An eloquent day

The day has overflowed with high-minded eloquence:  Obama at the General Assembly and the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) and Romney at the CGI  All solid, well-thought-through presentations.  Obama focused on universal values and aspirations at the UNGA, then on human trafficking at the CGI. Romney focused on improving the way in which we provide assistance internationally.

I can’t really fault much of what either said.  I agree with Obama that the violence we’ve seen in the past two weeks is inexcusable, that the video precipitating the demonstrations that killed American diplomats as well as dozens of Muslims is reprehensible, that our values nevertheless prevent it from being suppressed and also require an end to human trafficking.  I also agree with his support for the Arab awakening and in particular for an end to Bashar al Assad’s reign of terror in Syria.  I agree with Romney that we need to reshape foreign assistance so that it creates conditions for private initiative and growth, which too often it does not.

The real significance is, as usual, in what they did not say.  Obama offered no new ideas or action on Syria.  He did not mention North Korea and touched only once on Pakistan.  I imagine Pyongyang got off easy because there are growing signs of economic reform there, and less bellicosity.  It is hard to say anything nice about the People’s Republic, so better not to say anything.  That’s more or less the case with reprobate Pakistan as well:  the billions poured into its coffers seem to have bought neither economic development nor friendship.  I’d like to see Romney’s approach to foreign aid applied in Pakistan.  It is unlikely to be less fruitful than what we’ve done in the past, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

There was no easing of the President’s rhetoric or substantive position on the Iranian nuclear program.  He rules out containment and makes it clear the United States will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  Romney may doubt his credibility, but I don’t.  I think the United States is sliding inexorably towards being locked into military action against Iran if diplomacy fails, which it well might.  Both political parties have staked out strong positions that will push any president in the direction of war if Iran moves definitively to build a nuclear weapon.  That is a very good reason to make the diplomatic push as strong as possible, since war with Iran is not going to be a simple matter.

As for Romney, he may have a grand new vision of American foreign assistance, but little or no financing for it if Paul Ryan’s budget plans come to fruition.  Unlike his grand critique of Obama, Romney’s aid ideas are well-crafted.  Too bad none of it would be likely to happen if he were to become president.  If Obama is smart–and there is every indication he is that–he’ll poach a bit from the Romney ideas in his second term.  It won’t be plagiarism–these are ideas floating around already and in part adopted over the past four years.  But Obama could and should be a lot bolder in demanding from aid recipients the kinds of serious reform that Romney alludes to.

So there is little new ground broken in today’s eloquence, but a good deal to suggest that a bipartisan foreign policy is not so far out of reach, even in our highly polarized times.  That would be refreshing.