My, isn't this awkward. Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski stumbled across a copy of John McCain's 200-page opposition research file on Mitt Romney from the 2008 presidential campaign, which will now undoubtedly be pored over by President Barack Obama's campaign staff for useful nuggets to trip up Romney in the 2012 campaign.

The 20-page section of the oppo file lays the foundation for attacking Romney as a John Kerry-esque flip-flopper -- and one with fewer foreign policy chops. It accuses Romney of choosing his stands either because they proved politically expedient, or because he was woefully uninformed on the issues and simply stumbled into new positions.

As befits a document written in 2008, much of the research focuses on Romney's positions toward the Iraq war -- material unlikely to be of much use to the Obama campaign, given the conclusion of the war. But there is some grist in there for those who would paint Romney as a world-class waffler: In June 2007, for example, he answered a question about whether the Iraq war was a mistake by attacking the question as "a non-sequitur...or a null set" and an "unreasonable hypothetical."

But while Iraq has faded from the U.S. political agenda, concerns about what to do about Iran have only increased. In 2007, Romney said that a U.S. military attack on Iran is "not going to happen" -- perhaps that's a line we'll soon be seeing in a Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich commercial. There's also the issue of Romney's supposed business entanglements in the Islamic Republic: In 2002, Bain Capital, the company he co-founded, purchased a chemicals business SigmaKalon, which had an office in Tehran. But that seems to be a thin reed, as Romney had long ago left Bain at the time of the purchase, and was on the verge of being elected governor of Massachusetts.

Romney's gaffes make for some of the document's most entertaining reading. He seems to have a particularly difficult time connecting with Cuban-Americans: During one event in Miami, he repeated a phrase, "Fatherland or death, we shall overcome," which was the traditional sign-off of Fidel Castro's speeches. He also referred to rising GOP star Marco Rubio as "Mario" and echoed a line from the movie Scarface in a speech to Cuban-Americans during the same trip.

That's embarrassing, but not likely to do serious damage to the Romney machine. If Obama or Romney's GOP rivals are looking for a silver bullet, it's not going to be in his foreign-policy pronouncements.

Over the weekend I had the chance to see the new Meryl Streep-as-Margaret Thatcher biopic The Iron Lady, which had too little about politics and too much about the Thatchers' frankly not-that-interesting marriage for my taste, but did have one fantastic scene of Thatcher thoroughly eviscerating U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig in the run-up to the Falklands War.

This year will make the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War -- a conflict that today seems to belong to another geopolitical epoch entirely. But last week, as the Telegraph reports, we seem to have entered the history repeating itself as farce phase (standard British media caveats apply):

Argentina has reportedly started a "squid war" against the Falkland Islands, telling fishermen to catch the creatures before they reach the waters around the British territory.

Argentina reportedly hopes the orders will deal a blow to the Falkland Islands' fishing industry, which is worth up to £45 million a year – half of which comes from catches of Illex squid

Illex squid start their one-year lives off the River Plate, which marks the border of Argentina and Uruguay, in September and move southwards as they grow.

Argentina also recently persuaded the countries of Mercosur to block port access to ships flying the Falklands flag, though some countries have partially lifted the ban. 

The Guardian also has a useful rundown of other seafood-related maritime disputes. 

Let's face it. When Millard Fillmore, the undistinguished, uninspiring 13th president of the United States, comes up in political conversation these days, it's usually as the butt of jokes. "When five of your six candidates could not be elected president if they were running against Millard Fillmore, I think you can presume there will not be much serious issue discussion," New York Times columnist Gail Collins quipped last week in a primer on the upcoming South Carolina primary. If only the rags-to-riches Whig, whose 212th birthday was recently celebrated with much fanfare in his native Western New York, were around to defend his record.

