An article from the think tank German Institute for International Security Affairs highlights the importance of the upcoming U.S. presidential election on international affairs and foreign policy, warning Germany and the EU should “prepare themselves for louder calls from Washington to demonstrate greater commitment to the preservation of international order and to make greater contributions.”
In their article, US Foreign Policy after the 2016 Elections: Presidential Contenders' Opposing Concepts and Domestic Political Dynamics, authors Marco Overhaus and Lars Brozus discuss the different world-affairs ideals of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. “Clinton champions a liberal international order, to the preservation of which the USA is dedicating significant resources, while Trump is putting his chips on 'America first.'” But the authors assert that future foreign-policy decisions will not be shaped solely by the ideals of whichever candidate wins the election but also by shifts in policy by the two political parties, which, according to the authors, are “realigning their policies in order to accommodate the preferences of important voter groups. Processes of social transformation, including demographic change, the greater politicization of minorities and growing social inequality are forcing both parties to remobilize sections of the electorate and get new ones on board.”
The authors argue U.S. foreign policy, since World War II, has been “liberal internationalism” - meaning liberal international order (a network of inter- and multinational norms, regulations, and institutions) is in America's interest. According to the authors, “Clinton embodies this consensus,” as evident, among numerous actions, by her championing as secretary of state the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
By contrast, the authors argue, Trump is pursuing a foreign policy “in which international relations [is] a zero-sum game, [meaning] USA neglects its own security if it supports the security of other countries.” The continue: “Trump wishes to use international politics to push through 'better deals,' The allies in Europe and Asia should pay more for their security, and the USA should no longer be disadvantaged by international agreements.”
But the authors say Trump is not “an isolationist,” because he says he intends to increase U.S. military funding and “take extreme action against the 'Islamic State' and other terror organizations - and … without concern for the standards of international law.”
The authors end by positing three possible scenarios:
Scenario 1 - Trump wins the election: He “would implement his foreign policy agenda … [to] increase the pressure on the allies, demanding greater financial contribution from them; … would condemn … the unfair valuation of the Chinese currency, and threaten punitive tariffs; … [and] would attempt to back out of international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. His critics on both sides of the Atlantic would hope that he would be restrained by the system of checks and balances in place in the U.S. political system.”
Scenario 2 - Clinton wins, Trump disappears: “Clinton is widely regarded as a hawk as far as security and defense policy is concerned … [probably would] adhere to several key aspects of her predecessor's foreign policy while simultaneously displaying fewer reservations about deploying the U.S. military in international crisis regions than [President Barack] Obama. Her foreign policy would reflect the vision of international liberalism.”
Scenario 3 - Clinton wins, and both parties orient themselves to the expectations of remobilized sections of the electorate: “Clinton's foreign policy will become less internationalist and less interventionist” to align with the Democratic electorate's focus on the domestic agenda and the Republican electorate's focus on stronger domestic orientation and a stricter foreign policy alignment to U.S. national economic interests.