In the upcoming elections, where many issues remain veiled by both candidates in an opaque web of semantic bullshit, there are only a few areas where both Al Gore and George W. Bush diverge significantly. Social security and foreign policy are prime examples. While the social security plans of each candidate have their own merits, as discussed by students and faculty in The Sun last week, it is quite clear that Gore is far better equipped, if only by default, to provide the world's only superpower with a coherent foreign policy.


It's fairly apparent from Bush's missteps with regard to foreign policy issues while campaigning for the Republican nomination -- most famously, his inability to name the leader of the Chechnyan rebels, the Prime Minister of India, and the general who had recently taken control of the Pakistani government -- that he has had a less than avid interest in America's foreign affairs. Barring a sudden concern for what goes on beyond the borders of the United States (and indeed, beyond the borders of the Lone Star Republic), it is unlikely that Governor Bush is capable of pointing out on a world map, the locations of many countries that are not permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Nevertheless, nothing is impossible, and there does remain a chance that he has been deceiving us as to his intellectual capacity all the while.


But if the president is really dumb, it may be desirable to have wise advisers. It would not be unprecedented for a president to rely on his advisers for all foreign policy issues. However, Bush's advisers seem more suited for his father's administration than his own. Indeed, a number of them worked on former President Bush's staff and they have been out of power for too much of the post-Cold War era. The Cold War is over; Bush would do well to realize this. In fact, on the next national security council, Sinologists will at least be as important experts on Russia and the former Soviet Union.


The Bush Team must also decide whether or not the United States should openly declare that its foreign policy is dictated solely by self-interest. Can the United States proclaim loudly in the international arena that JFK's ideals are indeed dead, and the United States will no longer even pretend to aid freedom and democracy, and will instead do whatever it wants, wherever, and however, to protect its interests? An argument can be made that this is exactly what it does anyway, but American governments have felt the need to justify their action in terms of protecting liberty and what not. Consider the very important issue of international military intervention in cases of ethnic conflict. Condoleeza Rice, a top Bush adviser, has spoken out against the American intervention in Yugoslavia and the ethnic-Albanian dominated enclave of Kosovo. Bush, too, indicated in one of the presidential debates that he does not approve of the American military presence in the former Yugoslavia. He did say, however, that he approved of the American intervention in Lebanon in 1982, although he offered no reason as to why. Perhaps because it was the Reagan-Bush administration -- rather than the Clinton-Gore administration -- that supported it.


It is becoming readily apparent that a Bush administration would lead to a reduced role -- specifically, a reduced military role -- for the United States in areas of the world where American interests are not explicitly threatened. Believing that the military has been spread too thin and weakened by underfunding from the Clinton-Gore administration, Bush plans to strengthen the military by increasing spending and focusing deployment of troops only to crucial areas.


There is nothing wrong, per se, in doing that. However, if this happens, he must realize that his word will not carry as much weight in the international arena. Many people throughout the world resent what they see as American attempts to meddle with their country's internal affairs, and American heavy-handedness in world affairs in general. However, suddenly ending involvement in various parts of the world may have unknown consequences. Consider, for example, the Taliban in Afghanistan -- their leadership is composed of rebels who were funded by the Americans to fight the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, and were consequently abandoned after the Cold War. They then turned their American-made Stinger rockets on the Afghan government, an American ally. Despite the proposed military pullbacks, I find it unlikely that a Bush-led government will stop expecting a high degree of compliance from other countries.


Though Gore does not seem to have a particularly brilliant foreign policy plan in mind, he does have eight years of experience. While the current administration's policy on Iraq has been a failure, and the Mideast peace talks seem to be blowing up in everyone's face, its position on Yugoslavia has been vindicated (although not necessarily as a sole result of the NATO action there last year). As a result, Gore will definitely be more credible on the international stage than his opponent.


And so, the story of the election -- voting for the person who you dislike the least -- seems to be reflected in foreign policy as well. Gore isn't particularly exemplary, but he's better on the issues than Bush. And given that the electorate seems split between voting for a person based on the issues, and voting for the chap who seems more like a "good ole boy," hopefully it'll count for something.

Archived article by Trineesh Biswas