Studio guest Sergei Oznobnischev, Director of the Institute for Strategic Assessment and Deputy-Chairman of the “Russia-USA” Association (studio guest), Edward Lozansky, President of the American Institute in Moscow, Malcolm Jorgensen, Lecturer at the United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney.
Assuming Mitt Romney were to win the presidency, how would he differ from Obama and from Bush?
Sergei Oznobnischev: The center of every presidential campaign is the thesis – I will solve all your problems. From this point of view, the Bush dynasty is much more attractive for the Americans. Their campaign thesis may be that – our family traditionally was able to solve your problems and was doing it rather effectively. And this is the thing that Mitt Romney cannot say. He was not very successful. At present this news come with the commentary that one Republican source told the Washington Post that Romney will do so and so. We aren’t yet sure that he will appear, though it is kind of a small sensation. My vision is that he has a less stronger position than the Bush family. The final decision will of course be taken by the Republican Party.
Let’s say Mr. Mitt Romney wins the presidency, how do you think he would engage the world? Would he make a difference in American foreign policy?
Malcolm Jorgensen: I think the first thing to say is that it is still somewhat improbable that he would win, although it is true that Mitt Romney has now put his head into the ring, so to speak. We can only read into what happened in the last presidential election in 2012. He did seem to flip-flop somewhat and changed his views in relation to how he was going to approach world affairs. But he did seem to gather some of the same individuals around him that the Bush administration had. And so, there is this possibility of quite a hardline approach. And that was demonstrated in some of his statements on, for instance, Iran, where he took a hardline approach to the Obama administration. And so, there is a possibility of a return to this more forceful approach to the world affairs.
When President Obama stepped into the Oval Office the first thing he said was that he would restore the image of America. It is a big question whether he succeeded or not, but do you think Romney would be able to handle this problem?
Malcolm Jorgensen: The problem of America’s image, I think there has been some grand gains by the Obama administration turning away from some of the stronger rhetoric of the Bush administration. If Romney were to enter into the White House, again, it is somewhat speculative to talk about it, but it does seem that he did try and resist Obama’s policy during the 2012 campaign by sending out a hardline approach. That is one more consistent with the Bush administration, which was the one that was less popular throughout the world with the other countries.
Could Romney be more hardline with China and could this new Cold War expand over to China?
Malcolm Jorgensen: It is possible. I mean, the Obama administration has really tried to emphasize this idea of a rules-based international order, and particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. The rhetoric about the Asia pivot hasn’t always been followed through. It seems that this administration is largely focused on the traditional areas of American security – the ME and the European politics. Nevertheless, that is the place where the center of politics is moving in many ways. And so, with the hypothetical Romney administration, again, it may be the case that there would be less of an emphasis on this idea of a rules-based order guaranteeing peace in the region, and more of a forceful response to China. Some of the old Cold War hawks might enter the administration’s foreign policy team and, therefore, revive some of these ideas of having a great strategic rival.
I know that you work with the US-Russia forum, which is very influential in trying to bring people together. Would Mitt Romney be an asset to the dialog or would he be an obstacle?
Edward Lozansky: First of all, his chances at this point I think are pretty good. Maybe it is because of the name recognition. For example, when the CNN made a poll without Romney, Jeb Bush was ahead. As soon as Romney threw his hat, he immediately got on the frontline and he got 21% and Jeb Bush was the second with 10%. Of course, at this point it is too early to say what is going to happen, but right now I think that Mitt Romney is an absolutely leading candidate. Of course, he has a bad baggage – he lost. But in the past, if you recall, Nixon also lost three times before he won. So, I think Romney has got a pretty good chance. Whether he will be a good president or not, it is another matter.
There is an ongoing debate in the academic community over who is better for the Russians – the Republicans or the Democrats. Where are you in this debate?
Edward Lozansky: I think this is all speculation. Often, when you hear experts debating, they say that the Republicans are tough, but we can still negotiate with them; the Democrats are weaker and that is why they have to show strength. I think it depends more on the personality and the situation in the country. I'm a strong supporter of the Republican Party, but I would never say that a president who is a Republican would be better for the US-Russian relations, than a Democratic one. It all depends on the individual.
