said it recognized a “need to reassess institutions of global governance”, and asserted that India’s rise “will certainly be a factor in any future consideration of reform” of that Council.
Secretary of State Clinton was widely seen to have concluded a successful visit to India in July 2009, inking several agreements, making important symbolic points by staying at Mumbai’s Taj Mahal hotel (site of a major Islamist terrorist attack in 2008), and having a high-profile meeting with women’s groups. While in New Delhi, Clinton set forth five “key pillars” of the US-India engagement: (1) strategic cooperation, (2) energy and climate change, (3) economics, trade, and agriculture, (4) education and development, and (5) science, technology, and innovation.
In November 2009, President Obama hosted an inaugural state visit with Prime Minister Singh at the White House. Despite its important symbolism, the resulting diplomacy was seen by many proponents of closer ties as disappointing (if not an outright failure) in its outcome, at least to the extent that no “breakthroughs” in the bilateral relationship were announced[citation needed]. Yet from other perspectives there were visible ideational gains: the relationship was shown to transcend the preferences of any single leader or government, the two leaders demonstrated that their mutual strategic goals were increasingly well-aligned, and plans were made to continue taking advantage of complementarities, with differences being well-managed. Perhaps most significantly, the visit itself contributed to ameliorating concerns in India that the Obama Administration was insufficiently attuned to India’s potential role as a US partner.
President Obama’s May 2010 National Security Strategy noted that, “The United States and India are building a strategic partnership that is underpinned by our shared interests, our shared values as the world’s two largest democracies, and close connections among our people,” and
“Working together through our Strategic Dialogue and high-level visits, we seek a broad-based relationship in which India contributes to global counterterrorism efforts, nonproliferation, and helps promote poverty reduction, education, health, and sustainable agriculture. We value India’s growing leadership on a wide array of global issues, through groups such as the G-20, and will seek to work with India to promote stability in South Asia and elsewhere in the world'(wiki)’Romney; Not very clear.Again this will be determined by Pakistani Perception.China.Romney is ambivalent, so is ambivalent in the sense that both will look after the US Business interest and make some noises now and then on Human Rights violations in China.
Watch The Foreign Policy Issues in TV Debate at the Link below.
Romney Views on Pakistan.
http://www.rediff.com/news/column/mitt-romney-s-ambivalence-on-india/20121007.htm
Leave a Reply