Looking Past 2016: East Asia & Oceania in US Foreign Policy
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have raised a number of issues related to the Asia-Pacific region during their campaigns for the 2016 presidential election. Should they choose to pursue their announced policies as president, many of them will have long-lasting implications for the United States and the entire world. Whether regarding the future extent of American military presence within allied nations, North Korea and its nuclear weapons, or economic policies toward China, Trump and Clinton do not share much common ground. This article therefore provides an overview of their conflicting views regarding the United States sentiments in the region.
American Bases in Japan and South Korea
Since World War II, the United States has had substantial military presence in the Asia- Pacific region, especially in Japan and South Korea. Its military bases, however, have been a topic of contention. The tensions are only worsening as scandals break out, such as the drunk driving charges on an American sailor in Japan. With regard to the future extent of American military might in the region, the two presidential candidates have quite contrasting plans.
Donald Trump has long promised to end the United States’ role as the world’s policeman, seeing the obligation as wasteful and expensive. At Hofstra University, Trump said, “We cannot protect countries all over the world… where they’re not paying us what we need.” In the context of American military bases stationed in Japan and South Korea, he would either like to dismantle them or negotiate for more favorable deals. Trump has claimed that Japan, an economic “behemoth… with the cars and everything,” does not respect or take care of American financial interests. Similarly, he views military bases on South Korea as a dangerous investment, because “there is no guarantee we will have peace.” Faced with military tension increasing on the Korean Peninsula, Trump asked, “what are we getting out of [American bases]?”
Hillary Clinton’s plan seems to involve prioritizing diplomacy and soft power over outright military growth, but that does not mean that she is against using military force. She has repeatedly adopted more hawkish positions than her campaign opponent. While Trump has indicated that he is willing to back out of many United States commitments abroad, Clinton has remained unwavering in her plan to focus on small-scale global interventions, which will involve keeping the country’s current commitments and possibly entering additional conflicts. Many foreign nations thus favor Clinton over Trump. For example, South Korea has expressed its support for Clinton’s plan to strengthen the U.S.-Japan-South Korea alliance in order to offset the threat of China. A decrease in the number of military personnel stationed at Japan and South Korea, therefore, does not seem to be on her agenda.
North Korea and Nuclear Proliferation
Early in October, North Korea launched its second missile, the most recent sign of the country’s expansion of its nuclear program. Though the test failed, it represents a key tension facing East Asia: as North Korea grows more belligerent, South Korea and Japan have taken steps for their own national security to build their own Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) capabilities. But the threat of its enemies obtaining a powerful American anti-ballistic missile system has only prompted more threats from North Korea, and China has also reacted negatively to South Korea’s deployment of THAAD technology. While the Obama Administration promises unwavering support for Japan and South Korea, many analysts and journalists question how dedicated America will remain to its East Asian partners.
Trump considers the military tests evidence of Hillary Clinton’s failings as Secretary of State. Trump has not offered an obvious policy platform regarding North Korea, but has claimed that Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un “wouldn’t do what he’s done now” and will know that Americans “aren’t messing around.” While his views on nuclear proliferation have flip-flopped, Trump currently seems to favor South Korea and Japan developing a program of their own to combat the North’s aggression. Even though he has claimed a nuclear arms race would pose the biggest problem for his administration, he believes that if America’s Asian allies want to use these weapons for self-defense, the world “may very well be better off.”
However, Trump does have some some staunch allies in East Asia: North Korea recently endorsed the candidate as a “prescient choice.”
Similar to Trump, Clinton plans to urge China to put more pressure on North Korea to stop its nuclear weapons program. Where the two candidates differ would be the commitment they expect from the United States’ allies in the region. While Trump maintains that South Korea and Japan should contribute more resources to curtail North Korea’s nuclear program, Clinton has expressed more willingness to invest in the alliance. Rather than saying that the United States should back out of the region, her plans include increasing American presence by strengthening the U.S. ballistic missile shield with South Korea and Japan. She has also indicated that she is against nuclear proliferation in the Asia-Pacific region, and thus will not support the idea of South Korea and Japan developing their own nuclear weapons.
Economic Policies Toward China
China is not a country that either candidates can ignore during their campaigns. Most issues in the U.S.-China relationship arise from the two countries’ economic interactions. As China’s increased global presence continues to impact the U.S. economy, the two candidates have proposed opposing economic policies toward the world’s second largest economy.
On the campaign trail, Trump has painted China as a country that unfairly manipulates its currency and steals jobs from American workers. If elected, Trump suggested imposing a 45 percent trade tariff. According to Kevin Lai, an economist for Daiwai Capital Markets, this would “be highly contradictory,” prompting a global economic downturn and a potential trade war. While Trump has since clarified that the tariff does not need to reach 45 percent, he has promised to punish China in some way for siphoning American jobs. Experts agree that trade barriers like this would hurt mostly working-class families domestically, without having as large of an effect in China. They also remain skeptical about how he would establish such a tariff, because existing trade laws can only apply to specific imports.
According to analysts Kevin Lai and Olivia Xia from Daiwa Capital Markets, "relative to Barack Obama, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have a more hawkish view on a wide range of China issues.” Trump seems to take a more aggressive stance, even going as far as to call China a currency manipulator. But Clinton’s views have indicated that if she wins the presidency, she will not merely pursue the kind of U.S.-China relationship that the Bush and Obama administrations did. During their presidencies, they tried to ease tensions rather than aggravate them. Clinton has repeatedly expressed her desire to be more tough on trade deals with China. Although she most likely will not impose tariffs as high as Trump’s suggested ones, even a small increase in trade barriers will have extensive implications for China’s economic growth.
This article is part of a special Caravel series about how foreign policy proposals by the US presidential nominees will affect the regions that make up our sections. Foreign policy implications for other sections are available below: