Foreign Policy Challenges Town Hall

Paula: On the final day of the New Hampshire Primary Student Convention, I attended a forum specifically outlining the United States’ relationship with foreign policy. The student forum was titled, “Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next President”, introducing the notion that America’s concern with foreign policy would be at the top of lists of concerns for almost every single presidential candidate in both the Republican and Democratic Party.

Editor-in-Chief of The Foreign Desk, Lisa Daftari, led the foreign policy discussion in first highlighting how foreign affairs was historically a sideline topic within the domestic presidential election. She explained how she, a first generation American of Iranian parents, grew up to understand that the topic of foreign affairs was not an appetite of United States interest, as much as it was within her household. I empathized with that statement because I grew up with the same understanding, that my family’s foreign interests with our home country of Nigeria, was no one else’s concern in America making our expressions of interest solely reserved to dinner discussions. Lisa Daftari then spoke on the relationship foreign affairs has on many American citizens today. She identified that these foreign affairs that seemed so foreign to us, historically, are much more relevant in the minds of many on the domestic spectrum. With the events like the San Bernardino attacks, the terrorist attacks in Paris, and ISIS daunting influence on the Internet, citizens have become not only more concerned, but much more fearful. Not only have they become fearful, but also they have looked to the reassurance of political leaders, like the President for some sort of security. In my opinion, the President has done all that he can when tackling the ever-growing foreign affairs agenda of the United States. But, both parties have openly criticized some executive action, notably the 2012 Benghazi attack and the Iranian Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

This then becomes a notable political platform for all presidential candidates because foreign policy will continue to be a bipartisan issue. Candidates of the Republican and Democratic Party are expected to create policies to address how he or she will deal with the international affairs the United States must face once elected, because the people are looking to them for utmost security. A challenge many of these candidates face is addressing this issue with rationality and legitimacy, and many citizens see this more on the Republican side, although there are issues on the Democratic ticket. Ted Cruz, one of the six Republican Presidential candidates, expressed how he would deal with the Islamic State, by “carpet bombing” ISIS bases until the desert “glows”, which doesn’t settle many citizens insecurity with the widening threat of terrorism. Donald Trump doesn’t do much better by pandering enemies with offensive racial comments that are easily associable to a large demographic of citizens. Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders chooses to not acknowledge foreign affairs as his key priority until domestic issues are fixed, although they both can be tackled at the same time.

Citizens look at these characteristics of candidates and their effectiveness to create a platform that convinces many that their foreign policy plan will reassure domestic concern. This is the key to the presidency, because no longer will foreign policy be disconnected to the concern of the people. I associated this forum back how my ideology and support for Bernie Sanders changed once I saw him and Hillary Clinton present their platforms at town hall meetings. I continue to admire Senator Sanders for his dedication to fix the broken system in America as well as, appealing to young people and ethnic minorities on issues that no presidential candidate ever once thought of addressing during this presidential election. I also appreciate his stance on the Syrian refugee crisis and their immigration into the United States. But, my security as a human being living within the United States unsure of what major attack may happen and not hearing a valid objective or goal to achieve overseas concerns me as a voter voting within the Democratic Party. I appreciate Hillary Clinton’s professional history as the former Secretary of State, to already have a background of foreign policy. Secretary Clinton addressed her agenda as president when dabbling in affairs internationally, giving me much more comfortability with her chance of leading the country. Whoever becomes the next president will have to inherit a foreign policy direction already established by the current President, Barack Obama. In doing so, he or she must make monumental choices when making executive international affair decisions.

Melika: During the Foreign Policy Forum, we had Fox News journalist and commentator Lisa Daftari discuss with us the importance of foreign policy in the 2016 Presidential Election. She explained that the next commander-in-chief would have to prioritize the citizens of the United States by focusing on foreign policy to win the presidential ticket. She clarified that foreign policy and national security have never been a partisan issue and that the moment our rights become a matter of opinion is when we should question a presidential candidate’s credibility. Daftari then went on to refer to the recent attacks and how the violence and abuse of the second amendment should not justify the attacks on domestic soil. Referring to the Iranian Nuclear Deal, the journalist expressed the bipartisan support against the deal for it would eliminate the last chance the U.S could use economic leverage against the Iranian nuclear regime. She went on to explain that despite the billions of dollars we were investing in the deal, Iran would still continue to support Hezbollah and feed monetarily supply the Shi’ite rebels. In her words “basically, there was no change invoked through this deal”. After bringing up the recent hydrogen bomb testing of North Korea, she addressed the audience of being responsible for focusing on the foreign policy stance of each candidate and how national security will be a pressing issue in the years to come because foreign issues have become domestic ones that threaten the security of our home and public. Given the age of the audience, Daftari gave statistics that 2/3 of millennials believe the government is inefficient and wasteful. The good news was about ¾ of millennials were planning to vote this year. A credible point was brought up regarding the technology driven millennial age and how social media makes us better informed and, in turn, we expect more from candidates. A question in the crowd addressed the highly publicized number of Americans going overseas to join Isis’s fight compared to the number of Americans in general. The journalist stated that 73 American people have gone abroad to join ISIS, but how that’s roughly two in every million per American. He then gave the statistic that every 1 in 80,000 American dies from a bee sting. His argument was that an American is twenty times more likely to know someone who has died from a bee sting than they were to know someone who would fight for ISIS. While it is a problem, it is also an issue to be scaring Americans and portraying that ISIS is radicalizing someone living down the street. She countered that argument by stating that bees aren’t putting up thousands of posts on social media trying to “sting us online.” The message and speed in which they are spreading their ideology are concerning. It is misleading to talk about statistics when regarding ideology. She expressed that you can’t quantify an ideology because is not contained to numbers. Another question brought up the exaggerated reporting of anti-Muslim remarks. She responded that it was a mistake being made on both party lines. She referred to President Barack Obama coming up to the podium to address that ISIS is not about Islam, which she implied makes it about Islam. If his comments made it about national security, it would stay that way. On both sides, a lot people feel there has been a high urgency to separate ISIS and Islam, which allows people like Trump to compare the two to rally people behind him. Her argument implied that candidates drop the partisanship when regarding national security. After her comment about the Iranian Nuclear Deal having zero benefits, I told her that I too was Iranian and had plenty of family who lived in Iran. I asked about the benefits for the civilians in Iran who will have the sanctions removed with the deal. She quickly responded that that was the only benefit to the plan and how the civilians will gain access to basic goods and pharmaceutical supplies. She explained how the regime in Iran had put the burdens of the sanctions on people they didn’t have to. She states, “when you take this political pressure off the Iranian regime with the Nuclear Deal, you are making it more difficult to give Iranians more rights in the long run.” What particular struck me as opinionated was her comment about Iranian people not remembering a time where they weren’t ruled by this government, and how they have learned to live with the regime that doesn’t allow them freedoms. She explained how the people have managed to live under this government. Having discussed with many of my older relatives who still live in Iran, there is very little evidence that suggests the Iranian people do not remember a better time or have gotten used to living as lower class citizens.

#foreignpolicy #UnitedStates #Isis #TedCruz