hankyoreh

Donald Trump

Donald Trump unveiled a foreign policy vision on Apr. 27 in which US allies in Europe and Asia would be asked to pay a larger share of defense costs.

Trump, who is currently in the lead to win the Republican Party nomination in this year’s US presidential election, shared his vision in a foreign policy speech titled “America First” in Washington, DC.

In the speech, Trump asserted that US allies were “not paying their fair share.”

“Our allies must contribute toward their financial, political, and human costs . . . [toward] our tremendous security burden,” he added.

“[I]f not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. We have no choice,” he continued.

Apart from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Trump’s speech did not single out South Korea, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, or any of the other countries he has accused in the past of being “free riders” in security terms. But his remarks do appear to apply to South Korea. While it currently pays defense contributions of close to one trillion won (US$880 million) a year for the stationing of US Forces Korea (USFK), Trump has dismissed the amount in the past as minor. Trump also went further in saying that allies unwilling to pay more should be prepared to meet their own defense needs - hinting at a possible USFK withdrawal.

Doing so would upend the foreign policy focus tacitly agreed on by both progressives and conservatives in the US: maintaining military influence through the continued stationing of troops abroad, while allies are asked to contribute more toward stationing costs. In suggesting that the US may forfeit its hegemonic status based on military strength, Trump’s remarks could be called the epitome of isolationism.

For now, it remains unclear whether the threat of withdrawing US forces is meant to negotiate larger defense contributions from allies or actually represents a viable alternative. But even that threat of a USFK withdrawal or reduction could trigger a crisis in South Korea and leave it facing a huge defense cost burden if Trump does win the presidency.

Trump’s speech made no reference to the recent controversy over whether South Korea and Japan should be allowed to arm themselves with nuclear weapons - perhaps a reflection of the intense criticism the idea has received from Washington diplomats and allies. But with such permissions within the realm of possibility as an extreme example of countries taking defense into their own hands, the controversy is far from fully put to rest.

In terms of North Korea policy, Trump emphasized the role of Beijing in “controlling” Pyongyang as an extension of the isolationist or non-interventionist approach. In that sense, his North Korea policy vision is little different from the current Barack Obama administration’s. At the same time, Trump criticized Obama’s approach.

“President Obama watches helplessly as North Korea increases its aggression and expands further and further with its nuclear reach,” he said.

“With [the US’s] economic power [over China], we can rein in and we can get them to do what they have to do with North Korea, which is totally out of control,” he asserted.

Other sections of the speech similarly highlighted an isolationist approach to foreign policy.

“I will never sent our finest [troops] into battle unless necessary, and I mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital V,” Trump said.

Trump also stressed the power of the US in response to the threat posed by the group Islamic State (IS).

“ISIS will be gone if I’m elected president,” he declared. “And they’ll be gone quickly.”

But in terms of specific methods for achieving that, he emphasized the “philosophical struggle” over the use of military force.

While Trump’s foreign policy vision has been blasted by expert groups, it does appear likely to appeal to voters. To a US public weary from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump’s message reads as a promise not to become involved in additional conflicts, while at the same time tapping rhetorically into nostalgia for past hegemony and stressing the return of US might. In that sense, it is not a speech that can be simply ignored.

By Yi Yong-in, Washington correspondent

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]