关注社会:米特·罗姆尼的外国之旅

The Republican's visit to three key allies is all about domestic, not foreign, politics.

TO HEAR Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, describe the world, Barack Obama's approach to foreign policy is a failure in two halves. Towards America's enemies and rivals, the charge goes, Mr Obama has proved weak, naive and apologetic. When dealing with friends and allies, the president is accused of being chilly and unreliable. This week the presumptive nominee embarked on a foreign trip designed to drive home that argument, involving three carefully chosen allies; Britain, Poland and Israel.

Bowing to the importance of generating favourable images back home, Mr Romney intended to use his swing through Britain to meet American competitors at the London Olympics and attend the opening ceremony on July 27th, where Michelle Obama, the first lady, will also be present. He will see David Cameron and other senior ministers, as well as the leader of the opposition. Bowing to the tradition that American politicians do not pursue domestic squabbles when overseas, Mr Romney made sure to attack his Democratic rival just before he left. He used a speech to ex-servicemen in Nevada to charge Mr Obama with such failings as coddling Russia at the expense of NATO allies such as Poland, blinking in the face of unfair Chinese trade practices, playing politics with troop numbers in Afghanistan and above all lecturing and undermining Israel's leaders to the delight of its enemies.

In June Mr Romney told an evangelical[1] Christian group that his approach to Israel would be “by and large…the opposite” of Mr Obama's. On the eve of the candidate's trip, leading Romney supporters declared it a disgrace that Mr Obama had not been to Israel in his almost four years as president. A Florida congresswoman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, noted that the president had found time to visit other countries in the Middle East, suggesting darkly that Americans could “only speculate” as to what lay behind this choice. Irked, the Obama campaign retorted that if reelected, Mr Obama had promised to visit Israel in his second term, and that Ronald Reagan never once made it there as president.

Senior figures in such friendly countries as Britain and Poland do not really recognise the first half of Mr Romney's complaint, that Mr Obama is a notable pushover on national security. Besides, when it comes to the details that concern allies, such as the timing of troop withdrawals from Afghanistan or the scope of sanctions to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, Mr Romney has not committed himself publicly to more hawkish plans than Mr Obama. Security and intelligence co-operation between America and Israel is as deep as it has ever been.

But the second half of Mr Romney's charge resonates much more; that Mr Obama has been a chilly ally, seeming to set little store by personal relations with fellow leaders or displays of affection for friendly countries. In the case of Britain, sources say, Mr Obama's relative recent warmth towards Mr Cameron is in part an acknowledgment that his predecessor, Gordon Brown, was mishandled, as the president dismissed British demands for reassurance and access. The traditionally Atlanticist Poles felt sidelined not just by the policy implications of Mr Obama's “reset” of relations with Russia, but by the brusque way in which they were told to play along. Above all, Israeli nerves, as well as those of the Jewish community in America, were jangled by Mr Obama's perceived coolness towards Israel, exemplified by his early attempts to reach out to Arab and Muslim public opinion.

The world has moved on since the time, four years ago, when Mr Obama was able to draw acrowd of around 200,000 to a speech in Berlin as a mere candidate. Yet even allowing for that, Mr Romney is not likely to generate much excitement. Even in Israel, where relations between Mr Obama and the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, remain wary, Mr Netanyahu will not offer Mr Romney anything resembling an endorsement during his visit. It is a core tenet[2] of Israeli policy to maintain bipartisan support in America.

In short, Mr Romney's argument about Mr Obama's diplomatic stance is only half fair. But then it is an argument intended for domestic consumption, as part of a broader charge that Mr Obama is aloof and out of touch with the country he leads. As always when presidential candidates travel abroad, Mr Romney's trip is about votes, not diplomacy. If the Republican looks and sounds like an American statesman abroad, and, most important, avoids any obvious gaffes, his tour will have served its purpose.