Comparing the Foreign Policy of Obama and Romney

Posted by Associate Professor Brian Lai

With the Republican National Convention now over and Mitt Romney the official Republican candidate for President of the United States, this seems like a good time to talk about the differences between the two candidates on a few foreign policy issues.

Before beginning, there are a few caveats to this discussion. First, it is unclear how important foreign policy will be for the November election. A recent CBS poll asked respondents to say what they think is the most important problem facing the country today. Unsurprisingly, 50 percent said something about the Economy or Jobs with only 2 percent saying something about War or Peace. The central importance of the economy is seen in other polls throughout this year, with various foreign policy issues at most gaining 10 percent of respondents saying they are the most important problem. So while the two candidates do have different positions and approaches to foreign policy, their domestic policies may be more central to the upcoming election.

Second, candidates for President are often unable to implement their foreign policy when elected, so to what extent Romney’s foreign policy would be what is actually implemented if elected is hard to know. For example, one of Obama’s campaign pledges, made at a 2007 speech at the Wilson Center was, “As President, I will close Guantanamo...” There are still over 100 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Similarly, in 2000, Bush said in one of the debates, “And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.” He went on to say, “I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military's meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets over extended, morale drops.” September 11th did change national priorities but again, under President Bush, the US did commit to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq. President Clinton and Reagan both made claims about being tougher on China when they were candidates but under both Presidents, US relations with China were strengthened.

With those two caveats in mind, let us compare the foreign policies of Obama and Romney.

Afghanistan

Starting with Afghanistan where an additional 33,000 troops are set to return by the end of this year, differences between the policies of the two candidates are not very clear. In May, Obama announced his policy, which included the aforementioned drawdown of troops. It also calls for the military and police of Afghanistan to take over combat responsibility by 2014. At that point, US forces will be engaged in counter-terrorism missions and training. Romney’s policy is similar to Obama. In various speeches, he has indicated that he supports turning over combat to Afganistan’s forces by 2014. However, Romney has criticized Obama’s approach. First, he has suggested that the withdrawal timetable should not have been made public. Second, he has been critical of how the President has communicated to the American public about American policy in Afghanistan. Finally, he has argued that Obama has been driven more by political as opposed to strategic considerations. In terms of their actual policies, both want combat operations to be completely turned over to the Afghanistan government by 2014 as well as the withdrawal of US combat forces by that time.

Defense Spending

One area of difference is in proposed defense spending. While Obama calls for slow growth in the defense budget, Romeny is currently calling for a much bigger increase in the size of the defense budget. Depending on how fast the US economy grows, by 2016, there could be as much as a 100 billion dollar difference in defense spending between Romney and Obama’s approach. Given the importance of reducing the deficit for both candidates, increases in defense spending have to come from somewhere. Where this will come from for both candidates is less clear.

Syria

Another contentious issue where policy differences are less clear is what to do about Syria. It is easy to observe Obama’s policy as the incumbent President which relies on trying to promote cooperation in the United Nations Security Council to implement economic sanctions to force Assad into negotiations. Based on statements about Syria, Romney’s policy differs in two ways. The first tangible difference is that Romney has on at least one occasion called for the US to assist in the arming of Syrian rebels, something the Obama administration has resisted doing. Arming the Syrian rebels is a contentious issue and the benefits and consequences of doing so deserve its own blog post. The other less tangible difference is being more forceful in the United Nations Security Council. Romney has called for the US to push harder in the UN Security Council for sanctions.

China/Asia

The two candidates policies towards China and Asia are another area where there are some similarities and a few differences. Earlier this year, Obama called for a shift in our military strategy to focus on Asia, including having a greater naval presence in the region and closer ties with Asian states. While China was not directly mentioned, it seems that one of the primary reasons for this policy shift was to address the growing rise of China’s military power and assertiveness in the region. Romney calls for a similar policy, arguing that the US needs an expanded naval presence and needs to assist allies in the region, including arms sales of sophisticated weapons systems. One area of difference between the two is Romney’s claim that if elected, he would pressure China to change its currency valuation policy by labeling China a currency manipulator and imposing countervailing duties (an import tax in response to unfair trade practices) on Chinese goods. While Obama has argued that China has manipulated its currency, he has not gone so far as to require his Treasury department to make that claim, leading to changes in US trade practices with China.

Iran

Both candidates oppose Iran developing a nuclear weapons and any future negotiations will also include either limits on the ability of Iran to enrich uranium or strict verification methods to insure that enrichment is not for a weapons program. Currently, the US has imposed unilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran in order to leverage them into negotiations. These include sanctions on countries that buy oil from Iran. Both Obama and Romney have stated that a military strike is on the table. Where the two candidates might differ is what threshold Iran would have to cross before a military strike might be used. From Obama’s statements, it seems that any attempt to produce a nuclear weapon might lead to the use of force by the US. Romney’s speeches on the topic suggest a similar approach though speeches by those who advise Romney indicate that a Romney administration may use a different threshold of determining when Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. The other potential rhetorical difference is support for a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Currently, the US has warned Israel not to strike Iran unilaterally. Romney has not said that he supports a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, but instead said that “I recognize the right of Israel to defend itself.” and a Romney aide saying that Romney would support Israel if it used military force against Iran.

