In the foreign policy debate, what was left unsaid was most important of all

More uses of "freedom" than "liberty", and none at all for "eurozone".

With the third and final presidential debate, what was unsaid is far more revealing than what was said. MSN's Tom Phillips suggests the rather depressing game of going to the transcript of the evening, hitting cmd+F, and typing in various keywords for important foreign policy areas.

It's a rough-and-ready form of statistical analysis, but some of the exclusions are terrifying.

No mention at all of "climate" or "environment" (used in the ecological sense) carries over a trend from the first two debates. Climate change is not something either of these candidates want to talk about: so they don't. That's not to say there aren't differences between them when it comes to policy to tackle the issue, but the one thing they both know is that saying anything concrete on it is likely to be political poison. 

There was also no mention at all of India or Brazil, and South Africa only got one mention when Romney declared that he would treat Ahmadinejad as though he was a member of the apartheid regime. The other two BRICS economies got far more airtime, though, with a "China" count of 32 and a Russia count of 10.

Of the three major macroeconomic crises the world could face in the coming year, just one - the US fiscal cliff - is domestic. The risk of a Chinese "hard landing" (that is, the risk that China's miraculous growth will end with a bang) got no discussion, but at least China itself was covered amply. The third is the Eurozone. Which got no mentions. No mentions either for the euro. And "Europe" was dropped just once, when Obama decided to show off about how much we love him:

Governor Romney, our alliances have never been stronger. In Asia, in Europe, in Africa, with Israel where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the Iranian threat. 

Despite the ongoing embargo, and the strong difference between the two candidate's stance on its continuation, "Cuba" was mentioned just once as the historical location of the missile crisis, while "Guantanamo" - one of Obama's most glaring failed promises - got no mention at all. There are still 167 detainees in the Guanatamo Bay camp.

The most telling distinction of all was that in the Middle East. "Palestine" wasn't said once, while "Palestinians" got its sole use in this passage from Romney:

Is — are Israel and the Palestinians closer to — to reaching a peace agreement? No, they haven’t had talks in two years.

Israel was mentioned a total of 34 times, more than any country other than America itself. (Although "China" and "Chinese" combined got 35 outings.)

One of Obama's strongest hits of the night may have been attacking Romney over the fact that the latter brought his donors with him on his trip to Israel, but it's clear that America's closest ally doesn't run much risk of losing that position any time soon.

The candidates. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Show Hide image

Boris Johnson isn't risking his political life over Heathrow

The anti-Heathrow campaigner was never a committed environmentalist. 

A government announcement on expanding London’s airports is expected today, and while opposition forces have been rallying against the expected outcome - a third runway at Heathrow - the decision could also be a divisive one for the ruling Conservative party. A long consultation period will allow these divisions to fester. 

Reports suggest that up to 60 Conservative MPs are against expansion at the Heathrow site. The Prime Minister’s own constituents are threatening legal action, and the former London mayoral candidate, Zac Goldsmith, has promised to step down as MP for Richmond rather than let the airport develop.

But what of Boris Johnson? The politician long synonymous with Heathrow opposition - including a threat to lie down “in front of those bulldozers” - is expected to call the decision a mistake. But for a man unafraid to dangle from a zipwire, he has become unusually reticent on the subject.

The reticence has partly been imposed upon him. In a letter to her cabinet ministers, Theresa May has granted them freedom from the usual rules of collective responsibility (under which cabinet ministers are required to support government positions). But she has also requested that they refrain from speaking out in the Commons, from “actively” campaigning against her position, and from calling “into question the decision making process itself”.  

Johnson is not about to start cheering for Heathrow. But unlike Goldsmith, he is no committed environmentalist - and he's certainly a committed politician.  

Boris’s objections to the expansion at Heathrow have all too often only extended as far as the lives of his London constituents. These local impacts are not to be belittled – in his role of mayor of London, he rightly pointed to the extreme health risks of increased noise and air pollution. And his charisma and profile have also boosted community campaigns around these issues. 

But when it comes to reducing emissions, Johnson is complacent. He may have come a long way since a 2013 Telegraph article in which he questioned whether global warming was real. Yet his plan to build an alternative “hub” airport in the Thames Estuary would have left the question of cutting UK aviation emissions worryingly un-resolved. This lack of curiosity is alarming considering his current job as foreign secretary. 

And there are reasons to be concerned. According to Cait Hewitt at the Aviation Environment Federation, the UK fails to meet its targets for CO2 reduction. And the recent UN deal on aviation emission mitigation doesn’t even meet the commitments of the UK’s own Climate Change Act, let alone the more stringent demands of the Paris Agreement. “Deciding that we’re going to do something that we know is going to make a problem worse, before we’ve got an answer, is the wrong move”, said Hewitt.

There is a local environmental argument too. Donnachadh McCarthy, a spokesperson from the activist group “Rising Up”, says the pollution could affect Londoners' health: "With 70 per cent of flights taken just by 15 per cent of the UK's population... this is just not acceptable in a civilised democracy.”

The way Johnson tells it, his reason for staying in government is a pragmatic one. “I think I'd be better off staying in parliament to fight the case, frankly," he told LBC Radio in 2015. And he's right that, whatever the government’s position, the new “national policy statement” to authorise the project will likely face a year-long public consultation before a parliamentary vote in late 2017 or early 2018. Even then the application will still face a lengthy planning policy stage and possible judicial review. 

But if the foreign secretary does fight this quietly, in the back rooms of power, it is not just a loss to his constituents. It means the wider inconsistencies of his position can be brushed aside - rather than exposed and explored, and safely brought down to ground. 

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.