Trump challenges interventionist policy of US neocons: Scholar

Donald Trump is challenging the Republican neocon establishment and Bernie Sanders the Democratic neoliberal establishment on foreign policy because they know that US policy of interventionism and regime change is counterproductive and unaffordable, says Professor Dennis Etler, an American political analyst who has a decades-long interest in international affairs.

Etler, a professor of Anthropology at Cabrillo College in Aptos, California, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Tuesday commenting on Trump’s recent statement in which he said the US cannot always “be the policeman of the world.”

The Republican presidential frontrunner told The New York Times on Saturday that, if elected, he would consider allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals instead of depending on America’s “severely depleted” military for their protection against North Korea and China.

Trump added the US military cannot protect Japan and South Korea for a long time. “There’ll be a point at which we’re just not going to be able to do it anymore.”

He also criticized America’s 1951 security agreement with Japan, officially known as the Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan.

“If we are attacked, they don’t have to do anything,” Trump said. “If they’re attacked, we have to go out with full force… That’s a pretty one-sided agreement, right there.”

The billionaire businessman from New York went on to say that he would consider withdrawing American forces from Japan and South Korea if these countries do not increase their own contributions significantly.

Interventionism has failed

Professor Etler said America’s policy of interventionism has failed. “Both its neocon and neoliberal iterations have spun out of control and created such an array of contradictions, both foreign and domestic, that some within the US power elite see the writing on the wall.”

“Blindly continuing on the same path could eventually lead to ruin. That is where the insurgent candidacies of Trump and Sanders come into play. In foreign policy Trump challenges the Republican neocon establishment and Sanders the Democratic neoliberal establishment,” he stated.

“Both have objections to direct US military interventions and the policy of regime change as being counterproductive and unaffordable, taking away from the US its ability to address domestic needs,” he added.

“Of the two Sanders' foreign policy is the least iconoclastic. His policies towards Russia and China are a carbon copy of Obama's and Clinton's. He accuses both countries of aggression, Russia in Ukraine and China in the South China Sea, and advocates the imposition of economic sanctions and embargoes against both in response. Sanders is also a firm advocate of Hillary Clinton's dictum of 'lead from behind,' which entails the use of US surrogates to be in the front lines in pursuit of US imperialist objectives in the Middle East and elsewhere,” the analyst continued.  

Trump, critic of prevailing US policy

“Trump has a more thorough going critique of US foreign policy. He has condemned previous US policies and actions, such as the bombing of Serbia and the ousting of strongmen who combated terrorists in Iraq and Libya. He also talks of cooperation with Russia in fighting the terrorist threat in Syria and elsewhere,” Professor Etler said.

“These positions are in direct contradiction to the prevailing foreign policy of the previous US administrations. He also wants to delegate responsibility for responding to regional conflicts to the countries directly affected. NATO and defense pacts with Japan and South Korea are lambasted as being disadvantageous to US financial interests,” he noted.

“He states that countries like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea have taken advantage of US weakness and as a result the US has been outmaneuvered on the ground and in negotiations,” the commentator said.

“Many would dispute those assertions. It seems as if Trump either has little idea of US strategic planning or the geopolitical realities that have prompted Russian actions in Ukraine and Chinese actions on the Korean peninsula, the East China Sea and the South China Sea,” Professor Etler argued.

“Trump's foreign policy consists primarily of bluff and bluster. His suggestion, allowing Japan and South Korea to possess nuclear arms to deter North Korea would be seen by China as a direct threat to its vital national security interests and would provoke a severe reaction. It is extremely naive to think that China would ever allow the arming of Japan with nuclear weapons or that North Korea would not respond harshly to South Korea having them as well,” he pointed out.

From interventionism to brinkmanship

“Trump would also prod countries in other regions to respond more aggressively to localized conflicts and to not necessarily rely on US backing. This in and of itself would seem to be a welcome retreat of US power but many regional conflicts were initiated by US attempts to project itself into areas of vital concern to other countries such as Russia and China, for example the expansion of NATO to Russia's borders and the Asian Pivot to China's proximity, initiated by Obama,” Professor Etler stated. “Will Trump reverse these policies?”

“Trump in his response to foreign policy issues raised by interviewers seems on many occasions to be ‘winging it,’ having contradictory opinions that appear to be based on a lack of clear knowledge. His natural response is to try and extract as many concessions as possible from opponents before ‘making a deal,’” he observed.

“In the world of realpolitik this amounts to brinkmanship, a tactic of pushing a conflict to its limits in order to persuade one's opposition to retreat. It is a prescription for exacerbating tensions not reducing them and its unpredictability could lead to greater rather than lesser regional and global instability. Trump's ultimate goal is not to accept the US as one nation amongst equals, but to ‘make America great again.’ That is, he still wants the US to be top dog, it's just a question of how to do it,” the scholar concluded. 

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk