Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner, delivered his first foreign policy speech in Washington DC, at the Mayflower Hotel, on Wednesday, 27 April. It came after he secured 954 delegates out of the 1,237 needed to secure the nomination of the Republican Party in the US presidential elections in November. It was an opportunity for the frontrunner to look “presidential” by seriously tackling the outlines of his foreign policy in case he gets elected. From the beginning of the campaign trail, Trump has concentrated on domestic issues and on criticising his political opponents, whether in his own Republican camp, or those in the Democratic Party. He previously addressed the annual meeting of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), but on such occasions what is said in support of Israel is nothing but rhetoric aimed at assuring the support of millions of Jewish votes in elections. The main purpose of Trump's Washington speech was to reassure the leaders of the Republican Party and the American people that if he becomes the next occupant of the White House, the foreign policy of the United States would be in safe hands. This exercise on his part was all the more important because the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, is a former secretary of state, has had a larger and more important international exposure, and has a greater understanding of American relations with the outside world. Trump wanted to send a message to the effect that he would strive to restore American prestige and influence in the world after the two terms of President Barack Obama. Also, Trump wanted to speak directly to the experts at various influential Washington think tanks that have an enormous impact on the formulation of American foreign policy. His previous efforts to reassure them had mixed results. His main theme was related to his campaign slogan, “America First”. In this context, he attacked globalisation, saying, “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism.” He specifically mentioned NATO, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and American alliances in the Asia-Pacific as worthy of re-evaluation. He was referring, of course, to the Trans-Pacific Partnership that brings together 11 countries in East Asia and the Pacific, including the United States, which is considered the cornerstone of Obama's strategy of “pivoting” towards Asia. It is very difficult to imagine how a Republican administration under Trump could go back on such an agreement. As far as NAFTA is concerned, he described it as a “total disaster for the United States and has emptied our states of our manufacturing and our jobs”. This is the kind of talk that has resonance with the unemployed and the average American, and that could get votes, but is highly unlikely to get implemented once in office. Needless to say, the thirteenth round of negotiations between the United States and the European Union is expected to open soon, and President Obama would like to affix his signature to furthering NAFTA before he leaves office in January. Furthermore, Trump accused America's allies of “not paying their fair share. They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honour their agreements with us.” He added that a Trump administration would “lead a free world that is properly armed and funded and funded beautifully”. He contended that the current international architecture forces the United States to rethink its global strategy. Reactions to the Mayflower speech were mixed on both sides of the political spectrum in the United States. The harshest came from within the Republican camp. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had this to say about the speech: “It was pathetic in its content and it was scary in terms of its construct. Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave after this speech.” Conservative writer Jennifer Rubin claimed it was riddled with internal contradictions, “paranoia” and a “toxic brew of protectionism and isolationism”. Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, an ex-Republican presidential candidate, thought that a lot of the speech “talked about a pullback and a sense of ‘America First' and unwillingness to engage except under certain conditions. But at the same time, how we are going to end [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] immediately?” The most positive comments from within the Republican Party came from Newt Gingrich (R-Ga), the former speaker of the House of Representatives, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2012. “Elites have to attack Trump's foreign speech because he is challenging their core values and failures,” he said. “To them, it contains dangerous ideas.” Ann Coulter, a prominent pundit, said that “a candidate not living in the 1980s” had finally arrived. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats came down hard on the speech. Their main point of attack was Trump's slogan, “America First”. Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, said, “Maybe he never read history or he does not understand it. But he clearly did not understand what the America Firsters used to talk about was that there was not any Nazi threat to American interests.” Senator Tim Caine (D-Va) echoed, on his part, what Albright said. He stressed that if “you don't know enough history to know that that was the movement that tried to keep America out of World War II ... that is almost a disqualifier right there.” On the whole, the critics of Trump have derided his vision as isolationist and a dramatic break from foreign policy orthodoxy, but his supporters praise his willingness to buck decades of mainstream thought. I would tend to believe that the most reasoned comment on the Mayflower speech by the Republican frontrunner came from Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He described the speech as a “very good foreign policy speech”. He added that he is looking forward to “hearing more details, but in a year where angry rhetoric has defined the presidential race on both sides of the aisle, it is my hope that candidates in both parties will begin focussing not only on the problems we face but on solutions. I believe today's speech could be an important step in that direction.” One comment that Trump made that was very significant in his attack on the foreign policy of the Obama administration concerned the former president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak. He believes it was a grave mistake to push Mubarak out of power the way it was done. It would be very interesting to see how Clinton would answer to that, given the fact that she was secretary of state when the Obama administration rode, for reasons unconvincing, the wave of the so-called “Arab Spring”. Will a Trump administration show resolve and muscle in dealing with the destructive outcome of this “Spring”? That is a big question mark. Judging from the Mayflower speech, it would not be a surprise if the United States, under a Trump presidency, would show more understanding to Arab realities, and recognise that democratic orders should not be imposed by force of arms. The writer is former assistant to the foreign minister.
