|
<advertisement>
|
 |
 
|
|
media search: |
 |
LENDING WEIGHT TO THE GREAT DEBATES
In the May/June CJR, nine media observers suggested various ways of shaking up the "Great Debates." The emphasis there was on form rather than content. This time around, we asked contributing editor Michael Massing to provide one journalist's wish list of questions to be put to the candidates. His focus is on foreign policy, a subject on which reporters have so far rarely elicited anything more from the candidates than bromides and boilerplate. As a free-lance writer and as a representative of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which he helped to found, Massing has traveled extensively -- throughout Central and South America, to South Africa, to the Soviet Union, and to Iraq. He teaches a course in writing about international issues and problems at Columbia's School for International and Public Affairs.
President Bush, you speak frequently of the leadership you showed during the gulf war. Yet in recent months questions have been raised about your administration's dealings with Saddam Hussein in the years prior to the war. According to newspaper reports, your administration became aware in 1989 that Iraq was diverting U.S. grain credits to buy weapons from the Soviet bloc -- and did nothing to stop it. That same year, officials at the Department of Energy discovered that Iraq was buying nuclear parts in order to build an atomic bomb, yet they were told to keep quiet. Furthermore, the CIA reportedly shared data with Iraq until the very eve of the invasion. As a result of such revelations, William Safire -- one of your staunchest backers during the war -- now speaks of "appeasement" and "Iraqgate." Did your administration err in maintaining a close relationship with a man you yourself likened to Hitler? Are we inviting another crisis, involving Syria, by forming a similarly cozy relationship with the nole-brutal Assad?
Mr. Clinton, you have repeatedly cited your own support for the gulf war. Yet many members of your party have concluded that, had the administration toughened its stance toward Iraq prior to August 1990, the crisis could have been averted in the first place. Now, some Democrats -- convinced that the administration is attempting to cover up its earlier dealings with Saddam -- are calling for an investigation. Do you support such an inquiry? Why have you remained so quiet on this subject?
The gulf war highlighted the cost of our dependence on foreign oil. Nonetheless, in the months since, we have taken no steps to reduce imports of that commodity. In 1989 we imported about 40 percent of all the oil we consumed; today, we import nearly half. As a result, we remain acutely vulnerable to events in the Middle East. What measures would you take to diminish our appetite for this precious resource?
Mr. Clinton, the much-vaunted peace dividend seems to have disappeared -- thanks, in part, to the Democrats. In Congress, they have joined with the Republicans to prevent the transfer of defense savings to domestic programs. They have also voted to retain some individual weapons programs, like the Seawolf submarine, over the objections of the Pentagon. While campaigning in Connecticut, you supported continuation of the Seawolf. More generally, you have had little to say about our current defense strategy, which allocates about $ 150 billion a year to defend Europe against a nonexistent Soviet threat. Aren't you putting campaign politics above sound policy?
With the end of the cold war, peacekeeping has emerged as one of the United Nations' most important functions. Peacekeeping does not come cheap, however, and no Western nation has been more laggard in helping to pay than the United States. We currently owe the U.N. $ 112 million for peacekeeping duties, on top of the $ 555 million we owe for regular U.N. activities. Should we pay up? If so, how would you convince Americans to do so at a time when they seem reluctant to spend money abroad? Where would the funds come from?
An estimated 500,000 women die each year as the result of complications from pregnancy and childbirth. Many of these deaths could be prevented if these women, most of whom live in the third world, had access to adequate family planning and medical services. Since the mid-1980s, however, the United States, under pressure from anti-abortion forces, has withheld all aid to family planning agencies overseas that so much as mention abortion in their counseling. Do you believe this policy should be reversed?
President Bush, since the upheaval in Tiananmen Square in 1989 you have resisted the imposition of all but the most painless sanctions on China. In support of this position, you have cited China's strategic importance and our need to engage it to mutually beneficial ends. Yet Beijing has consistently worked counter to our interests. It has sent weapons to pariah regimes like Syria and Burma. It has continued to support the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. It has refused to abide by international patent and copyright laws. All the while, its human rights record has steadily worsened. What, then, have you gotten in return for your indulgence of the Chinese leadership?
To keep illicit drugs out of the country, the federal government has spent more than $ 7 billion on various programs over the past four years. It has spent more than $ 2 billion on programs aimed at disrupting the international drug trade. The Pentagon alone is spending $ 1.2 billion a year on anti-drug programs abroad. Despite this investment, U.S. officials admit that they are able to seize no more than 10 percent of all the drug shipments sent to the U.S. At home, meanwhile, drug treatment centers are severely underfunded, forcing the centers to maintain long waiting lists. Should the U.S. reduce its spending on interdiction so as to make more money available for treatment and prevention?
Regarding arms control, in recent years the United States has energetically sought to curtail the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Yet the proliferation of conventional arms continues apace -- and we are the main supplier. Of the $ 30 billion in arms sold each year, the U.S. accounts for $ 20 billion. Most of those arms end up in the Mideast, helping to maintain its status as the world's most unstable region. The gulf war showed how deadly such a build-up can be. Should we take steps to curtail this business?
It's 1994, and the Peruvian government is on the brink of collapse. The Shining Path guerrilla movement is about to launch a final offensive widely expected to bring it to power. Already, tens of thousands of peasants have lost their lives at the hands of the Maoist insurgents, known as the Khmer Rouge of Latin America. If Shining Path does come to power, a bloodbath would likely ensue. Would you, as president, intervene? Under what conditions would you consider sending U.S. troops to Peru?
Mr. Bush, in 1990 you introduced the concept of a "New World Order," by which the international community would join together to deny aggression its reward. Yet for months, as thousands died in Yugoslavia at the hands of Serbian forces under the command of Slobodan Milosevic, the United States took no forceful action. In Somalia, rival forces have torn that African nation apart, yet the United States has failed to support several U.N. initiatives to end the fighting. Furthermore, your administration, which for so long urged other nations to let their people go free, is forcibly repatriating Haitian refugees despite the harsh treatment they are likely to receive. How does all of this square with your notion of a New World Order?
Mr. Perot, in 1985 you secretly promised to provide $ 2 million to Oliver North to be used in an attempt to ransom American hostages being held in Lebanon. This was among the first steps in what would ultimately become the Iran-contra affair. In retrospect, do you believe you bear any responsibility for that scandal? Did you approve of Oliver North's activities? Do you still support this type of private-citizen diplomacy?
