Leaving the World Behind

It was highly unfortunate that foreign affairs were only touched upon in last week's presidential debate. The rapid developments of the past two weeks, notably in Serbia and the Middle East, should compel the major candidates to discuss their foreign policy platforms thoroughly in tonight's debate and in the coming weeks before the election. The United States' role as the world's only superpower means that the next president will have the opportunity to shape world affairs dramatically, and it is vital that the presidential candidates present strong, coherent visions for U.S. involvement around the globe.

During the last debate, which centered--like most of the campaign--on domestic issues, voters learned little except that Vice President Al Gore '69 can pronounce "Kostunica" while Texas Gov. George W. Bush is still struggling with "Milosevic." Of the two candidates, Gore won points for the depth of his knowledge of foreign policy; Bush's weakness on this front was illustrated when he did not seem to understand that Russia's reluctance to endorse Serbian President Vojislav Kostunica had encouraged former president Slobodan Milosevic to stay in power. In general, however, the candidates did use some choice phrases to reveal different philosophies of foreign affairs. In rough terms, Gore has supported the broader, more interventionist policy of the Clinton Administration, while Bush has favored a far narrower, almost isolationist approach.

Bush, for instance, omitted Yugoslavia when he identified areas where the U.S. military should intervene, although he supported Clinton's intervention in Kosovo. A couple months ago Bush stated unequivocally, "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide in nations outside our strategic interest." This is a precarious position to hold while the world becomes increasingly integrated politically and economically. The instability in the Balkins made waves felt in the European Union and beyond. It is becoming increasingly difficult to identify where our strategic interests begin and end. Bush has repeatedly said that the U.S. should not be "the world's policeman." But in practice, the U.S. has both an interest and a responsibility to intervene in situations like Bosnia and Kosovo, a responsibility which Bush's policy does not admit.

That is not to say that old issues of military power and alliances have disappeared; both candidates pledge to improve relations with Russia and China and to strengthen the military. But although Bush's foreign policy platform sees the world divided into alliances, our relationships with countries abroad cannot be reduced to such terms. For instance, the U.S. owes more than $582 million in United Nations dues that Congress has refused Clinton Administration requests to release; this reluctance has weakened U.N. efforts and worsened relations with many nations that believe the U.S. is shirking its fair share of costs. The United States' failure to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)--which would ban nuclear testing among its signatories--has also received much criticism abroad and has strained our alliances. Russia and 51 other countries have signed the treaty, but Congress claims the U.S., which has already declared that it will not test nuclear weapons, cannot bind itself to an inflexible treaty. Gore has supported signing the treaty and proving our intentions to disarm more than mere rhetoric, while Bush has congratulated Congress for refusing its ratification. Instead of the signing the CTBT, Bush supports the development of a National Missile Defense, a project that--whatever its merits--is opposed by our allies out of fear that it would upset the balance of power and disrupt the disarmament process.

In addition, the next president must be ready to confront the new threats to national security that have arisen over the past decade. Interest in Africa, for instance, may have waned since Clinton's visit there last year, but the continent remains one of the most politically and economically vexing areas of the world. The Clinton Administration has shown humanitarian concern, pledging money for AIDS treatment (which it rightly recognizes as a national security threat) and debt relief. Bush, on the other hand, has said that Africa, like Yugoslavia, is outside America's sphere of strategic interest.

Unfortunately, neither candidate has said they would have endorsed intervention in Rwanda, where 800,000 people are believed to have been killed in 1994. This is an egregious dismissal of one of the most tragic events of the last decade. We hope the next president shows a more active interest in those countries outside the traditional diplomatic arena that are struggling toward economic development and stable democratic governance. A narrow view of our strategic interests, one that ignores issues of development, health and the environment, will do little to address the real dangers America may face in the new millennium.

The candidates have unfortunately neglected foreign policy out of a belief that it is not a priority for voters. But a future president can expect foreign involvement to be the most important of his duties. The violence in the Middle East, the change of power in Serbia and the ongoing oil crunch are all foreign policy realities that the next President will be forced to address. There are five weeks left in the campaign. That should be enough time for both candidates to come clear about their foreign policy vision before the election--but only if they start now.