The No-Apology Candidate

(This piece originally appeared on Russia Beyond the Headlines)

In the summer/fall of 2007, Foreign Affairs, an American magazine specializing in international relations and U.S. foreign policy, offered its pages to candidates for the 2008 U.S. presidential elections. In the July/August issue of the magazine, Mitt Romney, introduced as “Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007 [and] a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination,” took this offer to outline his foreign policy views. Incidentally, neighboring Romney in the printed space was Barack Obama, “a Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

Back in 2007, Romney was promoting himself as the only serious Republican candidate with a successful corporate career. This was reflected in the way Romney presented his foreign policy bona fides: his Foreign Affairs piece read as a business plan -- a list of steps a Romney administration would take to confront the challenges facing the nation. While strongly advocating increased spending on national defense (he actually used the term “investment”), Romney, for example, promised to reduce the waste of defense dollars by hiring “a team of private-sector leaders and defense experts” to scrutinize military purchasing. Of course, Romney had done his homework. He professed unconditional love for Israel, and his list of challenges to America's interests around the world included all usual suspects: Iran, Hugo Chavez, and "the economic rise of China." Interestingly, in a long, almost 5,000-word, piece, Romney mentioned Russia only once – in a quite benign context of U.S. energy independence: “…we [should] end our strategic vulnerability to oil shutoffs by nations such as Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.”

Fast forward to Fall 2011. Romney is running for president again, but this time he’s no longer just “a candidate” for the Republican presidential nomination -- he is a presumed frontrunner. As such, Romney prefers not to argue with fellow presidential hopefuls; rather, he brings the fight directly to President Obama’s doorstep. So when time came to challenge Obama’s foreign policy, the venue was not an article in an “academic” magazine; it was a speech at the Citadel, a military college in Charleston, S.C. The date of the speech – Oct. 7, the 10^th anniversary of sending U.S. troops to Afghanistan – doesn’t appear coincidental, either.

Calling for a new “American Century” and promising to “never, ever apologize for America” – which, as Romney asserts, President Obama does all the time -- Romney blasts “the feckless policies of the past three years.” He blames the current president for the loss of American leadership in the world and the lack of “clarity of American purpose and resolve,” which, in Romney’s opinion, made the globe “a far more dangerous place.”

The topic of Russia came rather early in the Citadel speech. Describing to the prospective U.S. military leaders the uncertain world America will be facing in the near future, Romney preaches:

“Russia is at a historic crossroads. Vladimir Putin has called the breakup of the Soviet empire the great tragedy of the 20^th Century. Will he try to reverse that tragedy and bludgeon the countries of the former Soviet Union to submission, and intimidate Europe with the levels of its energy resources?”

The question that Romney is posing is no more than oratorical trick, for just a few minutes later, he explicitly identifies “a resurgent Russia, led by a man who believes the Soviet Union was great, not evil” as one of “powerful forces that may threaten freedom, prosperity, and America’s national interests.” No less. Incidentally, the origin of this bold Soviet Union claim isn’t all too obvious, so if President Putin has a chance to meet in the future with President Romney, he may ask for a direct quote.

Having delivered the Citadel speech, Romney wasn’t done with Russia just yet. The same day, he gave an interview to the Washington Post’s Russophobe-in-residence, Jennifer Rubin. In the interview, Romney spoke of Putin’s plans “of rebuilding Russian empire” using, as Romney sees it, “annexing populations as they did in Georgia.” (This sounds awkward: usually, it’s territories that are annexed, not populations.) And when asked by the ever-helpful Rubin what he would do with the “reset,” Romney didn’t mince words: “It has to end.”

It would be too premature, however, to conclude that Romney’s current position vis-à-vis Russia, hostile as it may appear, will necessarily translate into explicit anti-Russian policies of his prospective presidency. Romney’s self-proclaimed status of the major Republican opponent to President Obama forces him to use every opportunity to criticize the Obama administration. While criticizing the White House’s economic policies is easy, given the status of U.S. economy, it’s much trickier to challenge Obama’s foreign policy. The fact is that in many respects, the Obama administration’s current foreign policy discourse isn’t much different from that of his predecessor. And this poses a problem for Romney because his new “American Century” proposal is a slightly disguised version of the George W. Bush administration's “us-vs.-them” approach.

Obama’s policy of the “reset” in U.S.-Russia relations is perhaps the only area where Romney can see a clear deviation from the policies of the Bush era. Romney therefore attacks the “reset” because there is not much else to attack.

It remains to be seen whether the newly-acquired aggressive streak in Romney’s foreign policy views will eventually prevail, or if he will instead gradually return to more pragmatic approach he adhered to in 2007. It remains to be seen, too, which effect Romney’s choice of Leon Aron -- a prominent Russia expert from the American Enterprise Institute -- as his Russia advisor will have on his presidential campaign.

It may well happen that at certain point of his presidency, should it materialize, Romney will realize that having Russia as a partner serves American national interests better than having it as a foe. And who knows: Romney may decide to meet with Putin and look into his soul? And make no apology for that.

Comments

[Michael Averko]

Thanks for that follow-up Igor.

On the matter of being one-sided, the Lozansky involved World Russia Forum (WRF) appears more diverse in views than the Heritage event. The same can be said of the Valdai Discussion Club.

Yet, note how some are more likely to call the WRF and Valdai propagandistic.