But last night, during the GOP debate in South Carolina, Ron Paul issued a full-throated endorsement of Fillmore's approach to foreign policy, whether he realized it or not. "If another country does to us what we do to others, we aren't going to like it very much," Paul explained in the context of his opposition to war with Iran. "So I would say maybe we ought to consider a Golden Rule in foreign policy," he continued placidly, as he was eaten alive by boos and jeers. "We endlessly bomb these other countries and then we wonder why they get upset with us?" Paul has trotted out this Golden Rule line several times during the campaign, drawing laughter in New Hampshire after asking, "What if the Chinese came into the Gulf of Mexico and took over the Gulf of Mexico? I know we in Texas would be pretty annoyed."

OK, but what does all this have to do with Millard Fillmore? The former president, it turns out, expressed nearly the same sentiments in 1850 during his first State of the Union address, in a formulation of foreign policy that sounds an awful lot like Paul's noninterventionist, empire-shunning worldview (key lines in bold):

Among the acknowledged rights of nations is that which each possesses of establishing that form of government which it may deem most conducive to the happiness and prosperity of its own citizens, of changing that form as circumstances may require, and of managing its internal affairs according to its own will. The people of the United States claim this right for themselves, and they readily concede it to others. Hence it becomes an imperative duty not to interfere in the government or internal policy of other nations; and although we may sympathize with the unfortunate or the oppressed everywhere in their struggles for freedom, our principles forbid us from taking any part in such foreign contests. We make no wars to promote or to prevent successions to thrones, to maintain any theory of a balance of power, or to suppress the actual government which any country chooses to establish for itself. We instigate no revolutions, nor suffer any hostile military expeditions to be fitted out in the United States to invade the territory or provinces of a friendly nation. The great law of morality ought to have a national as well as a personal and individual application. We should act toward other nations as we wish them to act toward us, and justice and conscience should form the rule of conduct between governments, instead of mere power, self interest, or the desire of aggrandizement. To maintain a strict neutrality in foreign wars, to cultivate friendly relations, to reciprocate every noble and generous act, and to perform punctually and scrupulously every treaty obligation -- these are the duties which we owe to other states, and by the performance of which we best entitle ourselves to like treatment from them; or, if that, in any case, be refused, we can enforce our own rights with justice and a clear conscience.

So, what was Millard Fillmore's foreign policy? While his term in office was dominated by a congressional debate over slavery, Fillmore did adopt a "foreign-policy agenda that emphasized expanding trade while limiting American commitments outside the Western Hemisphere," according to the University of Virginia's Miller Center (Ron Paul claims he's not isolationist because he's a free trader who simply doesn't want the United States to be the "policemen of the world"). Fillmore cultivated closer commercial ties with Japan, (ineffectually) opposed a Bay of Pigs-style invasion of Cuba, and refused to confront oppressive imperial governments in Eastern Europe -- all stances Paul might have taken had he been in Fillmore's shoes (we're not sure where Paul would have come down on securing bird dung from Peru, which Fillmore pursued zealously).

Here's footage of the crowd's hostile reaction to Paul's remarks last night:

Might Paul have pacified the crowd by explaining that, hey, he was only echoing Millard Fillmore? Something tells us he wouldn't have received a standing ovation. But bewildered silence might have done the trick.

Romney rolls through New Hampshire, Gingrich unloads the kitchen sink

Mitt Romney enjoyed a decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary, taking 39.2 percent of the vote to second-place finisher Ron Paul's 22.8 percent. Romney took aim at President Barack Obama's foreign policy in his victory speech: "Internationally, President Obama has adopted an appeasement strategy. He believes America's role as leader in the world is a thing of the past. I believe a strong America must -- and will -- lead the future. He doesn't see the need for overwhelming American military superiority. I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it. He chastises friends like Israel; I'll stand with our friends. He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth."

Romney might already be gearing up for a showdown with the president, but none of his opponents dropped out. After the drubbing in New Hampshire, the anti-Romney rhetoric from the other GOP candidates in South Carolina is getting harsh. Leading the attacks is Newt Gingrich, who essentially tied for fourth place in New Hampshire, and continues to make the case that only a "bold Reagan conservative," as opposed to a "timid Massachusetts moderate" can defeat the president.

