During Monday's foreign policy debate, Asia's future was an important topic. Dr. Richard Weitz breaks down the candidates' positions.
The foreign policy debate between Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama excluded certain important issues that were not among those questions selected by moderator Bob Shieffer. The three Asian issues given the most attention were Iran, China, and Afghan-Pakistan. And even on these issues the debate deepened uncertainty regarding the presidential candidates’ policies. This is only natural given the format, which requires the candidates to describe complex policies and issues in a few seconds and in an effort to sound forceful, reasoned, moderate, and decisive, with clever sound bites and with little opportunity to correct mistaken utterances. So as a service to readers let me try to clarify the differences between the public stances of the two candidates, as well as highlight other Asian issues that will likely preoccupy the next administration.
With respect to Iran, Obama insisted that, “as long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon,” noting how Iran could then threaten Israel, “provide nuclear technology” to terrorists, or catalyze “a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world.” Tehran must choose, Obama insisted, between a diplomatic settlement that would “end their nuclear program or they will have to face a united world and a United States president, me, who said we're not going to take any options off the table.”
Still, Iranian leaders have an “opportunity to re-enter the community of nations” but only if they” abide by the rules that have already been established; they convince the international community they are not pursuing a nuclear program” through “inspections that are very intrusive,” and “over time, what they can do is regain credibility.”
The mentioning of the inspections issue is interesting since it implies that Iran could be allowed to continue enriching uranium as long as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could confirm that Iran was not diverting the enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons. But to work any such deal would have to see Iran also adopt at least the IAEA Additional Protocol so that the agency could inspect any sites where it suspected nuclear activities may be occurring, instead of only the sites that the Iranian government declares to the IAEA as part of its standard safeguards program.
Romney sought to repudiate Obama’s assertion that “during the course of this campaign he's often talked as if we should take premature military action.” The governor said that “our mission is.. to dissuade Iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means.” He concurred that “a nuclear-capable Iran, is unacceptable to America” but emphasized that Tehran was “four years closer to a nuclear weapon,” which is chronologically true, as Obama acknowledged when he insisted that the “clock is ticking.” Romney insisted that “military action is the last resort. It is something one would only, only consider if all of the other avenues had been — had been tried to their full extent.”
Photo Credit: Flickr (neon tommy)
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Mr. R. Rich
My portfolio is full of socks from China and weapons manufactures from the US, so I'm for Romney to win since I will stand the most to gain. Romney will ship more US jobs to China so the 1% will get richer and so would I. Romney is a Republican and the means that more wars to come to make the weapon manufactures more richer so I will get richer as well. So Romney 2012!!!
Dan Pendleton
Sarcasm is not a good fit for you.
ACT
@Rich
@Pendleton
it's not sarcasm, because that's exactly what would happen; between republicans and democrats, the republicans are the party of the ultra-rich in all but name; go read Noam Chomsky's "how the world works" to find out just how corrupt they are.
Prof.T.Krishna Kanth
I would only say about onething about the Presidential candidates- first of all both the candidates have to protect the interests of US at any cost; we do not know position of Romney on many issues of world, i feel Obama will be a better candidate for the Asians. And he has the resolve and ability to take decisions at the right moment.
Robert Dujarric
The bottom linei is that Romney's team of advisers includes some solid people like Bob Zoellick, but also several who supported the Bush war on Iraq – which first and foremost empowered Iran – and have never met a war they didn't like.
Leonard R.
I think that's a good point. But I don't think Romney has the cowboy instincts like Dubya. I don't think he's the impressionable soul that Dubya was. Paul Ryan is no Dick Cheney.
Ultimately, that's what it comes down to – the individual. I think Romney has the right instincts on China. In fact, he's pulling Obama toward his position. So no matter who wins, I think China policy will be very similar.
What about the rest of the planet? Nobody has yet pointed out how Romney differs from Obama on India. I don't like Romney's positions on issues affecting Iran and Russia. I think he's on the wrong foot. But except for those issues, I don't see a lot of difference for Asia. Obama might appear to be the best for Asia, because he's not inclined to antagonize Russia. And he's more inclined to talk with Iran.
However, that's where it comes down to Romney the man. I personally don't think he's a war-monger.
tee Dubfa
Obama and Romney they are both American,,, obama must familiar in asia…
venze
Romney and Obama are two people, neither can be best for Asia. In fact, one wonders how much say has a US president on foreign affairs? The hawks in White House and Pentagon must have always been exertive. (vzc1943)
Eric L
I'm neither American nor Chinese.
But a foreigner's view might be interesting : OBAMA's thoughts are probably the best, and ROMNEY shows a total lack of International experience. From what I remind from previous Republican's attitude, i definitely push OBAMA.
Regards, Eric
Matt Dowd
Foreigners like Obama because they fall for his rhetoric, but in reality he is clueless. If you ask what are his qualifications to become president? Well, he was a one term Senator from a very corrupt Chicago, before that he was an uncredited university law teacher and a community organizer which I don't even know what that does. This man couldn't run his own lemonade stand for a day if he had to. In his first term he has doubled the debt to $16 trillion, run around the world apologizing, imposed a partisan universal healthcare system which has no means of being paid for and will lead to a decrease in quality coverage, we still have unemployment over 8%, businesses are running as far away from him as possible because all he talks about is taxing everyone who makes money, we have 47 million americans on welfare and in the end he wants people more dependent on government and more government power to mimic something like a european socialist state.
I couldn't be more scared of an Obama second term.
ACT
@Matt
"in the first term he doubled the national debt to $ 16 trillion"
go look at the history of the great depression, and then look at what FDR did. That's right; FDR spent deficit money to get us out of that hole; the damage caused by the banking crisis was almost undone by the time WWII started. Furthermore, those government work programs actually contributed to most of the development of the American West. The Hoover Dam? yep, that was constructed entirely on deficit spending; efforts to curb spending, as Romney would like to do, actually RESULTED in a sharp jump in unemployment (14%-19%) during 1937-38, as well as an equally catastrophic loss in output.
.Furthermore, i'd like to know just how much of that 16 Trillion was gleaned from having to continue the wars that Bush started; by the end of the Bush presidency, the national debt sat at 10.6 trillion, with the first 7 trillion of that made in his first term alone. Obama, by comparison, has added just 5 trillion in his first term, mostly due to having to continue bush's insane wars. for these statistics, see: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
.
"Running around the world apologizing". Where do you get your information from, boy? he's not apologizing; what he's agreeing to is attempting to work with nations towards a common international goal (prosperity), not run roughshod over everybody else, the process which–under the bush admin–got us more enemies than i can count off of the top of my head. He's actually repaired relations, although the subsequent minimization of US aggression is what has made China, Russia, Iran and North Korea feel like they can stretch out a bit, although it should be mentioned here and now that IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM!
.
"partisan universal healthcare system". Partisan? perhaps, but republicans made every effort to sink it, without the slightest hint of cooperation. Universal? hardly. If you want universal, go to Canada, where you won't have to pay $10,000, lose your house and lose your job in order to get your broken arm fixed. You won't have to wait either, since it's a potentially serious injury. No, Obamacare is at best a stop-gap measure, made only because the republicans tried to denude it of anything relevant.
.
"we still have unemployment over 8%". Nope, it's fallen to roughly 7.8%, and the economy is now GROWING at 2% a year. Fancy that. Statistics have consistently shown that under democrats, the economy and education improve, while under republicans, the economy and education shrink; also, government expands under republicans, and doesn't shrink. Furthermore, more money consistently goes to the ultra-rich under republicans.
"Taxing everyone that makes money" Oh, so you're saying that we should abolish the income tax now, should we? i guess our roads, schools, government-sponsored research, safety administrations that guarantee the quality of our food and medicine, as well as our work safety and our military don't matter to you, now do they? Because that is what you are effectively saying we should do; taxes is how the government gets revenue, how it builds and pays for all the things we take for granted.
.
"47 million americans on welfare". that's because they don't make enough money to pay the income tax, you dunce. That means, oh, soldiers…the elderly…the poor, etc… you know, the people who really get stuff done around here, or have earned their rest or really do need a leg up! you would have our soldiers without homes, our poor without anywhere to rest? it's almost as if you live by the christian conception that somehow, if you're poor, that you did something to deserve it, that somehow the majority who are poor are awful, awful people who are sinners. I dare you to go and serve in the military, i dare you to go into a poor neighborhood and talk to the people there, and find out just why they're doing so poorly. Go on.
