The Five
Foreign Policy Questions Every Candidate Should Be
Asked
Libya, Yemen, drones and more: why are presidential
hopefuls being let off the hook on these critical
challenges?
By Trevor Timm
March 15, 2016
"Information
Clearing House"
- "The
Guardian"-
It’s
amazing that with almost two presidential debates
every week, many critical foreign policy questions
have gone unasked and unanswered - even while the
television networks spend entire hours discussing
when and where the US should bomb next.
These
topics that will be crucial for the next president,
yet are rarely if ever brought up. Why aren’t they
being raised at every opportunity?
The Libya
catastophe
By all
accounts, Libya is
currently a cesspool for terrorism. Filling the
vacuum created by the chaos after the US helped
depose Gaddafi in 2011, Isis fighters are reportedly
telling their followers to go to Libya to train
and fight instead of Syria - which leads the the
obvious question: why did we make such a
catastrophic mistake of once again overthrowing a
country’s leader?
Instead of
asking about the scandal that is the Libyan
invasion, this week’s debate moderator
Jorge Ramos decided to ask Hillary Clinton about
the other Libyan controversy, Benghazi, which she
has answered for in detail over and over. This yet
again allowed Clinton to reel off a practiced answer
while avoiding the real issue.
The New
York Times wrote a
huge two-part series on Clinton’s leading role
in the intervention in Libya and its subsequent
descent into chaos, yet there was barely a blip on
the radar when it came to questions on the campaign
trail or on television. Clinton has skated through
the entire election cycle while only getting a
handful of questions about the catastrophe, while
continuing to call for more military intervention
elsewhere.
But it’s
not just Clinton. Republicans have never been pinned
down on
Libya either, and now, are of course all in
favor of us sending our drones and special forces in
yet again.
Saudi Arabia’s
destruction of Yemen
If there is
any central US ally that has been outright ignored
during this election season – as usual – it’s Saudi
Arabia. Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an
indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the
world’s poorest countries, Yemen, which has led to
thousands of civilian deaths and
millions of people being displaced.
While the
media has been focused on the violence Syria and
Iraq, they’ve virtually ignored Yemen - and the
United States plays central role in facilitating the
war. The US has sold billions of dollars worth of
weapons to the Saudis – including
cluster bombs banned by most countries in the
world – that they’ve used to bomb schools,
hospitals, and civilian centers (many of these
weapons deals were
facilitated by Clinton when she was Secretary of
State). The US
has also provided with intelligence for their
airstrikes, and even flown surveillance drone
flights for them. Far from doing anything to stop
the carnage, they’ve encouraged it.
Where do
the presidential candidates stand on
this appalling war? Will they continue to help
Saudi Arabia fight it, thereby creating another
generation of terrorrists in Yemen? Or will they
stand up to the Saudi monarchy to try to put an end
to it?
War powers
We are
currently engaged in an indefinite war with Isis
spanning multiple countries which
many legal experts across the political spectrum
consider illegal – yet the presidential candidates
are almost never asked about why congress has not
authorized the military action like the constitution
requires.
Regardles
of whether they think this war is just, what do the
candidates think about the executive branch’s powers
to unilaterally start a war without congressional
debate? We have no idea. The only journalist who has
tried to ask is New York Times national security
reporter Charlie Savage,
who sent a questionnaire about executive power,
and was ignored by every major presidential
candidate. Why has no debate moderator asked about
this important issue? They have no problem bringing
up Isis at every possible opportunity.
Nuclear weapons
While an
enormous amount of time during this campaign has
focused around the Iran nuclear deal, almost no
attention has been given to any country that
actually has nuclear weapons and what they plan to
do with them over the coming years and decades. Six
years after supposedly making nuclear
non-proliferation a priority, the Obama
administration has done a 180 and is now
in the process of spending trillions of dollars
over a 10 year period to “modernize” our nuclear
weapons instead of destroy them. No progress has
been made on a new, more substantial nuclear
reduction treaty with Russia and US allies Pakistan
and India continue their weapons program unabated.
Given that
many analysts think a nuclear explosion – either by
accident or on purpose – is dangerously likely, it
sure would be nice to see where the candidates stand
on ridding the world of these awful mass killing
devices.
Drones
The largest
drone strike in history was announced by the US last
week. One hundred and fifty people
were reportedly killed in Somalia at an al-Shabaab
training site. While the US claims no civilians were
hit this time, their definition of who counts as a
“civilian”
has drawn widespread condemnation. Drone strikes
have provoked anger from Yemen to Pakistan. Many
human rights organizations have called them illegal,
and retired military leaders have said they
backfire, creating more terrorists than they kill.
While it seems that many if not all of the
candidates support drone strikes, despite these
obvious problems, we have no idea what they’ll do
with the CIA drone program once they become
president. Will they be more transparent than the
Obama administration? Will they acquiesce to limits
imposed by congress, or expand the program?
Given that
we have flying robots killing people in multiple
countries where we are not at war, and other
countries are starting to build them too, you’d
think this would be a critical issue to debate.
Instead: crickets. |