Students partake in foreign policy discussion

With just seven days until the presidential election, a panel of three IU political science professors discussed the impact of how each candidates' philosophies, plans and beliefs could shape the landscape of U.S. foreign policy.\nThe discussion, with more than 50 students and faculty, took place Tuesday night at Jordan Hall. \nThe panel's discussion was the second of two forums, the first of which was a perspective on the candidates' plans for domestic policy.\nProfessor Jeffrey C. Isaac, the chair of the Department of Political Science, moderated the panel discussion. Professors Sumit Ganguly, Aurelian Craiutu and Dina Spechler served on the discussion panel.\nThe panel's discussion began with each professor providing an insightful, five-minute perspective on how the countries they study have been affected by U.S. foreign policy over the past four years under the Bush Administration and how the upcoming election could affect the future of their respective nations of study depending on the outcome of the election. \nGanguli suggested that if the country sees a Bush defeat next week, Afghanistan will probably not change much under Kerry's leadership, who he expects will pour in more money and more troops.\n"I would argue that the Pakistani government is hoping for a Bush victory," he said. "Why? Because they have benefited from the Bush Administration from an economic standpoint."\nCraiutu spoke of the previous mentality that pre-Sept. 11 Europe formerly held of America. One such illusion is that America is comprised of "large skyscraper cities," such as New York City and Chicago. He also discussed the "security scares" that have come about as a result of Sept. 11. He said Europeans have a hard time understanding the terror threats.\n"All things would go well with a Kerry presidency," Craiutu said. "The past four years, the Bush Administration has done very little to explain what the European Union is all about."\nSpechler introduced to the audience the "paradox" surrounding the comparison of the two candidates' political platforms in regard to foreign policy. This paradox is comprised of the idea that she can not remember an election in which each candidate's approach to foreign policy turned out to be very different, which stands in contrast to the current candidates' more polar stances on foreign policy.\n"Even if their policies are that different," she said, "the results might not be that different." \nSpechler then continued by comparing the two candidates' stark differences in opinion in regard to many aspects of foreign policy. \n"Bush turns readily to force and acts before a threat arises. Kerry is a man of diplomacy and sees force as a last option," she said. \nSpechler also added that Bush has a global vision of a radical transformation of authoritarian forms of government into Democratic governments. \n"(Kerry) is more modest in his ambitions and wants to cultivate good will," she said.\nFollowing each professor's perspective, the panel turned to the audience for questions. One student posed a question to the panel as to why there is such a great trend among politicians and political scientists to be "rigourous and scientific" as opposed to being humanistic. \n"While it may well be that some of the threats on the United States (are) manufactured, and those abroad see it different, Sept. 11 caused fear when faced with a threat of danger, and as a result of that, sensibility and humanism lowered," Spechler said. \nThe "hot-button" foreign policy issue that resonated throughout all areas of the discussion was the War in Iraq.\nGanguli noted that American sentiment toward foreign nations changed dramatically in the short time between Sept. 11 and the beginning of the War in Iraq. \n"Empathy for other nations increased after Sept. 11, and it all dissipated after the War in Iraq began," he said.\n-- Contact staff writer Craig Ginsberg at cginsber@indiana.edu.