Mitt Romney's international trip has been filled with gaffes. Anyone who follows politics will be less than surprised since the man is an awkward moment waiting to happen. Nevertheless, Mitt's recent foray abroad - meant to highlight his ability to be an international leader - has only highlighted the fact that Mitt's foreign policy is as flawed as his domestic plans.
The world is a troubled place, and the United States has no shortage of problems to address and to help resolve. We must confront the rise of China, terrorism in the Middle East and Central Asia, a failed drug war in Mexico and South America, and still continue to be the world's beacon of human rights by standing up for oppressed people and making disaster relief a top priority.
One wonders if Mitt Romney is aware of all the challenges America faces since his words and actions either ignore the problems or exacerbate them. On his recent trip Mitt has spent time doing the following: offending the Brits by stating publicly that they hadn't done due diligence preparing for the Olympics; kissing up to the former president of Poland, because, you know, Poland is the crux of American foreign policy - or because Poland borders former Soviet Republics and Mitt Romney still believes in the Soviet Union; and, most problematically, offending the Palestinians and empowering Israeli warmongers.
Over the last decade, international terrorism has been the top focus for US Foreign Policy. Some of the actions we took were legitimate, others were not. Some of the moves we made were appropriate, others were bungled. Though we have made much progress in eliminating the bad guys, we have done little to address the underlying causes of terrorism - that is, we have progress to make convincing the Arab and Muslim worlds that the United States is not at war against Islam. We are not trying to stamp out Arab/Muslim culture and their way of life. The United States is trying, though perhaps squandering, to use the Arab Spring to help foster a transition from an autocratic, backwards region into a more democratic and thus, hopefully, more tolerant part of the world.
So what does Mitt Romney do? Mitt goes to Israel and begins bashing the Palestinians and throwing his weight behind the Israeli war hawks who want to bomb Iran. What does this do for American interests? For decades Arab autocrats used Israel as a convenient excuse to hide the fact that they abused and oppressed their own people. Despite the fact that Arabs had enough of this treatment and have done away with many of the dictators, the new governments that arise in these countries are hardly going to jump on board the "Friends of Israel" train. In fact, Israel's relationship with Egypt has deteriorated since Mubarak's overthrow, and Israel has managed to offend Turkey - a stable bridge between Europe and the Middle East - as well. The plight of the Palestinians is still an issue for many Arabs and Muslims and casus belli for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad.
Perhaps those organizations will not ever accept peace with Israel, but many others will. A two-state solution will create the stability necessary for a more permanent and lasting peace in the Middle East, and it would go a long way towards undermining the myth that America is anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-Palestinian. It is in America and Israel's best interest to foster the creation of Palestine. Enter Mitt Romney who was called a racist by Palestinian officials (the sane ones, not the Hamas variety) for asserting that Israelis are culturally superior to Palestinians thus resulting in the current reality on the ground in which Israel occupies territory that is internationally recognized as belonging to someone else. Put simply, Mitt Romney's current statements - taken in context without further explanation which will probably come - are an endorsement of an apartheid state.
It gets better. Mitt wasn't content with simply putting down one group of people whose future and well-being affects our national security, he gave unequivocal support to Israel's right to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
It's worth noting that Israel should and does have the right to protect itself, especially among hostile neighbors - a situation Mitt already made worse. However egging Israel's far right government to attack Iran is dangerous and probably not necessary. Neither the United States nor Israel wants a nuclear Iran, but an attack on Iran at this juncture is an unnecessary and dangerous game to play. Iran's own leaders admit that Western sanctions have crippled the economy, and internally there are strong divisions within the government and the people. Why potentially unify the discordant factions by attacking a nuclear program that has already been hampered by sanctions, computer viruses, and is, by many Western analyses, not yet close to being able to produce a weapon?
There isn't a good answer to that question, except that it resonates politically with others who cannot or will not grasp the realities of the Middle East and how politics there affect our national security. President Obama is right to say that an attack on Iran is on the table. Mitt Romney and Israeli leadership would be right to agree. It should not, under any circumstances, be option number one. The lessons of Iraq and the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan should be more than enough to convince anyone of that...except Mitt Romney.
So without even being President, Mitt Romney took his A-game abroad and undermined President Obama's efforts and foreign policy, and in doing so damaged America's credibility, and quite possibly our national security as well. In a world in which we should all strive for peace and stability both for moral and economic reasons, what motivation do the oppressed peoples of the world's least stable and most violent region have to listen to or negotiate with the wanna-be running for president?
No comments:
Post a Comment