I have followed the
American presidential primary election that is currently ongoing and nearing
its terminal end in June, 2016. At institutional level, it basically involves
the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. While the Democratic Party has and
profess many shades of liberalism, the Republican Party is more conservative in
its orientations and inward looking. The ideological posture of each party is
often expected to be imbibed and reflected in the manifestoes of its
candidates. The end product of such ideological orientation is often seen in
the domestic and foreign policies of each incumbent American president.
At the individual
level, right from the beginning of this electoral cycle, the number of
candidates in the Republican Party was more than those in the Democratic Party
with attendant implications for cohesion, party unity and discipline. While initially
there was no front runner in the Republican Party, the situation was different
in Democratic Party where Mrs Hillary Clinton was a clear favourite by a mile
over other contenders, including Mr Bernie Sanders from beginning.
However, with the
contest almost over, two clear front runners have emerged in form of the America’s
former first lady, who was also former Secretary of State and a former Senator
representing New York in time past. That is Mrs Hillary Clinton. On the other
side of the political and ideological divide, is a New York billionaire with
many business interests spawning different strata of the society. He is Mr
Donald Trump. While, Mrs Clinton might be seen as a woman, liked abroad given
her stint as Secretary of State and mostly unlikeable by a section of American
voters, particularly white males; Mr Trump is brash, verbose and conceited with
deep notions of America being first and becoming great again. He is also widely
despised, unlikeable and deeply offends the sensibilities of many American
minorities, women and college graduates. His constant refrain to make America
great again might be a political slogan but might also mean something deeper
that would shape and influence American foreign policy and of course, shape
world history in ways unforeseen if he is elected America’s president. For now, what that slogan and refrain means is
open to speculations and conjectures.
However, of concern to
this analysis is what do these two disparate individuals bring to the table in
terms of America’s foreign policy towards Africa in particular and the world in
general? This question is germane as the two gladiators pivot towards claiming
their respective parties’ nomination as flagbearers. Their respective world
view and foreign policy positions would definitely shape, alter and set new
course for the structure of international system. That is why it is comical, if
not laughable when some commentators argue that what is the business of
Nigerians and Africans about the American Presidential Elections. Let’s be
clear. America’s business is world business as they possess the greatest known
amount of technological and nuclear armaments, one of the largest economies,
one of the best and ubiquitous secret service, a major superpower and a
dominant force in the security council of the United Nations, apart from being
able to influence, prop-up and topple
governments around world. It’s a realism that any sovereign state would ignore
at its peril. Even the low price of crude oil and its attendant disarticulation
of the Nigerian economy being presently encountered, is a by-product of and
traceable to American foreign policy objectives to punish and whip into line,
the Russians! Thus, we refer to domestic and foreign policies of Mrs Clinton
and Mr Trump as Clintonism and Trumpism respectively. It is the business of
NIIA and other similar institutions in Nigeria and around the world to study
and do a critical appraisal of these two individuals and their unfolding
policies.
Thus, the question
subsist. What foreign policy objectives will be pursued when any of these two
individuals come to power? To answer this question, it is necessary to state
that individuals, whether president or not, do not singularly determines
foreign policy objectives in America. A lot of institutions, including the
Military Industrial Complex, Security Organizations, the Law Making Body and
other sundry institutions have and do play a role in shaping America’s foreign
policy objectives. But foreign policy objectives, as it is well known in
international relations parlance, is often tailored to reflect the thinking and
vision of the new players and power brokers in town, which in this case, ceteris paribus, is likely to be either
Mrs Clinton or Mr Trump. Thus, it is necessary to analyse the comments, views
and vision statement of both on the likely shape and direction of America’s
domestic and foreign policy.
A close look at Mr
Trump’s comments and views, especially is vision and mission statement on
America’s foreign policy shows a likely withdrawal of America’s investment,
material and otherwise, from numerous commitments around the world. His concept
of ‘America first’ and make ‘America great again’ could be a prelude to
principle of isolationism, that is this context, positive isolation of America
from world politics. Of course, such actions and foreign policy objectives have
security and regime stability implications for many governments around the
world. In particular, the underbelly of Western Europe would be exposed as
there is likely to be Russian aggression towards the Balkan States inclusive of
Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Asia is likely to witness a lot of upheavals that
might permanently reshape that region.
In Africa, there is
tendency for murderous gangs, terrorist organizations and other anti-state
elements to capitalise on the vacuum likely to be created if Trumpism policies are
implemented as laid out in his foreign policy speech. Of course, the Middle
East would literally be turned into a battle ground as competing spheres of
influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia might spiral out of control. Even a
small implementation of Trumpism being implemented by Obama has achieved a
similar scenario described above. This is not to say Obama’s indecision and
refusal to act in committing America to act is the same as Donald Trump foreign
policy of isolationism. That refusal to act is what is evident in the near
collapse of the state in Syria and ongoing turmoil in Middle East. Moreover, Asia
would witness an arms and nuclear race if Mr Trump make good his promise to
encourage Japan and South Korea to possess nuclear weapons. Under that possibility,
Asia would become highly unstable and volatile. It should, however be noted that Trumpism
would be a disaster as well domestically.
In terms of Aids and
Loans, Africa countries are likely to face much hardship. Countries like
Burundi and a host of others including Nigeria that regularly receives alms,
aids and such like should start preparing and adjusting. Trumpism as a foreign
policy is most likely to also affect migration as the rules would become
tighter; civil societies would get less funding from international donor
agencies; terms, balance and volume of trade are more than likely to be in
favour of America than it currently is. The prognosis of Donald Trump or
Trumpism as America’s foreign policy objectives does not sound or look good for
Africa, especially for those steeped in America’s largesse and aid. All these
is evident in the way Mr Trump view and speak about Africa’s rulers. But on the
other hand, it might help a number of African countries to look inward and wean
themselves from the age-long and often slavish relationship between the US and
their countries. But one thing is certain, there is likely to be more America’s
foreign policy somersaults if Mr Trump becomes America’s president.
For Mrs Clinton, the
difference might just be more of form than substance. Even though her foreign
policy speech was more matured and tempered, she is not likely to be much
different from Mr Trump in terms of foreign policy objectives. While she is
likely to maintain traditional ties and not adopt isolationist policies, she is
likely to be firm in some cases and less firm in others depending on time and
interest as it relates to America. The danger for Africa regimes and economies
is still the same, even though less under Clinton. Under Clinton presidency,
Europe and Asia would still be safe as it is under Mr Obama, while Middle East
would remain at its current level given its problems are seemingly intractable,
except Mrs Clinton reads the situation carefully and act decisively.
It should be noted,
that why there won’t be much difference between Clintonism and Trumpism is the
ongoing America’s economic realities of not being able to shoulder its enormous
responsibilities and pay for its commitments around the world. To be and act as
the world policeman comes with many challenges
that is increasingly difficult for America to bear alone. That economic realism
coupled with domestic demands is beginning to reshape America’s foreign policy
and there is ongoing internal fervour to rein in spending to take care of
millions Americans who are destitute and repair broken down infrastructures in
America’s cities. With this in mind, Europe will pay a higher share of the cost,
Africa will receive less in terms of attention, aid and loans, while Asia too
will contribute a token whether it is Mrs Clinton (Clintonism) or Mr Trump
(Trumpism) or anyone for that matter, as America, or more appropriately, America’s
foreign policy is entering a new phase post Obama.
Olugbemiga Afolabi
Comments
Post a Comment