By: Christopher Freise, RSIS, July 16, 2012
Mitt Romney, the presumptive
Republican nominee for president, has been highly critical of President Obama’s
foreign policy. What impact, if any, would a Romney presidency have upon
American foreign policy towards Southeast Asia and China?
The 2012 U.S. Presidential race
will, in all likelihood, remain tight until Election Day in November. Both
Barack Obama and his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, have reasons to be both
optimistic and pessimistic about their respective campaigns. The widespread
public dissatisfaction and deep frustration with the current state of the
national economy and politics, always a critical determinant in American
elections, will undoubtedly be a major factor in the remaining months before
the election.
Romney secured the Republican
nomination in May, and was the most forthcoming of the Republican field about
his approach to foreign affairs. This included the release of a 44-page foreign
policy white paper and the announcement of a team of foreign policy advisors
with considerable experience in government and the Washington think-tank
community. This group broadly bridges the mainstream realist and neoconservative
wings of the Republican Party.
A Romney presidency would likely
follow a relatively mainstream Republican approach, with an emphasis on
maintaining a strong defence and asserting American national interests. Romney
has indicated that “if you don’t want America to be the strongest country on
Earth, then I am not your President” – suggesting that the issue of “American
Exceptionalism” will likely play a large role in the campaign. This is
consistent with his call for increased military spending, particularly on an
expanded ship-building programme for the US Navy.
To date, however, Romney has
frequently demonstrated a penchant for rather vague platitudes, reflecting both
his caution as a candidate and his campaign’s desire to keep the election focused
on the economy. While his white paper suggests that Romney would most likely
follow a hawkish approach in Asia and globally, few details or policies are
described. All presidential candidates seek to retain a degree of policy
flexibility during the race, but even by these standards Romney’s statements
have lacked any notable precision.
Republican attitudes towards
ASEAN, South China Sea
While ASEAN has received greater
attention from Obama than Bush, important events like the 2009 signing of the
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) by the United States were initially
prepared under Bush. Similarly, the groundwork for the deepening of bilateral
relations with Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam began in the
later years of the Bush Administration and have continued under Obama. The
US-ASEAN Summit (including the participation of Myanmar) led by Obama in Bali
was initiated by Bush (though minus Myanmar). Similarly, it is likely that the
participation of the US in the East Asia Summit would continue under a
Republican administration.
Should Romney win in November,
the trends of American foreign policy towards Southeast Asia are unlikely to
change significantly. Romney’s calls for a larger American navy would
complement the “pivot” towards the Pacific that has occurred under Obama.
(Romney criticized Obama for “under-resourcing” the military aspect of the
“pivot”.) The strategic relationships in Southeast Asia developed during George
W. Bush’s second term and continued under Obama have considerable support in
Washington across both parties. While part of Obama’s success has been based
upon the personal rapport he has with many Southeast Asian leaders Romney as
president would find many partners willing to cooperate.
In part, Obama’s success in
developing closer relationships within Southeast Asia reflects regional
concerns over China’s rising power. Specifically, Chinese conduct towards the
South China Sea dispute has left regional states worried. Here again, it is
difficult to see Romney changing American diplomacy towards the disputing
sovereignty claims, other than perhaps taking a more hawkish approach.
China has made clear that it
wants to settle competing sovereignty claims in the South China Sea
bilaterally, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received rare praise from
Republican foreign policy circles with her handling of China’s aggressive
actions. Coupled with her statements that the US would focus “substantially
increased investment – diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise” towards
the Asia-Pacific (and away from Iraq and Afghanistan), it would be surprising
to see how Republicans could effectively oppose this effort in an
electorally-relevant way.
China
While the exact policies that
Romney would implement should he win the White House remain vague at this
stage, there is little question that he will continue to emphasise “getting
tough” with China on the campaign trail, particularly over the issues of
currency manipulation and trade practices. This familiar charge routinely
gathers bipartisan populist support in Congress, as it unites important
Republican and Democratic constituencies. Furthermore, it follows a
long-standing trend in presidential elections for the candidate of the party in
opposition to criticise the incumbent party for being “soft” on China.
Continuing economic turmoil in
the US has increased this rhetorical pressure. Romney has described Beijing as
“cheating” in its trade practices; he has also said he would declare China a
“currency manipulator” on his first day as president. Such a policy stance
allows for a linkage to be made between Obama’s economic and foreign policies
while offering little in concrete policy outcomes. While attracting much
attention, these aggressive statements have raised concerns that they threaten
the enormously important relationship with China.
Former Ambassador to China Jon
Huntsman, who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination before endorsing
Romney, called Romney’s comments “wrong-headed” and warned such actions could
lead to a destructive trade war with China. Other notable conservative voices
have criticized Romney for allowing rhetorical flourishes on “getting tough”
with China to take the place of policy development. Business leaders have also
warned Romney about using protectionist rhetoric that threatens free trade.
Since securing the Republican nomination, however, Romney has toned down his
recent comments.
A Republican version of the
Obama administration?
In the run-up to the election,
domestic and economic issues will remain the primary focus of both candidates,
and trade issues will remain a contentious theme. While China will be one of
the major foreign policy topics to receive attention, Southeast Asia will be a
peripheral campaign topic at best.
But if recent history is any
guide, upon taking office a Romney Administration would likely moderate its
approach to foreign policy away from the rhetoric of the campaign. Broadly,
Romney’s foreign policy would likely resemble that of George W. Bush’s late in
his second term – and in that regard, campaign rhetoric aside, it would also
largely resemble that of his opponent, Barack Obama.
Christopher Freise
is a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. He served as a visiting
research fellow at the RSIS Centre for Multilateralism Studies in 2011. Prior
to his postgraduate studies, he worked in Washington, DC for the United States
House of Representatives.
RSIS Commentaries are intended to
provide timely and, where appropriate, policy relevant background and analysis
of contemporary developments. The views of the author/s are their own and do
not represent the official position of the S.Rajaratnam School of International
Studies (RSIS), NTU, which produces the Commentaries.
Courtesy:
No comments:
Post a Comment