A super-PAC supporting Gingrich unleashed a 28-minute video attacking Romney for causing layoffs during his time with private equity firm Bain Capital. Rick Perry piled on, calling Romney a "vulture capitalist." Some conservatives have complained about the anti-capitalist undertones of the attack -- with Rush Limbaugh even comparing Gingrich to liberal Massachusetts senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.

The Gingrich campaign also released a new attack ad which compares Romney to fellow Massachusetts pols John Kerry and Michael Dukakis ("a liberal governor who wanted us to believe he was strong on defense"). For good measure, the ad even threw in a clip of Romney speaking French.     

Is Huntsman done?

Despite the hype, Jon Huntsman did not enjoy a Rick Santorum-like surge in New Hampshire and finished a disappointing third place. (He's been widely mocked for claiming this result was a "ticket to ride" in a confetti-strewn post-primary speech.) The former ambassador says his goal for South Carolina, where a recent poll showed him trailing comedian Stephen Colbert, is to "stay relevant." As opposed to New Hampshire, where Huntsman campaigned tirelessly for nearly a year, often touting his foreign-policy expertise and even his fluency in Mandarin, Huntsman is working to remind South Carolinians of his conservative credentials on issues like gun control, abortion, and taxes. Huntsman's chief strategist told the Wall Street Journal "I don't care if Gary Johnson or [Twilight Zone creator] Rod Serling wins it.... As long as it's not Mitt Romney."

Santorum on Iran

Santorum weighed in on this week's mysterious killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran, which Iranian authorities have blamed on the United States and Israel. The Obama administration has denied any role in the assassination, raising Santorum's ire: "Well, I would have -- I've already made a public statement that any nuclear scientist, particularly any foreign nuclear scientist, who's cooperating with the Iranians in developing a nuclear weapon program would be considered an enemy combatant," he told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren. "And I wouldn't -- I would be doing what Israel was -- would be doing tonight, which is saying nothing."

The immigration debate returns

Immigration is again emerging as a major topic in South Carolina. The Romney campaign announced this week that it had received the endorsement of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the co-author of Arizona's restrictive immigration policy. Kobach called Romney, "the candidate who will finally secure the borders and put a stop to the magnets, like in-state tuition, that encourage illegal aliens to remain in our country unlawfully." 

On this issue, Gingrich is playing the part of moderate, looking ahead to the looming Florida primary: "I can't wait for them to campaign in Florida," Gingrich said. "Try to go into Miami with the battle cry, 'everybody must go.'... That is clearly going to come across in the immigrant community as a sign you have no sense of humanity for people," Gingrich said this week. As it happens, the Romney campaign has already begun running Spanish-language ads in Florida.

Is anyone paying attention to foreign policy?

A newly released Gallup poll asks Americans, "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" "Foreign aid" and "international issues" received 2 percent each, compared with 31 percent for the economy in general and 26 percent for unemployment. The relative indifference to foreign policy could be bad news for Obama, who receives much higher ratings for his handling of international affairs than domestic matters.

What to watch for

The candidates meet for a debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on Monday. CNN may have slightly bent its rules to allow the struggling Perry to participate. (Given Perry's difficulties in previous debates, that may not have been much of a favor.) The South Carolina Tea Party will hold a convention prior to the debate, featuring appearances by Gingrich and Santorum.

The current RealClearPolitics poll average shows Romney with a nearly nine-point lead over Gingrich in South Carolina.

The latest from FP

Larry Kaplow looks at Romney's Mexican roots and asks if he could be the "first Latino president." (Yes, someone's already started a "Mexican Mitt" fake Twitter feed.)

Scott Clement asks whether using China as a political punching bag is really effective.

Joshua Keating looks at five ways Romney will attack Obama.

Romney supporter Sen. Jim Talent tells FP's Josh Rogin that the White House is making dangerous, "budget-driven" decisions.

