* Likely Republican nominee will try to paint Obama as weak,
naive
* Adviser says Romney would be more aggressive than Obama
By Peter Apps
WASHINGTON, April 12 (Reuters) – As he locks down the
Republican nomination for U.S. president, Mitt Romney is framing
what looks to be a decidedly hawkish foreign policy.
But should the former Massachusetts governor defeat
Democratic President Barack Obama in November, it remains far
from clear how he actually would tackle what his own website
describes as a “bewildering array of threats and opportunities.”
More clear is the strategy that Romney plans to use to try
to diminish Obama’s record on foreign policy.
Obama, whose own foreign policy inexperience was widely
viewed as a weakness four years ago, now generally gets high
marks in polls on the topic – particularly since the killing of
Osama bin Laden last year.
The president’s campaign cites the dismantling of al-Qaeda’s
leadership and the historic sanctions against Iran as evidence
of his effectiveness.
The Romney campaign, however, believes it can paint an
alternate picture of Obama as naive, weak and perhaps secretly
convinced that the world’s most pre-eminent superpower has
entered an era of unstoppable and terminal decline.
Beyond his success at devastating al-Qaeda with drone
strikes and special forces raids – a trend begun under
Republican George W. Bush but accelerated by the current
administration – Romney’s team argues that Obama’s foreign
policy achievements are limited.
By being content to “lead from behind” on issues such as the
conflict in Libya, they say Obama has sacrificed America’s
dominant global position. The attempted “reset” of relations
with Russia has largely been a failure, they say, while planned
military cuts could leave potential adversaries such as China
and Iran with too great an ability to challenge Washington.
“Governor Romney believes in American exceptionalism, that
we are great not just because of our military and economic power
but also because of our values,” says Richard Williamson, a
leading Republican foreign policy specialist and adviser to the
Romney campaign who served in various roles under Ronald Reagan
and both Bush administrations.
“The current president does not. … He believes in
engagement – which has often not worked – while the governor
believes we should say what we believe and work from a position
of strength.”
A ‘MORE AGGRESSIVE’ APPROACH
That’s the kind of rhetoric that Obama’s team dismisses as
largely meaningless.
But in real terms, Williamson said, a Romney presidency
would offer a “more aggressive” approach toward China, Russia
and the Middle East. Romney says he would swiftly brand Beijing
a currency manipulator, refuse to concede to Moscow on nuclear
issues and put more emphasis on defending Israel.
On the surface, his statements on the key foreign policy
topic of the moment – what action might be needed to stop Iran’s
nuclear program – remain relatively similar to those of Obama.
Romney says he would ratchet up the financial pressure on
Tehran through sanctions, while leaving the option of military
action on the table.
The Republican’s campaign, however, clearly wants to give
the impression that he might prove more willing than Obama to
take military action against Iran’s nuclear program.
As Obama walks a thin line trying to avoid a military
confrontation in the months before the Nov. 6 election while
also restraining Israel, the Republican challenger has much more
freedom to talk tough.
“I think our biggest single difference is probably over
Iran,” Williamson said. “Put it this way: If I was the regime in
Tehran I’d be much more worried about dealing with a Romney
administration than with the current administration.”
Obama’s campaign rejects that claim. Many of the actions
that Romney is demanding – particularly regarding tighter
sanctions on Iran – have been put in place by the president,
Obama’s team said.
Obama’s administration says it has succeeded in building an
international coalition against Iran that has enacted unusually
strict sanctions against that nation’s central bank and its oil
exports.
Analysts wonder whether Romney – who has moved to the right
on issues such as healthcare, abortion and immigration during
his run for the Republican nomination – is talking tough on
foreign policy merely as a political strategy.
“Romney seems to believe that the way to beat Obama is to
paint himself as the tough guy when it comes to national
security,” says Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council
on Foreign Relations and a senior member of the National
Security Council under President Bill Clinton. “We simply don’t
know whether he will stick to that.”
George W. Bush, after all, pledged a “humble” foreign policy
and an end to nation-building before the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, changed everything.
Even those currently closest to Romney, analysts said, may
still be largely in the dark about how Romney would handle
foreign policy.
“On economic issues, it is clear that Romney has his vision
and everyone else follows. But I don’t think that’s the case
with foreign affairs,” says Douglas A. Ollivant, a former
National Security Council director for Iraq and now senior
national security fellow at the New America Foundation.
“I know some of the people who advise Romney, and right now
I don’t think even they know,” Ollivant said. “They are just all
pitching and hoping for a seat at the top table.”
PORTRAYING ROMNEY AS ‘ALL OVER THE MAP’
Democratic officials believe that Romney’s vulnerabilities
on foreign policy range from awkward statements that they
believe show his naivete – such as when he said Russia is
Washington’s “number one geopolitical foe” – to a failure to
truly come up with different or coherent policies on Iran or
Afghanistan.
“The president’s record stands in stark contrast to Mitt
Romney, who has been all over the map on the key foreign policy
challenges that face our nation,” an Obama campaign official
said.
Despite his international business background, critics said,
Romney’s foreign experience is weak, largely limited to
fundraising for the Mormon church and working with the
International Olympic Committee to salvage the 2002 Salt Lake
City Winter Games.
Even Romney’s supporters seem to acknowledge as much.
“You certainly wouldn’t get a President Romney doing what
Obama did and phoning Vladimir Putin from Air Force One to
congratulate him on a stolen election,” says Danielle Pletka,
vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the
conservative American Enterprise Institute.
“But can we say whether (Romney) would be more or less
likely to launch the kind of intervention we saw in Libya? I
think at the moment we simply do not know.”
Romney has hired a list of advisers that reads like a who’s
who of right-leaning foreign and national security affairs
specialists – many of them veterans of George W. Bush’s
administration.
“On foreign policy … Romney still has to show us who he
really is,” says Nikolas Gvosdev, professor of national security
studies at the U.S. Naval War College. But “he has a reputation
for being very analytical and thorough, and that could work for
him when it comes to foreign affairs.”
Prominent Romney advisers include former CIA Director
Michael Hayden and a conservative clique that includes writer
Robert Kagan and John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations.
Williamson said Romney is intent on considering as many
views as possible.
“I’ve had the privilege of working for three presidents, and
Romney is the brightest principal I’ve ever worked for,”
Williamson said. “He listens well and more importantly, he asks
good questions.”
(Editing by David Lindsey and Eric Beech)
