RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

The GOP Art of Confrontation: Romney's Use of an Imperial Tradition

Print
Written by David Starr   
Wednesday, 31 October 2012 09:37


U.S. foreign policy, including trade, has had an obvious impact worldwide, with consequences of gross, economic inequality still constantly evident: Few rich nations vs. many developing/poor nations. This has to change.

But with Republican Mitt Romney as “president,” it could be the typical, GOP art of confrontation. The right has been too fond of imperial solutions, with war as a priority. But, after all, war-profiteers have to make a killing, inexcusably, money-wise and literally.

Romney’s website shows a summary of his stance on “free” trade and foreign policy. Trade is to create “open markets on terms that work for America”, i.e., a “new” rehash of U.S. private monopolies, with local elites, getting the “spoils.” Never mind cooperating, and actually working out fair, equal mutual agreements.
Romney’s trade/foreign policies could very well be Bushite. But this time, I don’t think more people will get fooled twice. From his website: “The fewer the barriers to cross-border commerce, the more income growth we enjoy and the greater number of jobs.” But ask the formers workers of Bain Capital’s Sensata Technologies. It seems it’s getting to a point where U.S. workers would have to follow the outsourced “American jobs.”

Not surprisingly, “Obama’s Failure” is summarized: “[He] has failed in handling, [e.g.] , commercial relations with China, which is “deliberately” “building its own economy by misappropriating western technology, blocking access to its market [but an important part of a country’s sovereignty], and manipulating its currency.” Meanwhile, Obama has “acted like a suppliment.”
Like “Mitt’s Plan,” “Every president beginning with Ronald Reagan has recognized the power of open markets and pursued them on behalf of the United States.”

Peter Lee (Counterpunch, 8/30/2012), reveals specifics of “Romney’s China-Bashing.” Romney, a “modern Mormon plutocrat,” with his millionaire supporters, savor the “happiness” of pursuit for “open” markets in China. But the PRC is “manifestly unwilling to submit itself to U.S. military and economic tutelage.” (In itself, understandable, considering modern history.) But Lee alludes to an “alliance” between U.S. elites and China’s Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) with a mutual goal of benefitting from an “external threat” to each other. The PLA needs to justify its funding, which is smaller than internal security funds. (And the PLA and the Pentagon are not exactly on equal footing, the latter with an advantage. A legitimate justification for funding?)

While Romney’s proposals generally reflect ultranationalist confrontation more than equal cooperation, similarities are also reflected within Obama’s proposals. According to Zack Beauchamp (ThinkProgress – Security, 10/08/2012), “Romney failed to develop new policy ideas distinguishable from [Obama’s]”. Romney claimed that Obama didn’t sign one “free” trade agreement in his first term. Beauchamp points out Obama’s signing of “new free trade agreements with S. Korea, Panama and Colombia.” Sheldon Richman (Counterpunch, 10/01/2012), concludes likewise, regarding the sameness with both policies. “Obama (and Hillary Clinton), like Romney, apparently has no trouble believing that he too can control events in the Arab and Muslim world.” Richman logically connects this “current turmoil” with “decades of U.S. (and before that, British) attempts to ‘manage’ the Middle East.” Call it imperialism on steroids vs. imperialism lite.

But then Romney differs a little in other areas.
Cuba: Regarding “El Bloqueo,” (the U.S. embargo against Cuba), Romney may be playing a waiting game, possibly paying lip service of a “totalitarian” Cuba occasionally for his base. But with young Miami Cubans not so “gung ho” about the embargo as the previous generation, a Romney “win,” could give the GOP an “advantage” if he would lift the embargo, making him appear as a “humanitarian,” and elicit support from Hispanics. But also introducing “free” trade into Cuba, meaning an attempt to retake the island nation as a virtual market satellite.

Russia: A Romney oped condemned Obama’s negotiations with Russia for a new START treaty, calling it his “worst foreign policy mistake,” although Max Bergmann (ThinkProgress, 7/06/2010) cites Romney’s “distortions and false claims” on the matter.

Saddam: Romney may still be among a residue of deniers claiming in 2007 that it’s “entirely possible” Saddam Hussein had WMDs and moved them to Syria, although it’s already been a foregone conclusion proven to be false. (Satyam Khanna, ThinkProgress, 5/08/2007.)

Iran: Not surprisingly with Iran, Romney has shown his “True American toughness,” supported by AIPAC and Israel’s “True Israelite,” Ben Netanyahu. A Romney “presidency” could then mean another Iraq-like redux. But this time, worldwide protests just may be forceful enough to make it unplausible, or another pyrrhic victory further tarnishing the U.S.’s reputation foreign policy wise.

Tellingly, among Romney’s advisers are Eliot Cohen (Committee for the Liberation of Iraq) and Robert Kagan (Project for a New American Century), both contributing to starting the Iraq War. (Ali Gharib, ThinkProgress, 10/06/2011). Another adviser, Walid Phares, a Lebanese Christian fanatic, was associated with atrocities in the bloody 1975-1990 Lebanon Civil War, against his fanatical counterparts. (Mother Jones, 10/2011)

Overall, then, Romney’s “free trade”/foreign policy proposals are just an updated clone of the GOP’s art of confrontation.







e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN