I suggest we try driving in the subject lane as much as possible otherwise we will be getting sidetracked
President Trumps election & its possible impacts on NZ defence policy
- Thread starter ngatimozart
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #22
1928 was different. The RN ruled the waves, the USN and US Army still considered the British Empire as a possible enemy and had war plans for such an occurrence. The Japanese Empire was still friendly with NZ. The US had quite good economic growth at the time. The problem was lack of govt oversight of the markets hence the dubious practises that eventuated in the Wall St crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression. The US was relatively isolationist at the time as well, eschewing foreign involvements and it didn't have the same impact upon the world that it does now.
90 years later the world is different - a totally different geostrategic and geopolitical environment. The RN is but a shadow of its former self, the US and UK have a very close relationship and the British Empire is no more. NZ can no longer depend upon the British Empire to protect via the RN, RAF and British Army and NZ foreign and defence policy is no longer subject to the purview of the UK Colonial Department. Our biggest problem is the lack of political will regarding defence and we have always known that it will take a significant outside event to give the pollies enough of a jolt in order to get them to substantially increase NZDF funding & resources. Trump giving Wellington the hard word and the threat of possible increased tariffs on NZ goods & services entering the US may be enough of a jolt to initiate this change. No it won't happen over the weekend but we should see some change within the next 12 months which also coincided with our next election cycle.
Regarding that third being part of a coalition govt, I don't know and for their adherence to 2% GDP expenditure on defence, that I wouldn't believe until I saw the money in defence accounts. Their leader flip flops to much and is to much of a liability in a coalition regardless of which major party he enters into coalition with.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From my POV, US allies, friends, and non-aligned nations should base their various plans on the US being unwilling, and/or unable to take action away from US soil, airspace, or home waters, apart from potential military adventures the POTUS options to engage in.
In short, plan for little or no beneficial participation by US forces in international operations.
Side note: Earlier in the thread someone mentioned term limits for Congress. This would require an Amendment to the Constitution, which I have previously banged on about the difficulty in actually doing this. It would also (IMO at least) not achieve the goals desired by those advocating for term limits. If people are interested in why I think that, PM me since I do not wish to further pollute this thread with politics.
In short, plan for little or no beneficial participation by US forces in international operations.
Side note: Earlier in the thread someone mentioned term limits for Congress. This would require an Amendment to the Constitution, which I have previously banged on about the difficulty in actually doing this. It would also (IMO at least) not achieve the goals desired by those advocating for term limits. If people are interested in why I think that, PM me since I do not wish to further pollute this thread with politics.
Agree that the situation is different, but at this stage I do not see a tie up between trade and defence. The trade issue with threats to increase tariffs could lead to a depression as if it impacted to much on Asia could lead to a down turn in their economies ( when Asia sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold )They would probably put up tariffs against the US and the combination of the tariffs and slower Asian economies would have a significant impact on US exports, causing their economy to drop. We must remember here that the the combined Asian economies are significantly larger than the US economy. Add in the effects of the same thing happening world wide due to tariffs and the flow on effect would not be pretty. As there are no US military in our region I think our pollies will not come under significant pressure from the US regarding our military and will simply bury their heads in the sand and say there is no problem. We also must remember that we are very small fry and would be way down the list as possible Trump targets. I think that most likely possibly ( very slim) of an increase in defence is for the flip,flopper to only flip but not flop. However you would not want to bet on it.
t68
Well-Known Member
Not really up on US protocol, but what happens after 68 days?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
While the US military, the USN in particular, has been the guarantor of freedom of navigation, and hence global trade, since WW2, the US economy doesn't actually benefit directly from this as much as many other developed economies.
According to The Economist, exports and imports contributed 14 and 18 percent of US GDP in 2014, compared to 30 and 29 percent for NZ, 31 and 27 for China, and 209 and 182 for Singapore. Given around half of the US figures are trade within NAFTA and energy imports (which the US has a decreasing need for), a withdrawal of USN protection for maritime trade routes and a general global slowdown in trade would lead to recession in the US but would be fatal for many economies including ours and especially those in East Asia. It is still an open question of how the campaign rhetoric will translate into policy with regards trade and defence, but I think domestic politics will play as large a part as any potential retaliation from trade partners.
A move towards a more adversarial mercantilist system may see countries dependent on SLOC for their prosperity attempt to militarily secure their access to trade routes, natural resources and markets. This will obviously impact on our own economy, heavily reliant as it is on external markets, and may force our pollies hand whether they like it or not.
