Five Foreign Policy Questions That Should Have Been Asked During Last Week’s Debate, and Their Answers

Five Foreign Policy Questions That Should Have Been Asked During Last Week’s Debate, and Their Answers

By: Lorianne Woodrow Moss

Last week, CNN hosted a debate in New Hampshire with seven Republican candidates for President.  As expected, the economy was the primary topic.  Only a few minutes were devoted to foreign policy – towards the end of the debate, one audience member asked the candidates about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and another asked about Libya.

Here are five more foreign policy questions the candidates ought to be asked.

Q:  With the discovery of Osama bin Laden hiding out in plain sight in Pakistan, compounded by years of concern about Pakistan’s collusion with terrorists, is it time to stop providing approximately $3 billion in assistance to Pakistan each year?

A:  Pakistan is a critical country in the fight against terrorism, and we need Pakistan’s cooperation.  But serious concerns exist about ties between terrorist groups and certain elements of the Pakistani government.  When U.S. Special Forces took out bin Laden, the Pakistani reaction was as much one of anger at the U.S. for acting alone as it was embarrassment at having hosted bin Laden for so many years.   In at least two other recent instances when we did share information about terrorist sites with Pakistani government officials, the terrorists were tipped off and fled before we reached them.  So there is a serious problem here.

The Obama Administration needs to understand that business as usual with Pakistan is unacceptable, both in terms of its stewardship of taxpayer dollars and our national security interests.  We need to put a lot more pressure on Pakistan to figure out who is supporting the terrorists and get them out of the government immediately.  We also need to take a second look at our assistance dollars and see what we’re actually getting for them – they certainly haven’t been successful at winning over the hearts and minds of the Pakistani people, let alone the allegiance of the government.

Q:  President Obama’s approach to Libya has been described by his own Administration as “Leading from Behind.”  As President, would you continue this model for America’s foreign policy?

A:  Absolutely not.  In the first place, it took Obama months to figure out what to do in Libya, and ultimately it was France and Britain who finally convinced him to get involved.  Working with our allies is great, but outsourcing American national security policy to them or to the United Nations is unacceptable.  Obama’s slowness in reaching a decision also meant that when we did intervene in Libya, the situation on the ground had already shifted in Qadhafi’s favor.  Obama then placed constraints on our military and took America out of the driver’s seat.  The net result of such diffidence has been an extended stalemate at best. 

“Leading from Behind” by definition isn’t leadership.  President Obama seems to premise his foreign policy on the notion of America’s supposed decline – which simply creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.  America can’t be the world’s policeman, but when we do choose to act, it ought to be from a position of strength rather than of reluctance.

Q:  China’s influence in the world is growing fast, and the IMF predicts the Chinese economy will surpass America’s in 2016.  What should America do about the rise of China?

A:  China’s rapid growth needs to be put in context.  In the first place, per capita GDP in China is just ten percent of ours.  Much of China is still a developing country.  China’s lack of political freedom also gives it an inherent instability.  It’s still better to live in America than China.

China’s increasing economic clout has been accompanied by a more active foreign policy that sometimes is in synch with ours and at other times is not.  Dialogue can diffuse tension, but we must never be afraid to confront China when our interests are involved.  For example, the Obama Administration has been too hesitant to place sanctions on Chinese entities for their continued business with Iran, or to speak up for basic freedoms.

We may not be able to control what happens in China, but we can take steps to strengthen our own relative position.  First and foremost, we need to tackle our debt crisis – China wouldn’t be able to hold so much U.S. debt if we didn’t have to issue so much.  We also need to strengthen America’s climate for innovation and economic growth by making our country a more competitive place to do business.

Q:  With the death of Osama bin Laden, what do you see as the next steps in the war against terrorism?  How would your approach differ from the Obama Administration’s?

A:  Beneficial as it was, Osama bin Laden’s death doesn’t mean Americans can breathe a sigh of relief and go back to packing liquids in our carry-on luggage.  Al Qaeda has chosen a new leader, and its affiliates continue to plot to kill Americans and other Westerners. Now is not the time to let down our guard.

Under a Republican Administration, terrorism would always be treated as a national security matter, not just a judicial one.  We would place a higher priority on “connecting the dots” to prevent the next attack.  While drone attacks should continue, Special Forces should play a bigger role in capturing terrorists for interrogation, rather than just obliterating them from the skies.  We need to restart the CIA interrogation program, with restrictions on interrogation methods that are not made public to the terrorists.  Military trials should be used to bring our enemies to justice.

At the same time, we must be vigilant to prevent the changes sweeping across the Middle East from favoring the terrorists.  Moderate governments need to succeed lest the extremists take control.  We must work to stop failed states from becoming terrorist sanctuaries, and check the influence of Iran and other countries that support terrorism as a matter of policy.  And American troops should not vacate Afghanistan until we are confident it will not again shelter terrorists.

Q:  How would your approach to the Middle East peace process differ from the Obama Administration’s?

A:  President Obama’s efforts to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians have been a complete failure.  His main tactic seems to be picking fights with our ally Israel, which hasn’t improved prospects for peace one bit. 

To his credit, President Obama rightly opposes the Palestinians’ upcoming statehood drive at the United Nations.  Of course, UN General Assembly recognition without buy-in from Israel won’t change life on the ground for the Palestinians.  But it could lead to increased isolation for Israel, possibly including sanctions and divestment by other countries.  The Obama Administration needs to do more than just veto such a measure, it should work actively to prevent other countries from unfairly penalizing Israel.

As President, I would rebuild our alliance with the Middle East’s most democratic nation.  I would also make it clear that Israel should not be expected to make concessions to a Palestinian government that includes an unrepentant Hamas intent on the destruction of the Jewish state.  Nor should the American taxpayer be expected to shell out aid dollars that would subsidize Hamas.