On Canadian Thanksgiving Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave a major foreign policy address to the faculty and students of the Virginia Military Institute. He did not mention Canada once.
Yet the speech contained some messages that Canadians may find interesting -- and familiar.
The main theme of Romney's Middle East-focused talk was the importance of U.S. leadership in international affairs, despite the understandable weariness of many Americans with the costly wars that followed the September 11, 2001 attacks. Romney warned that leadership is expensive, requiring more defense spending among other things, but the costs of not bearing those burdens was worse in the long run for Americans and their friends.
Romney cited the assassination of U.S. Ambassador the Libya Christopher Stevens in Benghazi as one example of the price of cheap-skating security: al Qaeda has developed a beachhead in Libya in part because the NATO military intervention in that country was from the air, not unlike the NATO interventions in the Balkans in the 1990s. Canada, which participated in both, has seen first-hand that bombs can break the will of dictatorships in Serbia and Libya, but they do nothing to help people to build new democratic institutions.
In Syria, Romney joined the chorus of criticism of the international community for doing too little to stop the government of Bashar Assad from slaughtering people in the streets to retain power -- Romney was forceful in his comments, but not nearly as forceful as Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, who addressed the Syrian crisis in his recent speech to the United Nations General Assembly. Yet Romney and Baird agree that the United States and Canada must do more.
Iran's nuclear program and repressive domestic policies also drew criticism and calls for stronger action in Romney's address. In addition to sending clearer signals about U.S. intentions, and responding more forcefully to provocations from Tehran, Romney called for the United States to unambiguously support its regional ally, Israel. Here, too, Romney was echoing Canadian foreign policy: the Harper government has pledged strong support for Israel's security and in response to Iranian harassment, closed the Canadian embassy in Tehran and sent Iranian diplomats in Canada home.
Turning to Iraq and Afghanistan, Romney noted that while President Barack Obama has claimed that "the tide of war" in these countries in receding, what has taken its place is not peace but growing instability. The investment that the United States and allies including Canada made to help these countries following their liberation from oppressive regimes is, in Romney's view, being wasted in the haste to retreat.
Canada's long experience with post-conflict peacekeeping and stabilization operations is a testament to the fragility of order in post-conflict societies and the need for international engagement. Canada's Stabilization and Reconstruction Training START initiative is part of Canada's ongoing commitment in this area.
The closing lines of Romney's speech noted the importance of U.S. engagement and partnership with close allies like Canada. His message for Canadians and others was succinct:
"Our friends and allies across the globe do not want less American leadership. They want more -- more of our moral support, more of our security cooperation, more of our trade, and more of our assistance in building free societies and thriving economies. So many people across the world still look to America as the best hope of humankind. So many people still have faith in America. We must show them that we still have faith in ourselves -- that we have the will and the wisdom to revive our stagnant economy, to roll back our unsustainable debt, to reform our government, to reverse the catastrophic cuts now threatening our national defense, to renew the sources of our great power, and to lead the course of human events."
Romney's vision of U.S. global leadership is like the Hollywood-budget version of Canada's indie foreign policy sensation, and to the extent that it mirrors choices that Canadians have taken and are comfortable with, it will resonate well north of the border.
Should Romney become the 45th president of the United States, it will be essential, though, for him to recognize that U.S. leadership must be exercised in a spirit of partnership for it to be successful. The message to Ottawa in January can't be "Thanks Canada for doing the right things in world affairs -- we'll take it from here."
Romney criticizes President Obama for "leading from behind" around the world, but running to the head of the line and "leading from the front" may not be well-received by allies either. Particularly given the problems the United States faces -- "unsustainable debt" and the real challenges that Romney identified in his speech -- it may be smarter diplomacy to "lead alongside" allies, acknowledging the contributions others have made and continue to make to international peace and security.
Follow Christopher Sands on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sandsathudson
Big vacuum china sucking all corporation s, city mayors. provincal leader right up to harp bow to china
it make sense that if they place more importance on middle east. throw sheldon in distraction
of all people to back repulican regime 500000 out kindness off harper.
focus china sea
First off, America might want to try heading off in a direction that someone else might want to follow.
At the moment, that's not so much.
America can stand to learn a lot from the rest of the free world, before giving in to it's conceit that it's the best and to which, everyone else should aspire.
I've seen more of the US than have most Americans. Canadian society is light years ahead.
They are still trying to settle a social contract answering questions that the rest of us worked out decades ago.
At the moment, American political thinking, is so far behind that they think they're in front.
Why would the world want American Leadership?
Baird addressed a chamber that was nearly empty but for a few yawning souls who sat with expressions that betrayed their fervent wish to be anywhere else but where they were trapped. The rabidgheyattackchipmunk Baird no sooner represents the will or interests of the Canadian people than does the Harper government, which attained power with the approval and approbation of only about 25% of all eligible Canadian voters.
This column is simply more useless tripe from the reactionary Hudson Propagandatute. By the way Mr. Sands, the USA is flat broke and cannot afford to involve itself in any new military adventures unless it further wishes to degrade the lives of American citizens.
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2012/09/mitt-romney-gives-ideas-to-iran.html
Unfortunately, Iran doesn't need a nuclear weapon to create a dirty bomb, an issue that seems to have evaded Mr. Romney's logic.
Only 34% of Canadians support the Harper government. That gives a lot of the rest of us room to have varying opinions on all of this.
Some things I agree with and other things I don't agree with. What I agree with would not influence me to vote for Harper.
I find it hard to believe that any western nation, including our own, wants to see the US lead. Partnerships should be encouraged but being led by a nation in turmoil who has such a bad track record in foreign affairs is not really something that is going to work out.
I think that it is usually around 34% that now show support for him in the polls.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/09/16/pol-parliament-returns-nik-nanos-survey-federal-race.html
the only thing keeping Harper in is the split of the centre left....which could narrow significantly in the next couple of years ..
and fortunately ....we'll be going to the polls by then....