![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Third debate: Obama scores, but did the world lose?
In what was quickly billed as the weakest of the three presidential
debates held in the run-up to the November 6 elections, the third and
final encounter between President Barack Obama and Republican nominee
Mitt Romney saw mostly acquiescence by the former Massachusetts Governor
on a number of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy positions.
With a CBS post-debate poll of uncommitted voters giving the President a
winning score of 53 per cent, Mr. Romney 23 per cent and 24 per cent
considering the event a tie, it was clear that Mr. Obama’s aggressive
performance and his repeated allusion to his experience as
Commander-in-Chief went some way in establishing his foreign policy
credentials with observers. A second poll of uncommitted voters by CNN
gave Mr. Obama 48 per cent and Mr. Romney 40 per cent after the debate
in Boca Raton, Florida.
Yet both men appeared keen to limit the debate to their respective
talking points, which not only resulted in the debate often being pulled
back into arguments over domestic issues such as the economy, it also
led to a vast swathe of nations, allies and foes of U.S. alike, being
entirely ignored. India and sub-Saharan Africa, for example, did not
feature in the debate at all, and the European Union and Latin America
were only given passing mentions.
Both were however effusive in their remarks on their support for Israel,
repeatedly asserting their commitment to protecting the U.S. ally from
threats emanating from Iran, Egypt and other parts of West Asia. The
Palestine question was notable for its absence.
When Mr. Romney accused Mr. Obama of going on an “apology tour”
criticising the U.S. while visiting other nations, the President
retorted, “When I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn't take donors, I
didn't attend fundraisers, I went to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum
there, to remind myself [of] the nature of evil and why our bond with
Israel will be unbreakable.”
A memorable moment in the debate came when Mr. Obama, striking a note of
sarcasm on Mr. Romney’s allegation that the President planned to cut
military spending by one trillion dollars, said, “You mentioned the
Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916.
Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the
nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft
carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go
underwater, nuclear submarines.”
While Mr. Romney may have surprised some within his own party by some of
his agreement with Mr. Obama, for example that all U.S, troops ought to
be drawn down from Afghanistan by 2014, he seemed to tone down the
aggressive streak that he displayed in the previous two debates,
possibly in an effort to appear cool-headed and presidential.
Two of India’s neighbours, Pakistan and China, however came up on
several occasions during the debate. On Pakistan, moderator and CBS
anchor Bob Schieffer came close to making a gaffe when he said that
Pakistan had “arrested the doctor who helped us catch Obama’s bin
Laden.” Regarding the hunt for bin Laden the President responded, “If we
had asked Pakistan for permission, we would not have gotten it him.”
Referencing the U.S.’ troubled relationship with Pakistan in the context
of the Afghanistan strategy Mr. Romney admitted that it was “not time
to divorce a nation on earth that has a hundred nuclear weapons and is
on the way to double that at some point, a nation that has serious
threats from terrorist groups within its nation — the Taliban, Haqqani
network.” He added that while Pakistan was “technically an ally,” it was
not acting very much like an ally, “but we have some work to do.”
Especially because Pakistan did not have a civilian leadership calling
the shots, Mr. Romney noted, if the nation fell apart and became a
failed state, terrorists could get their hands on nuclear weapons.
On China, the only other nation from Israel that dominated the
candidates’ time on air, there was even less dissonance in terms of the
men’s policies. Surprisingly it was Mr. Obama who took up Mr. Romney’s
war-cry of calling out “cheaters” from among China’s economic
competitors.
Mr. Romney, contrarily, struck a conciliatory note, arguing, “China has
an interest that's very much like ours in one respect, and that is they
want a stable world. They don't want war. They don't want to see
protectionism.”
Pointing out that the country had about 20 million people coming out of
the farms every year, seeking jobs in the cities, he noted, “We don't
have to be an adversary in any way, shape or form... We can collaborate
with them if they're willing to be responsible.”
- The Hindu News
Read more...
