While the final presidential debate has traditionally been focused on foreign policy, the final debate in 2020 will instead have six topics. Foreign policy will be one of them, but so will “leadership,” “American families,” and “race in America.” Those are important issues, but there are very good reasons for why the final debate should involve only foreign policy.
First off, foreign policy cuts to the heart of what it is to be president. While there are important debates over where the line of executive power should be drawn on matters of war and peace, the president has great flexibility to conduct foreign affairs. President Trump has evinced as much with his unconventional diplomatic outreach to North Korea, his functional inversion of the Obama administration’s Iran policy, and his significant increase of U.S. pressure on China.
As citizens and voters, we should want to know as much as possible about how Joe Biden would approach foreign policy as president. In equal measure, we should want to know what a second-term Trump administration would mean for America and the world. Issues surrounding the coronavirus pandemic, tax reform, the Supreme Court, criminality, and civil rights are hugely important. But so also are nuclear proliferation and, say, the prospect of a war with China. The first presidential debate has already addressed three of the issues currently set to feature in Thursday’s debate: leadership, the pandemic, and race relations. Why spend more time on those already-debated issues when there are critical questions yet to be debated?
Here are some examples of questions that the moderator could ask.
How would you grapple with China’s militarization of the South China Sea and its rising threat to Taiwan?
This question bears note for two reasons. First, because the risk of a conflict between the United States and China is far greater in this area than is commonly understood. Second, because each candidate’s answers would elucidate their respective visions for American global leadership in the 21st century. Is, for example, America willing to wage war to uphold the principle of free navigation through international waters? Is America willing to risk the lives of its sons and daughters for a small island democracy just 100 miles away from mainland China? Will America allow China to assert its own vision of international order in place of America’s post-World War II order?
How about two follow-up questions pertaining to climate change (China is, by far, the heaviest carbon-emitting nation)?
Mr. President, you have withdrawn from the Paris climate accord. But were China to prove itself actively reducing carbon emissions, would you consider returning America to that agreement?
Trump insists that the Paris accord was unfair on the U.S. economy by mandating U.S. carbon emission cuts but providing get-out-of-carbon-reduction allotments to nations such as China and India. But in his recent United Nations address, Xi Jinping pledged that China would be carbon-neutral by 2060. This question would help voters concerned about climate change understand whether Trump is sincere in his desire for a better deal or whether the president believes man-made climate change to be an overwrought worry.
Mr. Vice President, on that same point, how would you respond to those who are reluctant to return to the Paris climate accord while China continues to unveil hundreds of new coal plants each year?
At present, there is a striking difference between what China says about climate change and what it actually does. Biden should offer an explanation as to why he would risk the U.S. economy even as China continues to pollute.
How would you approach Vladimir Putin’s continued use of chemical weapons, his harassment of U.S. military forces in Syria, his cyberoperations, and his sustaining threats to NATO?
The range of Russian activities targeting U.S. interests is very broad. Let’s see how each candidate prioritizes these various challenges.
Mr. President, you claim to have strengthened NATO by pressuring allies into increased defense spending. But you have also questioned the alliance’s central Article Five commitment to defend an ally under attack. If Estonia were invaded by Russia, would you order the U.S. military to defend Estonian sovereignty?
NATO is nothing without Article Five. But Trump, on occasion, has questioned whether the mutual defense caveat is in America’s national interest. We deserve to know where he stands on the eve of his second presidential election.
Mr. Vice President, you have attacked Trump over his criticisms of U.S. NATO allies in Europe. But considering wealthy nations such as Germany and Belgium continue to spend far less than the NATO target of 2% GDP on defense, how would you ensure that American taxpayers aren’t unduly subsidizing other peoples?
Biden must face up to the very real prospect that European NATO allies will use his election to ease off on their defense spending. That would be intolerable for alliance burden-sharing and in the U.S. taxpayer’s point of view. It would also weaken NATO at its most critical military level: capability enhancement. Biden should address how he would ensure American interests are balanced to European interests. The balance is both possible and preferable.
North Korea recently unveiled a high-payload, long-range intercontinental ballistic missile. Experts say that this missile is designed to totally destroy any American city. With Kim Jong Un refusing any nuclear disarmament of the kind you, President Trump, have called for, how would each of you deal with North Korea from January 2021 onward? Specifically, would you use military force if Kim resumed new ICBM tests?
