Trump’s ‘America First’ will be good for country
Today, threats seemingly abound, from China’s rise to Russia’s return; from the growing number of bumptious regional powers, such as Iran and North Korea; and from a range of insurgent and terrorist networks. How will the Pole Star of Donald Trump’s foreign policy, “America First,” fare? Will such a policy court disaster as did its isolationist predecessor 80 years ago in the run-up to World War II?
Consider first military intervention. Since the turn of the millennium, the United States has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing chaos at utterly ruinous material and human cost to both these countries — while wasting trillions of dollars the U.S. could ill afford to lose and shattering all too many American lives. In addition, American support for overthrowing Moammar Khadafy in Libya has led to creation of a hothouse environment for breeding terrorists in that sad land. In Syria, support for proxy forces aimed at overthrowing Bashar Assad — a ridiculous project, given Russian and Iranian support for his regime — has prolonged a hopeless rebellion that has already cost half a million lives.
During the Republican presidential primaries last year, then-candidate Trump fearlessly denounced the invasion of Iraq, and made clear that he would end the effort to overthrow Assad. In doing so, he drew a sharp line between himself and the Republican foreign policy elites who had served either as architects of or cheerleaders for the disasters of the past decade and a half. This also served to differentiate him from Hillary Clinton on foreign policy and advanced the broader argument that less military intervention would be good both for the United States and the world.
Next, there is alliance behavior. At heart, alliances ultimately entail firm commitments to use force on behalf of one’s partners. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most salient alliance in question at present — much as the American attitude toward Europe formed the core of the foreign policy debate in the 1930s and then again during the Cold War era. Trump has repeatedly criticized both the members of this “most successful alliance in history” (as many have described it) and the American international security intelligentsia that is so disdainful of the notion of dunning allies to pay their fair shares. Trump has hammered, again and again, the point that far too few NATO members live up to their treaty commitments to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense — only five of 28 members do so.
Trump has put the matter starkly: Why should the United States continue to allow such free-riding? NATO, even without American membership, would still have more people and economic power than Russia — and both France and Britain have quite excellent nuclear deterrent forces. Besides, if a new great war were somehow to erupt, one in which Russia strove to conquer Europe — itself a fantastically improbable event — the United States would surely join the defense. Thus, Trump’s gambit to pressure NATO members to live up to their treaty obligations seems both justified and not unduly risky.
The third major element of foreign policy is trade. Here, too, Trump’s “America First” policy appears to reflect the sharp protectionist sentiments of the 1930s. Back then, the results of raising tariffs on 20,000 imported goods under the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which went into force very soon after the Great Crash of 1929, were disastrous for an economy already on life support. Today, nearly a decade after the Great Recession of 2008, the U.S. economy is well on the mend. It is a most reasonable moment to seek advantageous trade terms on a bilateral basis, and President Trump should be given full marks for his clear willingness to challenge conventional wisdom about the unalloyed good of having completely open markets — regardless of what competitors are doing.
Trump is also the first to recognize that China’s deep economic relationship with the United States, both in terms of trade goods and the amount of U.S. debt that Beijing holds — more than $1 trillion — gives us good leverage, not only economically but in more strategic ways as well. China is highly unlikely to pose a severe military threat, given this relationship and the consequences of disrupting it. Recognizing the strong hand the United States holds toward China can also help immensely in future dealings with the rogue North Korean regime. Beijing has real influence with the erratic young leader in Pyongyang, whose latest ventures have seen him busying himself improving his missiles and (apparently) having his half-brother bumped off.
But there is one aspect of President Trump’s ideas on trade where he seems to have gone very far astray: his view of relations with Mexico. Tearing up the North American Free Trade Agreement would damage the U.S. economy deeply. Not only impacting the half-trillion dollars of trade with Mexico, but also hurting the jobs that have emerged as a result of the trade agreement. Those jobs pay, on average, up to 20 percent more than those that were lost to it, per a recent Wharton School report. And the likely costs of economic disruptions — to agriculture and other sectors — in the wake of contemplated mass deportations of immigrants living in the country illegally are close to incalculable. This is hardly in the spirit of benefiting “America First.” Trump should rethink this.
Finally, regarding the so-called war on terror, Trump has sent a signal with the recent Yemen raid — messy as it was — that this is one area where he is willing to be more activist in his foreign policy. Terrorism is enough of a threat, having grown seven-fold (the increase in the number of incidents since 2001), to warrant the risk of putting our special forces on the ground in Yemen and elsewhere. We will no doubt see increased American participation in the final fights against the Islamic State in Iraq — perhaps even in some areas of Syria. Just as important as the role of American troops will be the active participation of a range of allies — including Russia — in the ongoing struggle against this modern scourge.
So, for just a moment, let us avert the national gaze from the unpolished style of this non-politician president and instead look deeply into his foreign policy strategy. We will see that today, and for years to come, “America First” is best for us. And for the world.
John Arquilla is professor and chair of defense analysis at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. The views expressed are his alone. To comment, submit your letter to the editor at http://bit.ly/SFChronicleletters.