The US elections 2016 campaign is providing an endless supply of shock and confusion. Many issues have been raised and are being debated. The issues being discussed in the campaign will certainly have far-reaching effects, not just for American public policy but also on American perspectives around the globe. The election campaign has given rise to new directions in the way Americans may address International Trade and the existing security alliances with its allies. The new approach being presented by Donald Trump reflects American public opinion which may obviously reshape the way United States plans its future alliances, foreign policy, security, immigration and Trade.
Trump's call, "America first" is an emerging message for US allies to review the existing defence pacts and prevailing trade concessions. In other words, a new demand is emerging to ask the defence bound allies and trading partners to make more contributions to maintain the ongoing balance in relation to trade and defence.
Trump is threatening to withdraw from Nato, lifting up the US nuclear umbrella from Japan and South Korea, and to reshape trade relations with China. These new directions of US approaches are creating confusion and alarm for many policy experts in East Asia and China. The global observers are noting these directions seriously and are proposing that the bilateral relations in the coming days must reflect an objective and more reasonable approach.
The new voices being raised in the presidential campaign may not be considered as passive, as these concerns are activating debate both in Europe and East Asia who despite these developments are, however, not considering having a contingency plan in this regard.
Those who believe that the voices being raised by Trump are going to fade away are not on the right path. Trump is expressing popular sentiments of a cross section of people and these sentiments will certainly influence the coming US administration as well as the Congress in many ways including giving rise to new approaches and rethinking on global issues including the trade and defence pacts. The emerging directions indicate that change will certainly be there in order to accommodate voter's views as the people are expecting tangible new directions in the US policies.
One might have noticed change in the tone of President Obama who recently criticised the attitudes of Europeans and the Gulf States while terming them as 'free riders'. There is another turn; Hillary Clinton renounced support for as new Asian Trade deal. If we recall, even in 2011, the then defence secretary had criticised the role of Nato and other defence pacts terming them as artefact standing there for a reminder of the past. That is why Obama recently asked the EU partners to meet their commitment regarding defence spending.
However, these US sentiments were rejected by European observers, despite the fact that 70% of the Nato's expenditure is paid by the US. Many European policy makers are critical of US policies as according to them, many a times, US does not care about European nations' national interest, and they quote the lukewarm attitude of US in Libya, where the American were hesitant to participate in the war.
It is evident that in many directions American policies are showing sign of retrenchment and retreat, and many quote America's back away policy from the red line in Syria. In these circumstances many want an American President who demonstrates a determined will.
No doubt that Trump intends to take the US to turn inward. He is against many existing alliances and intends to withdraw American's global policy role. Although American military policy makers are against the policy of inward looking and they strongly support the Nato alliance. These policymakers contend that the US bases in Indian Ocean are critical for intelligence gathering on China and Korea, and the bases are needed to control the navigation in the pacific and South China Sea. According to them the bases may also work as deterrent for North Korea.
No doubt important foreign policy issues are being debated vigorously and these include cyber securities problems with China, nuclear issues with Korea, political situation in Eastern Europe including the political dimensions of Russian foreign policy, and the Trade agreements with EU and Pacific Rim countries. Rise and spread of Islamic State is also hotly being debated as it is directly related to the stability in the Middle East and Africa.
The choice of policies for who is elected president will have a huge impact on the Syrian refugee crisis. Tens of thousands of refugees are going to be accepted by Democrats and they will encourage other states to take in and support refugees. Hillary Clinton has proposed to support air power-protected safe zones in Syria to deal with the Middle East crisis. On the other hand Republican candidates would refuse Syrian refugees, and may discourage the creation of safe zones within Syria. They would prefer that states of the region may take in refugees.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are quite united on policy issues relating to Iran. Though they support the Iran nuclear agreement yet they would like it to be implemented with a healthy scepticism of Iran's willingness to comply. And in this regard they would like to enact significant economic sanctions in the event of Iranian violations. In other words they are willing to work to support the existing agreement while the Republicans differ. Republicans say they would renege on the Iran agreement immediately upon taking office and would seek to re-impose the pre-deal sanctions. They intend to increase economic sanctions in order to pressure Iran to change its behaviour. However, the world over demand appears to be that an American President must lead the world by his pragmatic and pro-business approach.
(The writer is an advocate and is currently working as an associate with Azim-ud-Din Law Associates Karachi)