Context

by Dr Claude Rakisits

Following Senator Ted Cruz’s much expected defeat of Donald Trump in the 5 April Wisconsin primary, Trump’s goal of winning the majority of delegates by the time the Republican Party holds its convention in July has now become even more elusive. Although the odds of becoming his party’s presidential candidate are against him, it’s still possible that he could receive the nomination even if he doesn’t win in the first ballot. He is, after all, a great ‘deal-maker’ as he keeps reminding everyone.

Accordingly, it’s important to examine Donald Trump’s views of some of the critical international issues he would need to deal with were he to get to the Oval Office. And, quite frankly, based on the few statements on foreign affairs he’s made on the campaign trail, most of them incoherent and unfocused, there’s little to feel confident about. Quite the contrary; were Trump to implement some of his convoluted and confused ideas on foreign affairs, the world would undoubtedly be a more dangerous place.

Let’s look at some of the remarks he’s made on foreign policy, particularly on three issues that would have deep ramifications for the Asia Pacific region and Middle East.

Analysis

Dealing with China

In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post in March, Trump was asked what he thought about China’s aggressive behavior in the South China Sea and how he would deal with the situation. He argued that the best way to halt China’s militarization of the artificial islands would be to threaten its access to the US market. He repeated that threat in another long interview with The New York Times.

While China does hold some $4 trillion of US reserves, in the long-run China’s access to the US market is critical for its continued economic growth which is heavily dependent on being able to export its cheap products. But more importantly, continued economic growth is vital to the survival of the Chinese Communist Party. So if such a measure were implemented by a Trump administration, it’s unlikely that Beijing would simply roll over. Furthermore, the financial knock-on effects for the rest of the world of a trade showdown between its two largest economies would be enormous.

US Military Ties with South Korea and Japan

Staying in the Asia Pacific, Trump has repeatedly stated that he doesn’t believe the US gains anything by having bases in South Korea and Japan. Accordingly, he said that he would pull US forces from the two countries unless the host governments ‘substantially increased their contributions to the costs of housing and feeding those troops.

Scaling back the US military’s presence in such a manner would be welcomed heartily by Beijing, as those bases are the linchpin of American primacy in Northeast Asia. It would also ring alarm bells with America’s edgy regional allies and friends who are already worried about Washington’s commitment to the rebalance. It would force regional countries to increase their defense spending to compensate for the US withdrawal. But, more worrisome, it would most likely make regional allies less supportive of America’s approach to the region which would in make it easier for China to assert itself in the Asia Pacific.

However, much more alarming than the military vacuum which an American departure from Northeast Asia would create is Trumps statement that he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than depend on the American nuclear umbrella.

Such a dangerous policy position goes against the many international agreements and protocols designed to limit nuclear weapons proliferation. If such a position became official policy in a Trump administration, it isn’t possible to sufficiently stress how destabilizing it would be to have two additional nuclear-armed countries in an already highly toxic and dangerous environment as is Northeast Asia. Moreover, it would give the green light for other countries to develop their own nuclear weapons, essentially beginning an Asia Pacific arms race.

Dealing with the Middle East

Turning to the Middle East, Trump has also indicated that because the US is now less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than it was before, there’s less reason for US troops to remain there. As with a withdrawal from bases in Northeast Asia, a US military withdrawal from the Gulf the US 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain would be a strategic disaster. Another military vacuum would be created, making it more difficult for the US to protect its allies, including Israel, and its vital strategic interests in the region.

With the Americans gone, Iran would easily fill the vacuum and further expand its presence in the wider Middle East. Already Iran is playing a destabilizing role by supporting militarily the al-Assad regime in Syria, backing its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon, and having a major influence on the Iraqi government. With an American withdrawal, the Iranians now free of the sanctions shackles would feel emboldened to press their presence even more, making the Saudis and the other Gulf states very nervous indeed. And it would give the already restive Shiite population in the Gulf countries a boost in confidence in their opposition to the Sunni-dominated Gulf governments. That would mean bad news for the stability of the Middle East.

So in the unlikely event that Trump wins the Republican Party nomination and, even more improbably, goes on to win the general election in November, we could expect radical changes to the White House’s approach to some of the more pressing foreign affairs issues. For all intents and purposes, Trump wants to rip up the post-WWII international order but without suggesting an alternative to replace it.

In that regard, he’s effectively a crypto-anarchist disguised as an isolationist. Fortunately Congress would be there to block or dilute any ill-considered foreign affairs decisions by President Trump. However, that isn’t the way for a superpower to run an effective foreign policy. On the contrary, such a scenario would undoubtedly be exploited by China and Russia, which could only mean bad news for global stability.

A version of this article also appeared in the blog for Australian Strategic Policy Institute, The Strategist.