Stratfor published an article yesterday about possible effects on US foreign policy that makes interesting reading.
https://www.stratfor.com/geopolitic...371&uuid=aedc8153-24e4-4eef-823d-b240105b226c
"In the coming years the United States will begin to shift more of the burden of regional security to partners. As the United States becomes relatively less assertive in East Asia, Japan, South Korea and other members of the U.S. alliance framework will pick up the slack. In Japan and South Korea, this will manifest in accelerated military investment and potentially even gradual steps toward developing a nuclear arsenal should U.S. security commitments to the region see a major restructuring. Moreover, the coming years will likely see Tokyo push more forcefully to revise constitutional limits on fielding a "normal" military — a process that will see Japan emerge as the leading regional player in efforts to check China's rise."
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #28
Trump has been quite adamant regarding China and his beef with it so I am not taking anything for granted. The conventional wisdom was that his candidacy was a joke and he wouldn't make it past the primaries, well guess what he is now President Elect. So much for that wisdom. Hence I am paying a lot of attention to what he has said and what other people have said about how he has run his business.
If the US increase tariffs on mainland Chinese goods and services and declare that China is manipulating its currency, then the PRC hierarchy and its population will go ballistic. They will spit every dummy they can find and chuck all their toys and their mates toys out of their cots. Secondly he is somewhat of an isolationist and if Japan and South Korea feel that the US is withdrawing from Asia then they will probably become more militant and rearm more. The Asia Pacific region will become quite unstable and if our pollies hide their heads in the sand then they need a thundy shoved in a certain place to wake their ideas up. The Aussie's will have to adjust to less US involvement in the Asia Pacific and that will mean that they will have to increase their capabilities. Canberra will have a high expectation of Wellington to do the same, so the pressure will not just be coming from Washington but also from Canberra, probably even more so.
I think the economic threat will be the first problem and that you are correct that pressure to do more defensively will come on from Canberra, in fact we are more likely to get far more pressure from Canberra than Washington.
t68
Well-Known Member
Ah sorry my bad, I was thinking he had to do something in 68 days once he's taken office, bit of a honeymoon period to settle in.
Despite all of Trump's bluster I don't believe America's strategic goals in SE Asia will change that much. After all, he still has congress to deal with, and even the Republicans won't guarantee their support of his policies. In the extraordinarily unlikely event that the US were to withdraw from the region you would have chaos.
However, there will be a lot more pressure on some nations to boost their contribution to the region's defence ... and yes we are looking at you New Zealand.
New Zealand isn't the main game however.
Japan and to a lesser extent South Korea will be the countries that Trump will be putting most pressure on boost their spending. It would take a lot of pressure off the US if Japan were to double its defence spending.
However, there will be a lot more pressure on some nations to boost their contribution to the region's defence ... and yes we are looking at you New Zealand.
New Zealand isn't the main game however.
Japan and to a lesser extent South Korea will be the countries that Trump will be putting most pressure on boost their spending. It would take a lot of pressure off the US if Japan were to double its defence spending.
Bluey 006
Active Member
It is only one term (3-4 years) so things aren't going to change all that much, decades of fiscal realities won't change overnight. Most defence projects outlast politicians. While this may change the security environment significantly! the strategic threats to NZ don't change, the existing ones might move up on the threat matrix, however.
A new US president doesn't change the logistical challenges of a major power or other group threatening NZ's part of the world.
Ultimately though its a wake up call - If you want security - defend yourself (as it should be), and that things can change quite quickly.
The uncertainty this creates for western governments will no doubt mean they want a greater variety of options available to them:
Couple of potential effects
A 3rd Frigate might be reconsidered, or the ANZAC replacements are far more capable than what they would have been previously. Perhaps a high end frigate will be considered instead of light fitted for but not with. Although this decision is a long way off the butterfly effects of these next four years could impact thinking of future key decision makers
MALE (RPAS) - UCAV/UAV (greater independent ISR flexibility and options for NZG)
Canterbury replacement might be better suited to high end assault operations (we might actually need to be the door kicker)
P8 will likely get the nod
i.e: I think the result of this will be at least for decisions in the coming years the option with most capability or 2nd best will get the nod more often than not over less capable cheaper 3rd or 4th option - from a capability point of view.
Massive force structure changes are unlikely. NZG isn't going to rush out and reinstate the ACF based on the comments, actions and ideology of what may be a single term US president. If he is returned to the white house in fours years and lives up to his rhetoric then maybe these types of things will be revisited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All that said, if he expects say Japan or South Korea to be more assertive in Asia and take more control over security. That could lead to problems, as an example - China may back away from a conflict with US over an issue but not be willing to back away from Japan or Korea on the same issue, which leads to escalation and heighten tensions etc
- IMHO Analysts will be very busy over the next four years, so much new work to do as things lay out.
