Following his victories in this week's primaries, Donald Trump provided the first systematic view of his foreign policy. Given that there is a reasonable chance that he will be the Republican nominee, and that he has been constantly underestimated, the possibility of his becoming president can't be dismissed. It may seem unlikely, but everything about Donald Trump this far has been unlikely.
In general, political leaders are extremely limited in the shifts they can implement. However, on occasion, there are fundamental shifts that take place in foreign policy, and presidents can shepherd a nation in the direction it will go anyway, rather than fighting it. The U.S. must execute a major shift in its foreign policy. It cannot maintain a policy in which it is the first responder to a global crisis, but must create coalitions that bear the major burden. I am not arguing that this shift should happen. I am arguing that it will happen. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have shown that the United States' first strategy after it became the sole global power is unsustainable.
The current consensus is to accept the post-Cold War doctrine of the U.S. as both a member of multinational institutions and treaties defining trade, as well as the U.S. using its military power to shape unstable regions. Should he get the nomination, Trump will be challenging that consensus and arguing against multinational agreements that limit American freedom of action and opposing the use of force except in extreme circumstances where victory can be achieved.
In his speech, Trump made a striking statement - that he was not announcing a doctrine. He said that he wanted to maintain maximum freedom of action, and doctrines lock a nation into place. At a time when U.S. doctrine has locked the U.S. into a set of policies on trade, the Middle East and other matters, Trump is not only challenging the doctrine, but taking issues with doctrines themselves.
There would be two ways to present this view, neither of which he used. The first was that doctrines tend to assume a tactical predictability that isn't there, forcing reality to make war with strategy. The second is that predictability in foreign policy gives opponents a tremendous advantage. But Trump's argument means that there is no preconception behind any treaty or intervention. This is a much harder foreign policy to pursue than a doctrinal foreign policy, but it has its advantages.
The single most important statement was that he rejected "the false song of globalism." This is generally a critique of capitalism from the far left. Undoubtedly, he means something different than they do, but in some sense it tends toward that position. He opposes international accords that limit U.S. freedom of action. I assume he means the World Trade Organization and other multilateral trade organizations and agreements that limit U.S. options. But Trump could also mean military agreements that lock the U.S. into certain relations and actions. That would include NATO, which compels action under certain circumstances. This argument is consistent with his previous criticism of NATO.
Trump also said that he would refuse to send U.S. forces into battle unless they were absolutely necessary, in the American interest and intended toward a military victory. The most important issue would be defining American interests. Trump just said that the United States must not lose sight of its core interests. If this means anything, it means that intervention in a country must be for the sake of the United States, narrowly defined.
Perhaps the most interesting part of Trump's speech was his discussion of bargaining, claiming that his experience in business will help him in foreign policy. This has been dismissed by many, but when you think about it many of those who dismissed it place a premium on diplomacy. Diplomacy is bargaining in international affairs. I doubt that skills in one are easily transferrable to the other, but at the same time, Trump's claims on the importance of bargaining can be simply translated as a commitment to diplomacy. His claim that the U.S.-Chinese relationship can improve with hard bargaining is simply saying that we should engage in diplomacy.
When we step back, what Trump has argued for is a much more limited commitment to the world, particularly when it comes to commitments that are institutionalized in multinational organizations or in bilateral treaties that commit the U.S. to particular action. He has also made the argument that the burden of war ought to be borne by those directly concerned, with the U.S. intervening only when it is in its core interest, when the point of intervention can be defined and where the forces deployed are sufficient.
All of the post-World War II and post-Cold War foreign policy has been built around the principle of economic integration and free trade, while the military side has been built around alliances and bilateral commitments. This has been doctrine. Trump rejects both the doctrine and the idea of doctrine, in favor of defined and limited interests. His intention is to limit American exposure, except where there is advantage.
Whatever happens to Trump, he has in my mind laid out a foreign policy that is likely to be implemented by some future president, if not himself. The ideas of free trade as an absolute principle, of oversight by international organizations and of open-ended military alliances, are now over 60 years old. It is a set of doctrines created when the world was a very different place. It is unlikely to be sustainable as a doctrine for much longer. This is not isolationism. It is a more flexible involvement with the world.
I don't intend to vote for Donald Trump. But I don't intend to vote for Hillary Clinton either. Which puts me in a personal quandary. What is apparent to me, however, is that if this election is between Clinton and Trump, basic principles of foreign policy that have been in place since the end of World War II will be at stake.