[Mark]

American conservatives, at least the hardcore values-voter crowd of which Boehner is an instructive example, do all their philosophizing on other countries based on that's-the-way-it's-always-been. Britons don't eat a lot of meat or fresh fruit because they were hard to get during the Blitz. The French can't fight to save their lives, and don't know how to make anything that isn't ridiculously complicated. Black leaders are dictators because they only know one way to lead and are incapable of grasping democracy's nuances. America is the best because it is free and everybody wants to be like Americans.

Russians are savages who are either oppressors or the oppressed, view everything in terms of personal advantage, and are untrustworthy. Their women don't wash often and smell sweaty. So it shall be, world without end. Close with a few muffled sobs (if it's Boehner speaking, because he can't get enough of crying in public and is cautiously optimistic that it makes him seem more human. There's a good reason for that - his supporters assess that his spontaneous blubbering, rather than hinting at mental illness, makes him seem more human).

With the current situation in Europe and several other factors relating to the global economy, I have become convinced that WTO membership should not necessarily be an aspirational goal for Russia. I admit I was once strongly in favour of it, and I used to get quite frustrated with the USA's constant childish brinksmanship while it conveniently ignored the membership of some of the poorest, most violent and repressive countries on the Big Blue Marble. But not any more - now it's just amusing.

Russia doesn't really need the WTO as much as the WTO needs Russia, with its huge cash and energy reserves. Simpletons like Boehner continue to shake their heads in pretended sorrow and put off WTO membership for Russia yet again because the insult value brings them childish pleasure, and they've done it so many times that the insult has lost its sting. Who cares? It's plain now that even when a sympathetic Democratic administration is in power, it lacks the will and determination to make bold decisions and walking cases of arrested development like Boehner continue to exercise tremendous influence just because Democrats lack the nerve to stand up to them. Therefore, if I were leader of Russia, I would abandon the WTO negotiating process altogether. Obviously, membership is not worth groveling to Saakashvili and validating his impression of his own greatness. There would not need to be "movement on the WTO question" if there were no WTO question.

[Michael Averko]

That Heritage event had quite a tilt, as evidenced by its roster of panelists:

http://www.russiablog.org/2011/10/heritage-foundation-strikes-again-russia-yuri-mamchur.php#more

A more informed way of reviewing a situation is by having diverse views interact with each other in a civil way.

[donnyess]

Romney will loudly declare the phony "reset" dead. Next he will call for the 2014 winter games to be moved away from Russia using Georgian military occupation as a pretext. Remember Zbig/Carter/1980?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Summer_Olympics_boycott

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19romney.html

[Michael Averko]

Provided nothing more confrontational in the form of a war involving Russia happens between now and 2014, I don't think that there will be an Olympic boycott.

My sense is that the IOC and a good number of key others aren't pleased with the 1976, 1980 and 1984 summer Olympic boycotts. (The 1976 boycott involved African nations protesting the New Zealand rugby team's tour of apartheid South Africa. Never mind that rugby isn't an Olympic sport and therefore not affiliated with the New Zealand Olympic Committee.)

[Eugene Ivanov]

Thanks Igor,

Well, I don't think Boehner knows much about Russia, but this is what I think had happened. The Heritage invited Boehner to speak. He asked his stuff to prepare a speech. His stuff contacted the Heritage folks ans asked for "help." The Heritage folks wrote the text, and the Speaker has just delivered it.

His speech could have potentially been different if we had a working pro-Russian lobby in the US that would pitch its messages to Boehner and other Congressmen.

Best Regards,
Eugene

[Eugene Ivanov]

Mark,

I don't want to get deep into the WTO issue, except for saying that there are those in Russia (say, steelmakers) who favor admission to the WTO and there are those who either don't care (say, oil/gas sector) or directly oppose like the agribusiness. (When Agrarian Party was "incorporating" into United Russia, their condition was that UR would oppose joining the WTO.)

For a long time, a consensus was that Medvedev was a proponent of the WTO, whereas Putin was a "WTO-sceptic." Recently, at one of his now frequent meetings with "supporters" Medvedev opined that Russia had no reason to "rush" into the WTO. How fast things change...

Best,
Eugene

[Michael Averko]

Eugene, your Boehner point reminds me of Curt Weldon, who when in office did things like appear pro-Russian, while in other instances showing uncritical support for the Ukrainian Orange side.

Bush Sr. received some misguided flack for warning against suicidal nationalism when he spoke in Kiev, when he was president.

I suspect that the high profile backlash against that statement (from the late Safire among other anti-Russian sources) put some folks on guard.

It's like running up a swampy hill with bugs biting you.

Best,

Mike

[Mark]

"How fast things change..."

True dat, as the homeboys say. All right, Zhenya, we'll leave the WTO for now - but I can't resist a parting shot, as a new disciple of the forget-the-WTO-Russia informal advocacy group.

Russian steelworkers are doing just fine under the current trade situation, exporting 10 times as much steel as North America while importing only about a quarter what North America does. Also, Russia supplies to the internal market double what it imports, so local sales are brisk as well compared to North America, which uses the same amount it imports while selling only a tenth of Russia's output.

http://www.issb.co.uk/

I question whether the Russian steel market would do better under WTO's regulation, subject as it is to political maneuvering and influence-peddling, not to mention national protectionist measures and subsidies. Under those marketing realities, Russia might well sell less.

As often happens, when you act from spite as the west is doing in keeping Russia out of the WTO and keeping Jackson-Vanik on the books long after the need for it has passed, it comes back to bite you in the ass.