Michael A. Cohen says a Romney foreign policy probably wouldn't be all that different from Obama's.

David Rothkopf hopes this election will start a public debate about the virtues of American capitalism.

Passport looks at whether Americans really hate Europe and Gingrich's dark Francophone past. 

Expat journalist Eric Pape says Mitt can say what he likes about Paris, but he's enjoying European socialism just fine, thanks.

The modern national border is a European invention that has been exported around the globe, providing a ready source of conflict and bloodshed. In Africa and the Middle East, borders drawn by imperial hands no longer make sense -- they are wars waiting to happen. The Korean DMZ has outlived the Cold War as a nuclear flashpoint. Even in relatively peaceful and stable parts of the world, borders remain problematic. Think Kosovo, where Europe's newest hostile border has been drawn. Or the U.S.-Mexico border.

Foreign Policy is partnering with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting to commission a series of reports on borderlands, culminating in the publication of three e-books on the topic. The Foreign Policy reports and e-books will be a core part of a broader Pulitzer Center initiative addressing this topic on multiple media platforms and with a variety of approaches. The Pulitzer Center is offering a $5,000 stipend plus travel expenses for each of the three e-book projects, which will be selected and edited by Foreign Policy. The Pulitzer Center will serve as consultant and will promote further discussion of these topics through our Campus Consortium and Global Gateway outreach programs.

For the e-books project, we are looking for experienced writers who can deliver rich narrative and thoughtful analysis on how borders shape the way people in various parts of the world experience their lives. The reporting should focus on one border or one region.

Proposals of no more than 500 words and a travel budget should be submitted online to editor@foreignpolicy.com or travelgrants@pulitzercenter.org by Feb. 6. Please include "Borders" in the subject line and attach a CV.

This new ad from the Gingrich campaign is making the rounds:

If you don't feel like watching, it compares Romney to previous Massachusetts wusses Michael Dukakis and John Kerry and ends with the narrator snarking, "Just like John Kerry, he speaks French too," before showing a clip from the now infamous Olympic committee video.

BOOM! Mr. "We look to the cities and small towns of America, not the capitals of Europe" just got served a dose of his own xenophobic pandering. 

But wait, does Gingrich really want to go down this route? He has his own dark Francophone past, as the AFP's Stephane Jourdain reported last month: 

And Gingrich, former speaker of the House of Representatives, spent several years in Orleans as a youth when his father was posted there as a soldier, during a period when France still hosted US military bases.…

From 1956 to 1958, Gingrich lived in Orleans between the ages of 14 to 16.

He tells how he had a revelation when visiting the ossuary memorial at the World War I battlefield of Verdun with his father in 1958.

"As a young man, I planned on becoming a zoo director or a vertebrate paleontologist," Gingrich writes in a book. "Yet during one special weekend as a teenager, I learned a powerful lesson that sparked my dream of entering public office and becoming a leader of our nation."

In his biography "The gentleman of Georgia," he recalls, "That last day was probably the most stunning event of my life. It was a sense of coming face to face with an unavoidable reality."

In the book, author Mel Steely tells how Gingrich lived for several months in a hotel while he attended an American high school. Later he and his family went to live in a chateau in the Loire valley.

Newt "had enough French to survive" when he would go off exploring the city on his own, the author said.

Oh, I'd say that's not giving him enough credit. Newt not only had enough French to "survive" when venturing into town for a baguette -- he had a strong enough command of the language to write a doctoral thesis on Belgian colonial policies in the Congo that cites multiple French-language original sources.

So either Gingrich never actually read Pierre Wigny's seminal 1955 work "Dix Anées historiques et perspectives d'avenir au Congo," as he claims in a footnote on page 250, or the Belgian senate's 1947 "Rapport de la Mission Sénatoriale au Congo Belge,"  as he claims on page 245, or his French is a hell of a lot better than Romney's (and probably Kerry's). J'accuse!