The post American Elections: Trump’s Dangerous Foreign Policy Outlook appeared first on Politact.

Context

This being an election year in the US, international actors are attempting to anticipate what the outcome will mean for issues and policies that are of concern to them. Moreover, Americans are also preparing for whether the conservatives or liberals will win and what that will mean for their pockets respectively.

Moreover, under the shadow of worsening European and American economies, budding banking scandals, and the approaching fiscal cliff, partisan politics is likely to be to more acute than usual. Larger philosophical debates about whether the system is meant for the few or many have already erupted. The dialogue involves how to balance between the influences that have acted over American politics at different times in history, such as free trade or protectionism, isolationism or engagement, tax break or hike.



Analysis

Fiscal Politics

One of the critical looming battles that will complicate the coming American elections is how to address the coming ‘fiscal cliff’. A bi-partisan Super Committee was formed last August and instructed to come up with a working solution to the mounting budget deficit by Nov 23rd, 2011. Many seasoned politicians, including Senator Kerry, had warned at the time that inability to find a solution by the deadline, as occurred, would make deficits a major issue in next year’s presidential election. By law, the committee’s failure to develop a budget deal automatically triggers spending reductions on October 1st 2012, cutting $1.2 trillion from the military, education, health care and other priorities over the next decade. In addition, Bush era tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year as well.

The major bone of contention between the Republicans and Democrats is obviously what programs to cut. US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had alerted lawmakers last year not to implement a “doomsday mechanism” that would have resulted in Pentagon budget slashed by $600bn, saying that these cuts could severely threaten US national security. The cuts were only supposed to kick in if the Super Committee fails to secure a deal on budget savings.

On the other hand, President Obama faces stiff opposition from the Republicans on increasing tax on the rich to tackle the alarming US deficit. The Republicans have opposed the plan such as the ‘Buffet Tax’.

The debate between the two parties is reflective of their traditional worldview. The Republican’s do not like to tax the rich and see it as counterproductive in promoting more investments. Moreover, they like to cut social programs, from which mostly the lower middle class and poor benefit. They are considered strong on issues of national security and thus they defend defense budgets. On the other hand, Democrats usually increase social spending that results in bigger government and want to tax the rich more and the middle class less.

The prominence of the debate on fiscal matters has given rise to the popularity of Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party believes in a nationalistic agenda with focus on balancing the budget and stopping the deficit spending. More specifically, it stands for ending the influence of special interest.

American System And Public Frustration

In the present state of recession, the stalemate over the deficit has increased public frustration and alarm. The New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks reflected in May:

“The American decentralized system of checks and balances has transmogrified into a fragmented system that scatters responsibility. Congress is capable of passing laws that give people benefits with borrowed money, but it gridlocks when it tries to impose self-restraint.”

He went on to comment on the strong role technocrats are beginning to play in the affairs of European Union:

“Decisions that reshape the destinies of families and nations are being made at some mysterious, transnational level. Few Europeans can tell who is making decisions or who is to blame if they go wrong, so, of course, they feel powerless and distrustful.”

The unfolding economic recession and banking scandals in the West reveals what the unchecked association between money and power can do to the system. The representatives of the people are now caught between serving powerful interests groups or the welfare of common people, and the recent scandals reveal they have repeatedly chosen the former. The political leaders are dependent on funds they generate from the interest groups to contest elections, and they cannot afford to alienate them.

In a surprising ruling in 2010, the US Supreme Court gave corporations the permission to spend unlimited amounts of money to get their favored candidates elected and the despised ones defeated. The dissenting justices opined, this “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.”

A Washington Post editorial noted at the time:



“It was wrong because nothing in the First Amendment dictates that corporations must be treated identically to people. And it was dangerous because corporate money, never lacking in the American political process, may now overwhelm both the contributions of individuals and the faith they may harbor in their democracy.”

Foreign Policy

Since 9/11, on matters of foreign policy and national security, both parties want to appear strong. The parties have tried to differentiate their policies before the elections, but once in power, they have stuck to continuity. For example, after Bush, President Obama increased drone attacks in Pakistan many times over. Most of the other red lines established by Pakistan were crossed on Obama’s watch. The policies regarding Iran have also remained consistent.

It can be hypothesized that military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan has more to do with American economic realities than any fundamental change in policies. The complexity of foreign policy and novices of the American public in this regard means more dependence on the state institutions to run the show.

The grave local and global challenges being confronted by US are multifaceted and may not be resolvable by the politics of election cycles. The political jockeying can help parties win elections, but if they are able to actually resolve issues, is questionable. In fact, the problems and challenges are getting worse. If and when, America develops the will to conduct a system level correction, it will have profound global implications.

The post The Dynamics Of American Politics And Coming Elections appeared first on Politact.