fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Five Questions That Should Be Asked Tonight, But Won’t Be

A starting point for a real foreign policy debate
red mics debate

Tonight’s Republican debates are unlikely to be very informative. One reason they won’t be is the sheer number of candidates that have to be accommodated in the main debate, which guarantees that the audience will have a short period of time to hear from any one candidate. Another is the likelihood that the candidates will be asked questions on topics that they have addressed many times before. We are sure to hear the entire field’s stock answers on the nuclear deal, ISIS, and maybe Russia or China, but many other parts of the world are bound to be ignored as they usually are in our foreign policy-oriented presidential debates.

Here are some questions that I think the candidates should be asked tonight, but which almost certainly won’t be.

1) Earlier this year the Obama administration imposed sanctions on the president of Venezuela and several of his allies, which was widely viewed by other governments in the region and by many in the domestic opposition as a counterproductive and harmful intervention by the U.S. in Venezuelan politics that aided the Maduro government. As president, would you keep trying to pressure Venezuela’s government through sanctions, or take a more hands-off approach?

2) Barbara Slavin reported this week that in the wake of the nuclear deal there is an emerging “pro-minimal engagement” group among Iranian foreign policy elites that favors reducing Iran’s involvement in regional conflicts, and that this faction is slowly gaining ground. If the nuclear deal has strengthened this camp to the detriment of hard-liners, does this change your view of the nuclear deal at all? If such a minimalist camp were guiding Iranian foreign policy, would you be prepared to pursue broader diplomatic engagement with Tehran?

3) What is your view of the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, and what is your position on U.S. support for the campaign and blockade? Follow-up question to supporters of the campaign: How do you justify making the U.S. an accomplice in war crimes and causing famine in an extremely poor country? Follow-up question to opponents: What should the proper U.S. response to the Saudi-led campaign be?

4) What is the appropriate U.S. response to credible reports of war crimes committed by a client or allied government, and under what circumstances would you be willing to impose penalties on a client or ally for violating international law?

5) Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership contest in Britain last week. In the event that Labour won the next general election, how would you manage the relationship with a U.K. government that would presumably be much less willing to support U.S. military action and U.S. foreign policy overall?

Advertisement

Comments

Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here