https://arab.news/b7y6w
Five weeks before the US presidential election, American voters on Tuesday heard two differing visions of the country’s future and a new civil “midwestern” nice from the vice presidential candidates, Republican J.D. Vance and Democrat Tim Walz. But what was missing from their 90-minute debate was their visions on foreign policy.
The debate opened with a question on the Iranian missile attack on Israel, which took place a few hours before the two men faced off in New York City. The non-answers the two candidates gave were emblematic of the thin foreign policy agenda in the debate. There was not a single question about or mention of the most important conflict in Europe since the Second World War, the Ukraine war. No Afghanistan and no questions on allies or NATO. The saying “all politics is local” fits perfectly with the debate, as the candidates sparred over domestic issues from immigration to the economy, healthcare, reproductive rights, climate, gun violence and the state of democracy in America.
The CBS moderator opened the debate by asking if the candidates support an Israeli “preemptive strike” on Iran and, although neither answered the question directly, two differing visions on foreign policy were on display. The Democrats’ “steady leadership” versus the Republicans’ “peace through strength.”
Walz started by reminding people of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas and said that “Israel’s ability to defend itself is fundamental, getting its hostages back, fundamental, and ending the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”
Confusing Israel and Iran on “expansion of its proxies,” he also saw the US’ “steady leadership” as “fundamental,” giving as an example the way the US worked with “coalition partners and Israel” and “were able to stop the incoming attack.” He said Kamala Harris would offer steady leadership, while former President Donald Trump uses tweets as “standard diplomacy” and talks about crowd sizes, which “is not what we need at this moment.”
He accused Trump of being “fickle” in holding coalitions together and said “we will protect our forces and our allied forces, and there will be consequences,” in answering the question.
Vance also avoided a direct answer, saying: “It is up to Israel what they think they need to do to keep their country safe and we should support our allies wherever they are when they’re fighting the bad guys.”
The non-answers the two candidates gave were emblematic of the thin foreign policy agenda in the debate.
Dr. Amal Mudallali
He also argued that Trump made the world more secure and “delivered stability in the world, and he did it by establishing effective deterrence. People were afraid of stepping out of line. Iran, which launched this attack, has received over $100 billion in unfrozen assets thanks to the Kamala Harris administration.”
Vance added: “Donald Trump recognized that, for people to fear the United States, you needed peace through strength.”
The Republican vice presidential candidate defended Trump’s policies, just as he did last month after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told The New Yorker magazine that Trump “doesn’t really know how to stop the war” and described Vance as “too radical.” This was a grave political move for someone who will need Trump to provide continued US aid to Ukraine if he wins the November election.
It might be a blessing in disguise that there were no questions on Ukraine during the debate because Vance would have repeated what he said after Zelensky visited an ammunition factory in Pennsylvania with Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro — another grave political mistake, as the Ukrainian president appeared to interfere in the election and choose sides.
Vance’s reaction came in a speech that also took place in Pennsylvania, a critical swing state that each party is desperate to win. He blasted the Ukrainian president, saying: “He came to campaign with the Democratic leadership of this country. We spent $200 billion on Ukraine. You know what I wish Zelensky would do when he comes to the United States of America? Say thank you to the people of Pennsylvania and everybody else.”
The debate came at a time when Ukraine was receding from the top of the media agenda because of the developments in the Middle East, especially the looming confrontation between Israel and Iran.
The debate was civil, with both attacking the top-of-the-ticket candidates more than they attacked each other.
Dr. Amal Mudallali
Walz claimed that Iran is now closer to building nuclear weapons because of Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal. He said that Trump “pulled that program and put nothing else in its place. So, Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than they were before because of Donald Trump’s fickle leadership.”
But the most poignant point in the debate came when discussing the state of democracy in the US. It focused on the peaceful transfer of power and whether the Republican vice presidential candidate thought that Trump had lost the 2020 election. Vance, who has previously asserted that he would not have certified the 2020 result, said: “What President Trump has said is that there were problems.” He added: “We should fight about those issues, debate those issues peacefully in the public square. And that’s all I’ve said. And that’s all that Donald Trump has said.” He reminded viewers that “Joe Biden became the president. Donald Trump left the White House.”
Walz looked at his opponent and asked him: “Did he (Trump) lose the 2020 elections?” In a stunning evasion of the question, Vance said, “Tim, I am focused on the future” and went on to talk about censorship, accusing Harris of practicing it. Walz shot back: “That is a damning non-answer.” Looking directly at the camera and addressing the American voters, he said: “America, I think you’ve got a really clear choice … of who’s going to honor that democracy and who’s going to honor Donald Trump.”
The vice presidents do not usually change the trajectory of a US election race, whether on domestic or foreign policy, and this debate also did not move the needle on any of the issues that were debated.
A CNN poll of viewers found out that only 1 percent said they had changed their mind as a result of the debate. But the debate might still have made some changes to the way the voters view the vice presidential candidates. Vance came to the debate with very low favorability. During the debate, he offered a new and softer version of himself. The debate was civil and focused on the substance, with both attacking the top-of-the-ticket candidates more than they attacked each other.
Walz did not call Vance “weird,” as he has done during the campaign, while Vance “made Trumpism sound polite, calm and coherent,” according to New York Times editorial board member Binyamin Appelbaum. This was reflected in the CNN poll, which found that Vance’s favorability had improved, jumping from 30 percent before the debate to 41 percent afterward. But his unfavorability was still high at 44 percent. Walz, on the other hand, improved his favorability from 46 percent to 59 percent. But a majority of those polled said Vance did a better job during the debate (51 percent), compared to 49 percent who said Walz won.
Although the vice presidential candidates do not decide the fate of a campaign, they can do damage to their running mates. In this debate, both candidates avoided a major mishap, especially on foreign policy, but they also delivered a bland message to the world.
-
Dr. Amal Mudallali is a visiting research scholar at Princeton University and former Lebanese ambassador to the UN.