While the presidential candidates are set to debate tonight 80 miles west of here, the Sanford Institute of Public Policy sponsored its own debate yesterday on an issue that is getting less attention than others this election season-foreign policy.
U.S. Senators Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., took part in a civil, but serious, two-hour debate titled, "What Should the U.S. Foreign Policy Priorities Be? Who-Bush or Gore-Will Handle them Better and Why?" About 250 students and faculty attended the debate, moderated by Dana Priest, a foreign policy reporter for The Washington Post.
In the debate, Reed was assisted by Bruce Jentleson, director of the Sanford Institute and a foreign policy adviser to Vice President Al Gore. Dov Zakheim, a foreign policy adviser to Texas Gov. George W. Bush, aided Smith.
In his opening remarks, Smith said he and Bush agreed that, "[U.S.] foreign policy should be an international foreign policy, tempered by realism," Smith said. "Foreign policy is not a science-it is an art."
Reed agreed, but added that the United States has a special role in diplomacy. "The United States confronts [foreign policy] challenges as the indispensable country... by continually building a structure of peace and economic stability," Reed said, adding that the United States should practice "forward engagement" and try to avert conflicts diplomatically instead of relying on force.
Both senators agreed that the world of foreign policy is evolving into a global affair where the national boundaries of the past are no longer as applicable as they used to be. But it wasn't all agreement-the two sides clashed some over issues of military readiness and Iraq, but mainly over the leadership qualities of Bush and Gore.
"In my experiences, Al Gore has never had a bipartisan approach to anything in the past four years," said Smith. He accused the Clinton administration of having an "ad-hoc" foreign policy over the past eight years and said, "Foreign policy is largely about communication. Bush can communicate better than Gore."
Zakheim was less diplomatic, asking, "Would you buy a used car from Al Gore?" He called Gore's foreign policy plan imperialist and "Kipling-esque." Jentleson rebutted, emphasizing Gore's 24 years of government service and his bipartisan work on both the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement. "Gore has wrestled with foreign policy and brings to the table some experience, and won't have to learn on the job the way Bush does," he said.
But Smith answered this charge later in the debate. "If lack of foreign policy experience prevented governors from being president, it would be a mistake," he said. And Zakheim reminded the audience of Bush's work with Mexico as governor of Texas.
The debaters also clashed on economic policies with China and Russia. Zakheim said "The United States doesn't have a very good record of nation building," citing Germany and Japan as examples. Reed disagreed, arguing that the United States has a unique position to engage other world powers both diplomatically and economically. He emphasized engaging China and Russia in order to make them better allies.
The candidates pointed out that their policies were ultimately not that different. "In the end, the politics stop at the water's edge," Smith said.
Rye Barcott, a senior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a strong Gore supporter, was especially impressed by both senators, but thought Zakheim was too much of an isolationist. "Foreign policy has not been much of issue in the campaign.... Zakheim and Bush's positions seem to be neo-Kissinger," he said. "This scares me.... By perceiving China and Russia as threats, you make them into threats."
The event was part of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations' Campaign 2000, a series of debates designed to raise the profile of foreign policy.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.