Experts, policy makers, and the international community had mixed reactions to a foreign policy speech given by Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Wednesday that called for modernization of the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal and a rebuilding of the U.S.-Russian relationship based on shared interests.
In an address delivered in Washington, D.C., Trump called the Obama administration’s foreign policy “reckless, rudderless, and aimless,” as well as “a complete and total disaster.” He said his “America first” foreign policy “replaces randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy, and chaos with peace.”
Trump emphasized rebuilding the U.S. military as a priority, particularly in light of expanded Russian and Chinese military capabilities. “Our nuclear weapons arsenal, our ultimate deterrent, has been allowed to atrophy and is desperately in need of modernization and renewal, and it has to happen immediately,” he said, although he did not outline specific plans to this end.
The billionaire drew criticism from across the political spectrum and abroad earlier this month when he suggested Japan and South Korea be allowed to develop nuclear weapons rather than the United States continue to pay to cover them with its defense umbrella.
Criticizing defense budget cuts, Trump on Wednesday also said U.S. military dominance “must be unquestioned . . . by anybody and everybody.” He later said he would not hesitate to deploy military force as a last resort, “but if America fights, it must only fight to win.”
Miles Pomper, senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said by email that Trump’s approach on nuclear modernization is in line with that of the other Republican candidates, but that “one wonders why he thinks we need to modernize the arsenal if we’re going to stop offering a nuclear umbrella to countries like Japan and South Korea.”
“I think some modernization is likely to continue no matter who is elected president – particularly for nuclear-armed submarines. The real questions are likely to center around whether to go forward with a new air launched nuclear-armed cruise missile – the Long-Range Standoff Weapon and possibly cuts to ICBMs,” Pomper said.
Robbie Gramer, associate director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, objected to Trump’s characterization of the current state of the U.S. deterrent and said that nuclear modernization would likely continue under the administration of most of the current presidential candidates. Even so, he said by email, future spending on modernization may change not only due to debates on the long-term costs, but also because “modernizing nuclear forces is not a one-presidency process – it will take upwards of 30 years.”
On the U.S.-Russian Relationship
Speaking a day after sweeping five Republican primaries, Trump also expressed a desire “to live peacefully and in friendship” with countries often considered by U.S. political leaders as adversaries: Russia and China. Despite “serious differences” with those nations, he said, “we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests.” In the case of Russia, these shared concerns include “the horror of Islamic terrorism,” he said.
“I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only, is possible, absolutely possible,” Trump said. “Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility, must end, and ideally will end soon – good for both countries.” Highlighting the role of negotiation in the rebuilding of the bilateral relationship, Trump said he would still be willing to “quickly walk from the table” in the absence of agreements that are beneficial to both countries. Observers, though, noted the significant differences between diplomacy and the business deal making.
Pomper said rebuilding the U.S.-Russian relationship would be very difficult and require patience, as “the differences between the countries are real and deep.” The relationship between the two countries, at odds since Russia’s incursion into Crimea, have deteriorated over the past few years. Citing the Iran nuclear deal and removal of Syria’s chemical weapon arsenal, Pomper said that nonproliferation and nuclear security have proven to be areas of ongoing cooperation despite the tensions. Gramer agreed on the difficulties that rebuilding the relationship would pose. “It would take concerted effort at the highest levels of the US government to warm Congress, the interagency, and a number of European allies to the idea,” he said.
On NATO
Trump cited five weaknesses in current U.S. foreign policy: that resources are overextended due to wasteful spending and massive debt; that U.S. allies “are not paying their fair share” for their own defense; that some allies no longer see the U.S. as a reliable partner; that rivals no longer respect the U.S.; and that the country has lacked a coherent foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.
Trump said U.S. allies are not honoring their agreements, citing NATO as an example. He said that “only four of 28 other [NATO] member countries besides America are spending the minimum required 2 percent of GDP on defense,” and that if allies fail to contribute, “the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves; we have no choice.” Based on the latest report on NATO defense expenditures by the end of 2015, the four other countries that meet the 2 percent threshold are the United Kingdom, Poland, Greece, and Estonia. Trump said that as president he would call a summit for NATO members to discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments and the institution’s mission.
“It is very improbable that the United States would actually withdraw from NATO under a Trump presidency,” Gramer said. “Regardless of how our allies share the burden, it would be logistically impossible for the US to carry out any military operations in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, or elsewhere without the United States’ extensive basing and military infrastructure in Europe as a jumping off point.”
The NATO mission wouldn’t change either, he added, since the other members would consider “deterring Russia and protecting against terrorist threats as a top priority . . . regardless of who is US president.” However, a Trump presidency that calls for a stronger U.S.-Russian relationship might weaken NATO’s extended deterrence, he said, as “this may signal to President Putin that he could ramp up aggression against NATO’s eastern members without fear of a strong reprisal from the United States.”
Pomper said Trump is correct to point out disproportionate U.S. funding for NATO, “but it’s not clear if his approach will change things.” He said that at the upcoming NATO summit in Poland this summer, “the alliance is expected to support increased rotational deterrents of conventional forces but probably won’t make any substantial changes to the nuclear element of extended deterrence,” and that as long as the U.S.-Russian standoff continues, the incoming U.S. administration “may be faced with calls to deploy newer nuclear weapons (such as the LRSO) and permanently station troops.”
“Based on his rhetoric, one would guess he would be less inclined to support that, although the shallowness of his views makes any such predictions hazardous,” Pomper added.
Mixed Reactions
Trump noted that unlike other presidential candidates – presumably referring to his more hawkish rival Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) – “war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are really, truly signs of strength.” He repeatedly stressed a noninterventionist approach to global engagement, arguing that under his administration the U.S. would no longer engage in nation-building, but rather on creating stability worldwide. “The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies; that we are always happy when old enemies become friends, and when old friends become allies,” he said. “That’s what we want.”
Internationally, media have reported that while some current and former officials in allied governments, including those of Germany and South Korea, criticized the “America first” approach and what they see as an isolationist policy, politicians in Russia took a more positive approach toward what they consider a chance for Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to work together. Meanwhile in the U.S., former Secretary of state Madeleine Albright on Twitter called Trump’s approach “bellicose rhetoric strung together with contradictory statements,” while Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) praised the speech during media interviews as “a major step forward.”
In a statement following the speech, Cruz demanded that Trump “confirm or deny reports in the media that others in the Washington Cartel’s industry of foreign policy for personal gain were involved in the drafting of this address.” Charging that Trump “fails the presidential test,” Cruz said “he is now the foreign policy candidate of the Washington lobbyists,” someone who “is never going to fight the system.” Meanwhile, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in a prepared statement called Trump a “foreign policy novice” and criticized past statements that expressed support for Japan and South Korea developing their own nuclear arsenals, his praise of Putin’s leadership, and his challenging of the role of NATO.