One reason for the lack of clear differences in foreign policies may be that foreign policy is not as important a campaign issue for most Americans. Foreign policy was discussed at the Republican National Convention but was only a small part of both Ryan and Romney’s speeches. Also, foreign policies are somewhat constrained by other states. For example, while non-incumbent candidates often talk tough about China, once elected as President, they tend to maintain a policy to China that is consistent with previous administrations. Finally, there is still plenty of time for both candidates to lay out policies in upcoming speeches and debates. Thus, while there are some differences in Obama and Romney’s foreign policies, currently they are not as stark as their differences on domestic issues.

IR major blog

Posted by IR Major

Welcome to the temporary IR major blog. This blog will eventually be hosted at

http://clas.uiowa.edu/international-relations/

Until then, we will blog from this site.

Welcome to the new IR major

Posted by IR Major

Welcome to the International Relations Major. The goal of this major is to provide you with the skills and knowledge to grasp international events from theoretical, empirical, and historical perspectives.  Because international relations and the international community are so important, a major in International Relations is an excellent choice for any student considering a career in either the public or private sector, including the diplomatic service, intelligence organizations, multina­tional corporations, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, news organiza­tions, think tanks, public health agencies, the media and numerous other professions.  The IR major also prepares students well to pursue post-baccalaureate degrees such as the JD, MA or PhD. 

In order to achieve the learning objectives of this major, the IR major curriculum is composed of four major elements. The first is the core courses which are four required courses. These courses give you a grounding in the field of international relations, the study of international conflict and International political economy, as well as the history of the modern world.

The second element is the research methods course. This course will provide you with the analytical tools to study and conduct research on international relations. These skills are very useful and necessary for any occupation you might pursue. Understanding how to conduct research is a skill that is valued highly by law schools, graduate schools, and prospective employers.

The third element is the Emphasis Area. You select one of four emphasis areas (Conflict and Foreign Policy; International Business and Economic Relations; Regional Politics and Relationships; Transnational Issues), which allows you to develop a deep understanding of one area of international relations. This will allow you to demonstrate an expertise in this ares.

The final element is the Senior Capstone Course. This course provides you the opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge of international relations and analytical abilities working with other IR majors and guided by a faculty member.

If you want to learn more about the major, please go to

http://clas.uiowa.edu/international-relations/

We will add new blog posts at least once per week. These blog posts will present faculty research, discuss current international relations issues, discuss the curriculum, present job and internship opportunities, and discuss study abroad opportunities. 

If you have questions, please feel free to contact Martha Greer, the professional advisor for the IR major or Tracy Osborn, the Political Science Director of Undergraduate Studies.

Academic Adviser for the IR Major

Posted by Martha Greer

Welcome to the NEW international relations major and congratulations on your excellent choice!  I hope you all had an enjoyable summer and are ready for the start of the University of Iowa’s fall 2012 semester!   My name is Martha Greer and I am the academic advisor for the new International Relations major.  I work in conjunction with the international relations faculty to help our students make the most of the opportunities available to them.  You can see me for:

·         Advisor signatures on add/drop and other university-related forms

·         Questions about course registration

·         Questions or problems with your degree audit

·         Academic probation

·         Opportunities for Honors students

·         Discussions regarding adding second majors, minors, certificate programs

·         Information regarding campus resources for students

·         Other questions or concerns you may have.  If I am not the right person to talk to, I will be able to get you to the right person!

My office is located in the CLAS Undergraduate Advising Office in 21 Schaeffer Hall and I encourage you to come see me whenever you have a question.

·         For quick questions feel free to email me at: Martha-greer@uiowa.edu

·         I encourage all students to schedule an appointment with me at least once each semester to review their progress toward graduation and discuss all the ways they can maximize their time on campus.  To schedule an appointment with me call 319-384-1328. 

·         During the first two weeks of classes I will hold extended drop-in hours.  If you need an add or drop slip signed or have other questions, you can drop in during the following hours with no appointment:

o   Monday, August 20 – Friday, August 24^th:   8:30 – noon and 1:00-4:30 p.m.

o   Monday, August 27 – Tuesday, August 28^th:  8:30 – noon and 1:00-4:30 p.m.

o   Wednesday, August 29^th:  1:00-4:30 p.m.

o   Thursday, August 30^th: 8:30 a.m. – noon and 1:00-4:30 p.m.

o   Friday, August 31^st:  8:30 – noon and 2:00 – 4:30 p.m.

I look forward to meeting you soon and again, welcome to the international relations major!