For on the front page of the Times, in an interview on foreign policy, Trump says that, despite our treaty obligations, he would not defend NATO allies from an invasion if they haven’t been reimbursing us for the cost of protecting them; that he would abandon our military bases in Asia; and that he wouldn’t pressure Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to relax his crackdown because “the world looks at how bad the United States is” on civil liberties, too.
Advertisement
Throughout the interview, the Republican presidential nominee seemed to reject core assumptions of U.S. military and foreign policy thinking – including foreign troop deployment and advocating for civil liberties – and argued for an unprecedented global retrenchment, frequently framing his argument in economic terms. He also suggested that the massive expense of maintaining an worldwide order that is contributing to trade losses for the United States “doesn’t sound very smart to me”.
Trump also reiterated to the New York Times that under his presidency, the USA would force allies to shoulder defence costs that the United States has borne for decades.
“You can’t forget the bills”, he said in the interview.
I have often heard that Trump’s danger as a potential president is exaggerated, that the US system runs itself, that checks and balances compensate for leaders’ character deficiencies.
The US, he said, needs to try to “fix our own mess” before coming to the aid of foreign partners.
In talking about USA commitments in Asia, Trump reveals himself as completely ignorant about military matters. “We’re not fighting for one particular candidate or one particular campaign”, Cruz said.
Estonian President, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, took Twitter to state his country had fought “with no caveats” when operating under NATO’s fifth article in Afghanistan.
Noting the United States has always stood by Europe since it was formed as the bedrock of security after World War II, Stoltenberg added, “Two world wars have shown that peace in Europe is also important for the security of the United States”.
Nonetheless, for many people at home and overseas, Donald Trump’s latest remarks are just another proof of how ill-equipped he is to handle America’s foreign policy, and by extension, how ill-suited he is to the job of being the free world’s leader.
Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign was quick to pounce on Trump’s statements.
Would the United States come to the defense of the Baltic States if they were invaded or attacked by Russia, Haberman asks him. “He said… maybe, maybe not”, Clinton said. Harry Truman would be ashamed.
Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump, walks out to the stage to greet Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Gov. Mike Pence of IN during the third day session of the Republican National Convention IN Cleveland, Wednesday, July 20, 2016.
Former Republican rival Senator Lindsey Graham of SC joined the criticism, saying Trump’s remarks made the world more risky and the United States less safe.
He made the comments in an interview with The New York Times on Wednesday, ahead of his speech to formally accept the Republican nomination for president late Thursday. When the Times reporters ask him how he would deal with ISIS, he says that he would get the Turks to do more.
Trump’s comments could cause anxiety among Baltic states, many of which see North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as a key guard against Russian belligerence.
Trump also found a sympathetic ear in Nigel Farage, the former leader of the UK’s Independence Party and one of the most vocal supporters of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union.
Advertisement
“When something says “Nato: secret”, that’s the last bloody thing it is”, he said. We don’t have the Warsaw Pact.
