Some Thoughts on the Trump Doctrine

As I watched Trump last night talk about how South Korea and Japan should get nuclear weapons, it occurred to me that, say what you want about his foreign policy ideas, they aren't incoherent.

Now, of course, coherence is not proof of truth but coherence does enable you to at least engage an idea.

The Trump Doctrine is basically America First. It's Pat Buchanan's foreign policy. The idea is let Japan and South Korea get nuclear weapons, then we can cut back on our defense of the countries.

There is a piece in Time magazine that argues that Trump's foreign policy ideas need to be engaged.

"Trump isn't an isolationist, but his view of foreign policy is dangerous for the U.S. and the world."

“I know the outer world exists, and I’ll be very cognizant of that, but at the same time, our country is disintegrating,” says Donald Trump, who wants to “make America great again” by refocusing U.S. foreign policy to rebuild American strength from within. This idea comes not from a civil libertarian’s respect for the constitution, but from his trademark exhibitionist belligerence. He’s less Thomas Jefferson than George Jefferson, moving on up to win his party’s presidential nomination."

"Trump is no actual isolationist. He says he wants to build U.S. military might. He has floated the use of American ground troops in Syria, pledged to torture suspected terrorists, argued for increased use of drones and for “knocking the hell out of ISIS”—maybe even with nuclear weapons. Trump doesn’t oppose trade. He wants to shred the “stupid” agreements of the past and bring his state-of-the-art negotiating skills to secure much better deals, all to restore America’s lost prosperity and U.S. manufacturing jobs."

http://time.com/4275516/donald-trump-foreign-policy-2/
I don't know that I'd agree that he doesn't at least have isolationist tendencies. He has a clear desire for America to 'go it alone.' What might be interesting is to ask him about the other international institutions. Or even the big climate deal with China.

Does he think this was another case where we got 'robbed by the Chinese?'

The idea of letting South Korea and Japan have nukes is commensurate with a world view in which the US has less international allies and is involved in fewer alliances.

A world with fewer alliances and treaties is a more dangerous world-think about the era prior to postwar Europe. It would seem to mean the opposite of Hillary's smart power that she developed at State while serving Obama's Administration.

Remember: the corollary of Trump saying Japan and South Korea can get the bomb is his not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons. For their part, Japan and South Korea want no part of Trump's' permission.

"Evidently, Trump did not run this idea by Japanese and South Korean leaders before proposing it. According to the Washington Post, officials and newspapers from both countries responded to Trump's remarks with confusion at best and derision at worst. "We are dumbfounded at such myopic views of a leading candidate in the U.S. presidential race who tries to approach such critical issues only from the perspective of expenses," JoongAng Ilbo, one of South Korea's biggest newspapers, wrote in an editorial.

"Another paper, Hankyoreh, urged the South Korean government to "express its firm opposition to Trump’s foreign policy plan, which constitutes a threat to security on the Korean Peninsula." Meanwhile, the spokesperson for South Korea's defense ministry told the Post that there would be no change in diplomatic relations with the U.S."

"Tokyo's chief cabinet secretary, Yoshihide Suga, assured the Post that "whoever becomes president of the United States, the Japan-U.S. alliance, based on a bilateral security agreement, will remain the core of Japan’s diplomacy." He went on, "We will adhere to our three principles that prohibit Japan from owning, developing and transporting a nuclear arsenal."

"Saudi Arabia has yet to respond to Trump's "take the oil" proposal, and there's no word from China regarding Trump's plan to cut off Chinese access to American markets. At this rate, by the time the Republican National Convention rolls around, the United States won't have any allies left."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/japan-south-korea-confused-by-trump-nuke-policy.html

That's the key. Trump's foreign policy is strictly 'go it alone.' This is a recipe not for less war but more. The lesson of WWII is that alliances and treaties-internationalism are the way to avoid such disasters in the future. 

Trump seems to think a world in which everyone has nuclear weapons and uses them the negotiate foreign relations is going to be more peaceful. Obviously the truth is quite the opposite. 

Still, purely on political grounds. Trump's philosophy might have some appeal. The Clinton team is right to be concerned about his unpredictability. This is not an orthodox Republican candidate. In this way, Ted Cruz would be much simpler to prepare against. 

Time decides there is a need to show why the Trump Doctrine is wrong. I think they are correct here. I think there are some voters who might think America First makes a lot of sense right now in a time of nagging economic insecurity. 

"I’ve written in recent weeks that Trump has embraced an “America first” foreign policy. I didn’t mean that as a compliment, and I’m surprised to see him grab that label with both hands. But “America first” won’t make America great again, because the country’s exceptionalism is based not simply on its military strength and wealth. For all its faults and shortcomings, the U.S. remains a nation—and an idea—worth emulating. It provided a winning alternative to fascism and communism when the world needed one and has created many of the institutions and innovations that have helped lift hundreds of millions out of poverty. It has set a standard of individual freedom and opportunity against which people everywhere measure their own governments. The American idea of citizenship is based on allegiance rather than tribe, drawing people to its shores from around the world."

"These are the choices and values that make America great. Donald Trump lives in a zero-sum world in which China’s leaders “have drained so much money out of our country that they’ve rebuilt China.” He divides the world into winners and losers, good and evil, workers and freeloaders, us and them. That’s hardly an exceptional idea for an exceptional country."

"What if the America that others emulate is the small-minded, self-interested version? What would that mean for the future of Europe’s union, law and order in Asia, efforts to contain wildfires in the Middle East or to coordinate foreign and trade policy in Africa and Latin America? Will it help the world harmonize its efforts to fight terrorism? Can Americans remain safe in an increasingly volatile world?"

"It’s not enough to dismiss or denounce Trump and his foreign policy views, even if he never becomes President. The questions he raises, and the resentments they engender, must be answered, clearly and confidently, or they will linger. That’s a risk that America and the world can’t afford."

Where Trump is wrong is his assumption that the US pays all the costs and derives none of the benefits from international alliances and relations.

Things like the NATO treaty have many moving parts which benefit all the members in different ways.

Trump's working assumption is we live in a zero sum world. The whole point of diplomacy and alliances is this is not the case. That nations can find common ground. Trump's world would be one where things are more and more decided by sheer brute force.

But I do think that this idea could have some appeal to some voters which is why this has to be understood. In some ways, it's almost like there has been total amnesia on what we learnt after WWII-that a zero sum world is a very dangerous one.