Kim appears to have abandoned serious diplomacy. Which raises the question, would Trump or Biden use military force to prevent his existential threat to the U.S. homeland? And if so, would they be willing to tolerate the risk of Seoul being annihilated in the early stage of any North Korean retaliation?
President Trump, you have authorized missile defense spending and the deployment of lower-yield nuclear warheads. But as Russia and China expand their own nuclear strike capabilities, how can you prevent a new Cold War-style nuclear arms race? I would add, sir, considering Beijing’s present opposition to new legally binding arms control treaties, how will you persuade China to change course?
Trump is committed to reaching new nuclear arms treaties with Russia. The problem is that Russia is deeply concerned over continued U.S. missile defense investments and China remains resolute in opposing arms controls on its forces. Each factor beckons an increased risk of a major arms race over the next four years.
Mr. Vice President, you say that Trump is in Putin’s pocket. But on issues such as fracking, deployed nuclear weapons, and military spending, some experts would say your policy proposals are more favorable to the Russian leader. How would you respond to that suggestion?
Biden’s skepticism of fracking offers an obvious benefit to Putin, who relies on Russian energy exports to exert pressure on Europe and to fund his military. Biden must address this concern and his own reluctance to match Russia’s deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons (which risks empowering the Russian president’s effort to divide and undermine NATO).
Mr. Vice President, you have pledged to return America to the Iran nuclear accord negotiated by President Barack Obama in 2015. But while America’s European allies continue to support that deal, even they have expressed doubts over the limited timeline the deal entails and the limited safeguards it offers on issues such as inspection protocols and its failure to restrain escalating Iranian ballistic missile research. How would you ensure that America’s return to the agreement did not provide Iran with the financial windfall to double down on destabilizing activities while continuing to develop ballistic missiles?
This is critical. President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom are both, albeit quietly, increasingly worried about Iranian ballistic missile developments. While veiled as civilian satellite endeavors, Iran’s tests are ultimately designed towards allowing the regime to fire nuclear warheads. In addition, we now know that Iran used the vast portion of its 2015 sanctions relief to destabilize democratic governments in places such as Beirut and Baghdad. How would Biden prevent a U.S. interest failure on those same terms? This bears noting in that U.S.-Iraqi relations have improved amid Iran’s financial weakness.
Mr. President, you withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. Sanctions reimposed by your administration have greatly increased the economic pressure on Iran’s government. However, Iran is now rapidly expanding its stockpile of enriched uranium, the precursor for a nuclear weapon, and has refused your now-four-year running demand for new negotiations. Considering your commitment to avoiding another war in the Middle East, how would you address Iran’s rising nuclear challenge?
It’s no longer enough for Trump to say that he has cut Iran’s financial access and ended a bad deal. Trump must show how he will stop Iran from reaching towards a nuclear weapon, which is what Tehran is now doing. That threat would likely mean Israel using military force and thus risking a major war in the Middle East, something Trump has pledged to avoid.
How about the conundrum of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East?
Most experts say that until governments like those of Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are more democratic and respectful of minority rights, Islamic extremists will continue to find new recruits. How would you balance support for such reforms with America’s immediate interest in stability, trade, and counterterrorism?
There’s President Abdel Fattah al Sisi of Egypt’s support for U.S. efforts against the Islamic State, his cooperation with Putin, and his domestic repression. There’s Mohammed bin Salman’s mixing of chopped-up journalists, his betraying of American allies, and his unprecedented women’s rights reforms. There’s Qatar’s multibillion-dollar investments in the U.S. economy and its use of near-slave labor to build World Cup soccer stadiums. Each country offers a compelling example as to just how complicated America’s relationships in the Middle East have become. So, let’s get some more insight from our two presidential contenders. Where does America’s interest in freedom and human rights fit with America’s interest in security?
Each of us will have our own views as to what foreign policy questions should make the debate cut. For my two cents, I think UFOs should make an appearance (even if only rhetorically!). Regardless, we should all be able to agree that the challenges and opportunities of the post-2020 world deserve keen engagement. Some of these questions may come up in the brief foreign policy section of Thursday’s debate, but as you can see from the numerous questions here, there are so many critical foreign policy issues that the topic deserves a full 90 minutes of debate. Even then, the candidates might not get to all of these problems.
It’s hard to travel around the world in 90 minutes, but it’s at least worth a shot.
