Like many others in the class, I was disappointed that the
final presidential debate failed to focus entirely on foreign policy. It seemed
like both candidates used the questions as an opportunity to discuss domestic
issues- but nevertheless, there was one quote on international relations that I
found particularly interesting. When discussing Syria, Romney said, “And the
mantle of leadership for the -- promoting the principles of peace has fallen to
America. We didn't ask for it. But it's an honor that we have it.” After
hearing this, I wasn’t exactly sure how I viewed this perspective. How did
America become the frontrunner of promoting peace- did we achieve this? Is it
because we have such a great track record? Or was this quote simply Romney
speaking in the heat of a debate hoping to inspire Americans with the rhetoric
of peace?
Honestly, I don’t believe America is the mantle of
leadership for peacebuilding, particularly in the MENA region. Romney made this
statement after discussing how we should have been more aggressive in Egypt and
Syria in attempting to oust the authoritarian regimes, and followed it by
talking about what a great military we have. I understand the concept of ‘peace
through strength’, but I don’t think it’s one that the US could effectively use
in some the Middle Eastern states. As much as all of us would love to see peace
in the MENA area, I don’t think that the United States is going to be the one
to bring it (particularly singlehandedly, as Romney kind of suggested). Romney
seems to think that if we send troops to these politically tumultuous regions, we
will be the harbingers of peace. However, I do not think that America is in a
position to attempt to reform Middle Eastern government, and that we most
certainly are not the leaders in promoting world peace.
I entirely agree with you. I actually found Romney's claim almost arrogant and fitting the "the West knows best" attitude that we have been discussing. It seems to me that what he was effectively saying was that, like you said, bringing troops to the regions would solve all the unrest that can be found there. Aside from the fact that i believe that promoting peace begins by not using army to spread the message, i felt that Romney was insinuating that as long as America (which was implied represented the West as a whole) would bring troops then everyone will just stop the fighting because America came to their rescue (though if it does so is because it pursuing its own self-interest and not in the name of peace only). I got the feel of almost the colonial mind set when he said that statement, because just like other nations have done during that period of time, he used a moral justification for something that in reality only involves either material interest or just plain self-interest. Not peace.
ReplyDelete