When George W. Bush and John F. Kerry meet tonight for the second of their three debates, most analysts expect domestic issues to dominate. According to conventional wisdom, participants in the town hall meeting already will have heard what the two men have to say about the war on terror, the chaos in Iraq, and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. Now, the argument goes, they will want to know about economic and social issues.
There's only one problem with this analysis: It's wrong. Voters do care about the economy, and definitely want to know where the candidates stand on abortion, gay marriage and a range of other questions. But contrary to what the pundits think, voters also know that this time around, foreign policy matters more.
Since September 11, Americans have come to understand that they live in -- and are an integral part of -- an increasingly interconnected world. They know that the challenges the United States faces -- including the threat of terrorism and the need for a stable and democratic Iraq -- demand global solutions that both address and transcend American national interests. They want to know what Senator Kerry and President Bush will do -- not merely say -- to end America's growing isolation and ensure greater international cooperation.
And with the third debate already restricted to domestic issues, tonight represents the sole remaining opportunity to push George Bush and John Kerry to explain what they think should be America's role in the world. Doing so won't be easy. Further queries on terrorism or Iraq are likely to generate the same sound bites heard in Miami. Instead, questioners should try a different tack: ask the candidates what they would do to prevent failed states, end humanitarian disasters, and secure international justice.
Start with failing and failed states. Almost every major crisis of the past four years -- 9-11, Afghanistan, Liberia, Sudan, and post-invasion Iraq -- can be traced to countries where governmental authority and the rule of law had collapsed into lawlessness and violence. America has a choice: devote modest funds to prevent states from falling into turmoil, or pay much more later to mobilize the military, manage humanitarian relief, and undertake post-conflict reconstruction. So don't ask what the two candidates would do to capture Osama or fix Iraq. Ask instead what they would do to prevent the next crisis. And ask President Bush whether he still thinks -- as he did in the 2000 debates -- that America shouldn't be in the business of nation-building.
But even if America finally develops a coherent policy to prevent failed states, the next President still will have to deal with the occasional humanitarian crisis, including ethnic cleansing and genocide. But don't ask what the candidates will do in Sudan -- ask instead what they would do to prevent the next Sudan. Ask them whether they would support the establishment of an international rapid response mechanism that could move quickly to stop such atrocities. And ask President Bush why he now favors intervening in Sudan when he said four years ago that he would have opposed similar measures in Rwanda.
Yet even rapid response mechanisms cannot completely eliminate terrorist or state-sponsored violence, any more than the presence of a local police force prevents homicide. The world also needs the ability to bring to justice those responsible for such acts. One such instrument is the International Criminal Court (ICC). A recent poll by the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations showed that 76 percent of Americans support American participation on the Court. Yet in Miami, President Bush said that he opposes the ICC because it will put American troops at risk, and Senator Kerry chose not to state his position. Ask President Bush why he won't let the ICC do its job in Sudan when it would support his stated policy of ending the genocide there. Ask Senator Kerry why he lets President Bush frame the Court so negatively when most Americans support it and the world so desperately needs it.
Such questions are intrinsically relevant -- anyone wanting to be President should have proposals to address them as part of a broader strategy to combat terror. But they also are important because they can't be answered quickly or easily. They have the potential to force the candidates to talk specifically about what they will do to prevent the next threat rather than dither over what they did or didn't do and say. And in the process, Americans might finally stop hearing sound bites and start getting answers that define clearly the two candidates' fundamentally different visions of U.S. foreign policy.
Walter Cronkite is a journalist. John B. Anderson was an independent candidate in the 1980 presidential race and participated in the televised Presidential debates. Charles J. Brown is President and CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions.
