Editor’s note:  Dr. Terry F. Buss, a fellow at the U.S. National Academy of Public Administration, discusses the foreign policies Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have made in their campaigns in this last article of the six-story series.

>> Part 1: What politicians, American people think about Trump

>> Part 2: Why Republican establishment, Democrats may support Trump

>> Part 3: Looking into Trump’s policy stew, tactical skills

>> Part 4: Charismatic leadership

>> Part 5: The third party

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are running against one another for president, but in spite of the importance of Vietnam and China to the U.S., both candidates have said little about the foreign policy issues. What they have said is not particularly encouraging.

Retreat on trade

Trump and Clinton have come out against the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) initiative that unites 12 Asian Pacific nations, including Vietnam, in a free trade agreement. The TPP, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s legacy, greatly favors Vietnam by reducing tariffs and other trade barriers with the U.S. and other nations. TPP would raise Vietnam’s GDP growth by 1 or 2 percent, or more. China is not a signatory on TPP, but has not ruled out joining in the future.

Trump in his campaign speeches and on his website “calls out” China and Vietnam, along with Japan, India and Mexico, for “stealing American jobs;” exploiting workers with low wages and ignoring the environment; and in China’s case using currency manipulation to gain trade advantages. Trump accuses the Obama administration of negotiating a TPP which is bad for the U.S. because it will cost Americans jobs. Apparently much of the Congress agrees, making approval of the TPP unlikely under any future president.

Trump proposes to renegotiate trade agreements bilaterally with each country in Asia, and elsewhere, so that the U.S. gets a better “deal.” For countries that take a hard negotiating position, like China, tariffs on Chinese goods will increase to 45 percent and currency manipulation will be reduced through disincentives in retaliation. The central theme of Trump’s campaign is that he is an expert negotiator and all previous U.S. administrations have been lacking.

Clinton, while a U.S. Senator and as Secretary of State under Obama, supported free trade and helped promote TPP as the “gold standard” of trade agreements. Last year, under pressure from labor unions and anti-globalization factions, like Bernie Sanders, in the Democratic Party, Clinton suggested that she would not now support TPP. So, when Obama leaves office in January 2017, there will be no support among Democrats.

Clinton, like Trump, also points the finger at China as a major “abuser” in trade. Clinton proposes to create new government agencies focused on enforcing trade regulations as an antidote. Both favor building a strong U.S. economic that is more competitive than it now is. Both offer the same policy prescriptions calling for more government interference in the economy to engineer these improvements.

Trump and Clinton both favor policies to keep U.S. firms from relocating abroad, either through penalties, taxes or other disincentives. Trump as president would actually go after these firms personally. Neither candidate seems to have noticed that these firms are leaving in order to avoid taxes that are the highest in the industrialized world. In fact, both would raise taxes.

Supporters wait for U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to speak at a campaign rally in San Jose, California, U.S. June 2, 2016.  Reuters

National security

The Asia-Pacific region is critical to U.S. security interests. Under Obama and former Secretary of State Clinton, the region was elevated perhaps above the Middle East which had for too long drawn a disproportionate U.S. commitment over the past 15 years. Beginning in 2009, Clinton announced the “pivot” to the region which would receive more trade, investment and development along with heightened security with an expanded military presence. TPP was its centerpiece.

The pivot to Asia was mostly rhetoric than action. The Middle East continues to drain resources away from Asia. And, domestic policy issues tend to distract Obama’s attention. Obama even changed the “pivot” to “rebalance” so not to send a signal that he was getting out of the Middle East.

Now the Chinese are filling the vacuum left in Obama’s wake. China is attempting to dominate the East Vietnam Sea by claiming control of the sea lanes by converting coral reefs into “artificial islands” which sport landing strips, ports and missile defenses.

But Trump has questioned whether the Asia-Pacific deserves attention. Trump proposes to deplete funding for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, which he believes should fund their own defenses. More disturbing, he proposes arming Japan and South Korea with nuclear weapons, in part to balance powers China and North Korea.

Clinton, by contrast, is very likely to try to pivot to Asia once again. As President Bill Clinton’s First Lady and then as Secretary of State, Clinton expressed a fondness for Vietnam. She visited Vietnam four times, and expressed interest in TPP, investment and security cooperation. She has backed away from trade which would benefit Vietnam, but appears to be interested in promoting investment and joint security.

Trump and Clinton mouth the usual platitudes about dealing with differences with China: cyber attacks, human rights, territorial disputes, climate change, partnering and alliances. But in spite of the importance of China, neither candidate has given any clue about how to deal with China, other than laying out the problems.

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton arrives at a campaign stop in Long Beach, California, United States June 6, 2016.  Reuters

Prospects for Trump and Clinton

Perhaps it is too soon to accurately predict how the foreign policy perspectives of Trump and Clinton will play out. Trump has repeatedly flip-flopped on major policy positions. Initially he called for a ban on all Muslims to the U.S., then under pressure, offered that this policy was only a suggestion.

Now, Trump’s advisors are calling all of his policy rhetoric “suggestions” rather than “proposals,” given the frequency with which he changes his mind. There is no reason to believe that Trump will not change his Asian policy thinking in the future if the right advisors can get to him.

Clinton also seems subject to changing her policy positions when faced with criticism, TPP being an example. Clinton will come under increasing pressure from her primary election challenger, Bernie Sanders, who is an isolationist, anti-globalization advocate. Additionally, other factions in the Democratic Party want to spend money only on social welfare and the environment, rather than internationally. So Clinton is more constrained than Trump.

Clinton also has an Obama problem. Throughout the primary season, Clinton has moved closer and closer to supporting Obama’s foreign policy perspective. A centerpiece of this policy has been “leading from behind,” that is getting many other actors involved while taking a backseat to the action—Libya, for example; “soft diplomacy,” not using military force except as a last resort; and, not involving the U.S. in overseas adventurism. It is clear issues in the East Vietnam Sea will be difficult to address using this approach.

Trump lacks experience in foreign policy, but is nonetheless willing to express opinions without much thought. His foreign policy advisors are not generally drawn from the mainstream, or from well known conservatives from the Bush and Reagan administrations. Clearly, in avoiding the Republican establishment in choosing his advisors on foreign policy, Trump has made himself very unpredictable, having little continuity with the past.

Clinton by contrast, boasts a team of foreign policy all stars mostly from the former Clinton Administration of the 1990s. Leon Paneta, former CIA director and Secretary of Department of Defense is on the team and has the distinction of serving Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Given the track record of the Clinton team, one would expect them to push for more intervention and adventurism abroad. Recall that as Secretary of State, Clinton supported intervention in Libya and Syria, mischief if Egypt’s revolution, and the like. But again, her own Democrat Party will pose barriers.

Here is my prediction. The Trump presidency will be unpredictable and highly unstable. Clinton will be much more predictable and restrained. Neither of these approaches will bode well for those who would like to see a more proactive US leadership presence around the globe, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.

Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get the latest news about Vietnam!