.
"a european socialist state". I don't think that word means what you think it means. You know, socialism begins with the word society. it's about, you know, all of us and making sure everyone has a decent chance at prosperity. If you've forgotten, that's the principle enshrined in our constitution. What you perceive as socialism died almost 70 years ago with the end of WWII and the death of the not-so-totalitarian state that hitler and his cronies had constructed for themselves.
"i couldn't be more scared of an Obama second term". And i couldn't be more scared of a Romney term, because to all historical indications, that mormon twat and his zealotic, ultra-christian VP will ruin this country faster than Obama ever could. Set back women's rights 90 years? Check. Create more economic suffering? Check. More wars? Also, check. destabilize this country's education more than it already is? check. let me remind you of this: the united states is not the greatest nation on earth; the only three things we are number one in are: military spending, GDP and prison population–the vast majority of which is jailed due to an ineffective drug policy that is entirely racial in origin. Otherwise, we are 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, number 4 in labor force, and number 4 in exports. You want to make the United States the greatest country in the world? Step one is getting your head out of your a**.
JohnX
All of your most recent Presidents are figure heads for the Party faithful, so it doesn't really matter who is President as they will act on the ideas of others who support them.
The US hasn't had a trained Leader since Eisenhower so its rather futile to think that they truly lead the nation. Whether an ex actor, ex CIA, ex womanizer, leads the country etc doesn't really change much.
The two parties are simply two different sides of the same coin and the President is simply the drawing on the side. Which one faces us, is rather irrelevant really as the coin remains the same.
Frank Wall
Very comprehensive article. I agree that there is time for more dialogue with China. I think that both candidates should have acknowledged China's achievements and importance as a trade partner a bit more. Blaming each other for investments in Chinese firms isn't going to go down well in Beijing. Even now, statistics show that only 31% of Chinese want Obama re-elected.
Dan Pendleton
Haha, if only the 31% could vote! Let's see 31% of 1.2B people is 372M votes for Obama. Romney, on the other hand, promises to on his first day on the job "label China a currency manipulator" and start a trade war with presumably disastrous consequences for both sides.
Kenny
We had four years of the joker time for a new president
The world loved Obama and he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for more War ?
Russia and America will have better relations, as will China and the world
Dan Pendleton
You have it wrong. It's the Repubs who start new wars (to spur more defense spending and hence throw more business to their military-industrial fat cat friends) and Dems who end them. Obama closed down the Iraq War, and is in the process of disengaging from Afghanistan by 12/31/2014.
Be Way
Maybe you may have forgotten what had happened to Libya and Syria. U.S a good guy under Democrat? Honestly It really doesn't matter actually which party governed U.S as at the end of the day, it's still the worst and the ugliest warmonger around.
Dan Pendleton
Are you kidding? Obama could have deployed AC-130 Spectre(s) to Benghazi on the night of the attack on the US consulate there on 9/11 wherein a US ambassador was killed and yet chose not to. Why? Gunships circling overhead would have most likely obliterated entire neighborhoods (the consulate was in a residential area) resulting in catastrophic loss of life.
Bankotsu
You can't slip a piece of tissue between the foreign policy of the Republican party and Democratic party.
Obama and Romney try, fail to disagree
http://www.salon.com/writer/michael_lind/
Leonard R.
I prefer Romney on China. I prefer Obama on Russia, Iran and Afghanistan.
I think it's time for a new approach with China. I like Romney's team on that issue. But ultimately, there is not a lot of difference between these two candidates.
I think it's a very bad idea to provide advanced arms to Taiwan. That's a backdoor to Beijing acquiring the technology. The US should follow the British example with Hong Kong, in regards to Taiwan and offer US residence to Taiwanese who would be adversely affected by a PRC takeover.
JohnX
Leonard,
That is not a silly idea. It would allow those who wish to live in a democratic country to do so and for those who are happy with becoming Chinese citizens to do so as well.
It would at least allow the Taiwanese the security of not being thrown to the wolves and may make it easier for them to consider integrating with China.