On Tuesday, October 22, 2024, Franklin & Marshall College hosted one of four U.S. Foreign Policy Forums sponsored by The Council on Foreign Relations. As part of the CFR Election 2024 Series, panelists provided an independent, nonpartisan examination of trade-offs on current policies. The series targeted swing states. Visiting Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania CFR aimed to educate voters before Election Day.  

The packed auditorium was filled with F&M students, professors, and local community members. An introductory video emphasized the correlation between “local votes and global stakes” in the wake of an increasingly globalized world. President Altman introduced the event and outlined the discussion of immigration, the Russia/Ukraine conflict, The Middle East, China/US relations, and trade. 

The panelists included Shannon K. O’Neil, senior vice president, director of studies, and the Maurice R. Greenberg chair at the Council on Foreign Relations. With expertise in global trade, supply chains, and Latin America, she started the evening by highlighting the shifting needs of a globalized economy, and how all modern trade is a supply chain. Therefore, the most efficient way a state can improve its economy is by becoming an indispensable member of a global supply chain. These improvements happen with local policies. O’Neil also discussed energy security and geopolitics at large. She explained the U.S. is in a good place as we are the leading oil producer in the world and increasing our use of renewable energy. 

Her final point was immigration. She highlighted the differences in policy of both candidates: Harris building up legal pathways for immigrants and increased law enforcement, Trump reducing legal visas, and enacting mass deportation. She underscored how immigrants are a crucial part of local economies and a historical benefit to communities, therefore, deportation would have negative consequences. O’Neil was concise, explicit, and straightforward with her commentary. And, useful for audience members who might have been less familiar with the topics discussed. 

Ivan J. Kanapathy, senior vice president at Beacon Global Strategies, spoke largely about US/China relations – specifically tariffs. He argued for tariffs and that sometimes expert economists are wrong. “Pushing industry out of China” was his main reason for increasing tariffs. 

Evelyn N. Farkas, F&M alum and executive director of the McCain Institute at Arizona State University, had immense knowledge of the Russia/Ukraine conflict. She mainly emphasized Putin, the “Neo-imperial autocratic leader”, and the need for American concern about his actions in Eastern Europe as he recognizes, “[The US] is the only one that can stop him.” She referenced Cold War history often and its relevance to modern politics. Farkas also touched upon how AI remains a threat internationally– something not always on the forefront of American minds.

Steven A. Cook, the Eni Enrico Mattei senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies, informed the audience about the Israel/Gaza conflict. He argued that the Israelis have momentum now and aim to “change the rules of the game” – and that “one-staters versus one-staters will not equal a ceasefire.”

 He briefly explained historical relationships with the US and our presence in the Middle East. When presented with the current statistic that 50% of Americans think US involvement in the Middle East has worsened national security, yet 70% of Americans think US involvement in the Middle East is important, Cook argued those numbers would have been the same in 1970. Cook highlighted the complex relationship the United States has with Israel, and how broader regional geopolitical contexts influence our government’s actions. Cook, like Farkas, also commented on the growing role of AI with security concerns with the expanding AI Arms race occurring in the Middle East. 

Elise Labott, the 2024-2025 Edward R. Murrow press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, moderated the event. She provided lighthearted, humorous breaks while discussing serious foreign affairs. 

Even though the talk intended to educate voters, the panelists largely did not discuss specific presidential candidate policies. Some of the only insight provided was that Donald Trump’s platform intends to “stay inward” by increasing tariffs, while Kamala Harris emphasizes the importance of “building allies.”  So, audience members may have come out of the forum knowing where they stand without knowing which candidate reflects those stances. 

Senior Miles Montalvo agreed. He explained, “My main problem was the lack of specificity of the policies that were presented.” Even though they positioned the talk as a chance to understand candidate policies, “it seemed like they were so afraid of being political, or ‘picking a side’ that they really rarely made the distinctions clear.” Montalvo also wished the panelists were more comfortable with “challenging one another” as the forum “lacked conversation.” 

The problem with providing a brief summary of important, current international issues is just that– it’s brief. For students unfamiliar with the topics discussed, it was useful introductory content. However, some students with a deeper understanding, like Sawyer Atwill ‘27, believe “The talk would have been more interesting if the speakers provided more details behind the ‘why’ in their answers.” 

Both Montalvo and Atwill questioned Kanapathy’s insight on tariffs. The panelist argued that tariffs were good and previous tariffs of 2016-2019 did not seem to have that much of an impact. However, both students disliked the lack of specificity of this claim and desired more of an explanation. When Montalvo asked Kanapathy about the policy later, Montalvo claimed that Kanapathy “was unable to engage in the dialogue” and shared he was “part of the Trump administration when that policy was implemented.” 

The event began and ended with polls asking questions like “How important is foreign policy when considering who you will vote for in the presidential election?” questions about tariffs, Russia/Ukraine, border policy, Israel/Gaza, national security, and how active the US should be in foreign affairs. By the end, some question percentages drastically changed for audience members. For example, in the beginning, 69% of participants said foreign policy was very important as a voter, 28% said somewhat important, and 3% said not important. By the end, 78% said very important, 17% said somewhat, and 5% said not important. 

Natalia Coutino ’27 found the poles interesting, but wished they were not displayed while people voted, as it may have skewed the results. “People are often influenced by the answers they see getting the majority of votes”, she explained. 

“Foreign policy is a choice between worse and even worse,” described a panelist. Trade-offs are a constant, unrelenting reality for all policymakers. And, it is our responsibility as voters to understand our trade-offs with candidates to be more effective, authentically engaged citizens of the United States. 

Sophomore Lily Andrey is the Campus Life Editor. Her email is landrey@fandm.edu.

Leave a Reply