Last edited:
My view is that a Trump Presidency will reiterate the Guam Doctrine of 1969 of President Nixon:
"First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments. Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security. Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense."
However, the implication this time under Trump will not just be allied nations charged with the primary responsibility of providing their manpower needs, but also their own equipment. It will also be quid pro quo in that if you make a commitment to reasonably man and equip ones own military force adequately then (the US) will keep to its commitment to provide an overarching security of ones nation.
In my view this is a seachange policy, which will be followed up by future Presidents and is not going to be flipped back under a future Democrat or moderate Republican President. The reason for this is that one of the things that became apparent when drilling down into voters views who voted for Trump this year was that they feel that the US does all the heavy lifting, pays the price in its sons and daughters, who are usually coming from those states in the South and in the rust belt, whilst wealthy countries abroad apply only tokenist deployments to coalition contributions. To be honest it is fair enough.
Thus there is an expectation for like-minded liberal democracies to do more for themselves. However, the Trump administration will likely be selective in how its motivates other countries to do this. A public admonishing of New Zealand would likely backfire and I would guess that though Trump is unsophisticated with respect to foreign policy, the principals who will be appointed to the higher civilian slots at the state, commerce and defence departments will likely be more nuanced in their criticism. Pence taking over the transition team marks it as becoming more likely that mature selections will be made.
One thing we have is that Tim Grosser our guy in Washington is very capable. The other thing I would also recommend the NZ government to do is go back to appointing a two star as the head of the military mission as really rank matters in DC in the dining and cocktail circuit where views are exchanged.
Cheers, MrC
"First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments. Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security. Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense."
However, the implication this time under Trump will not just be allied nations charged with the primary responsibility of providing their manpower needs, but also their own equipment. It will also be quid pro quo in that if you make a commitment to reasonably man and equip ones own military force adequately then (the US) will keep to its commitment to provide an overarching security of ones nation.
In my view this is a seachange policy, which will be followed up by future Presidents and is not going to be flipped back under a future Democrat or moderate Republican President. The reason for this is that one of the things that became apparent when drilling down into voters views who voted for Trump this year was that they feel that the US does all the heavy lifting, pays the price in its sons and daughters, who are usually coming from those states in the South and in the rust belt, whilst wealthy countries abroad apply only tokenist deployments to coalition contributions. To be honest it is fair enough.
Thus there is an expectation for like-minded liberal democracies to do more for themselves. However, the Trump administration will likely be selective in how its motivates other countries to do this. A public admonishing of New Zealand would likely backfire and I would guess that though Trump is unsophisticated with respect to foreign policy, the principals who will be appointed to the higher civilian slots at the state, commerce and defence departments will likely be more nuanced in their criticism. Pence taking over the transition team marks it as becoming more likely that mature selections will be made.
One thing we have is that Tim Grosser our guy in Washington is very capable. The other thing I would also recommend the NZ government to do is go back to appointing a two star as the head of the military mission as really rank matters in DC in the dining and cocktail circuit where views are exchanged.
Cheers, MrC
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Mr C and Bluey 006
Two excellent thought-provoking posts.
With regard to the general topic, I think it is simply too early to know what Trump's international policy will look like. Only when his cabinet and senior officials are appointed will we be able to make informed guesses.
Two excellent thought-provoking posts.
With regard to the general topic, I think it is simply too early to know what Trump's international policy will look like. Only when his cabinet and senior officials are appointed will we be able to make informed guesses.
Totally agree 40. Now that the election is over, so is the bluster. Trump will appoint a Savy Sec State who will support the allies, be tougher on the opposite and expect some reciprocity. The SecDef will rearm and. It deploy without just cause and allied support.
Ideally a return To a more stable American Policy toward its allies and enemies.
Last edited:
I'd say both and Trump wants to bust the congressional defence sequestion limits in place until 2023. And also within the Asia-Pacific as well. Interesting to see how Boeing and Airbus fair as well.
Vulcan
Member
My thoughts as well, it'll be interesting to see if his previous pledges for personnel/equipment increases actually come to fruition.
As for Boeing/Airbus, for me it depends on how Middle East engagement turns out.
On one side Trump wants to pull back from the Middle East which may be viewed negatively in the region if Russia seeks to export kit like the Su-30 to Iran, this could open more avenues for European companies including the likes of Airbus. This sort of animosity is already in existence to a degree.
Alternatively that may not happen, Trump has (I believe) said that efforts against IS weren't hard enough, he may decide - after being appropriately briefed - that his intention to disengage isn't a realistic proposition and the result more or less being the situation we have today where the weight of US geopolitics is a large influencer.
Trump has been very clear and consistent of his intent to repeal the Budget Control Act.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Yet Trump hasnt explained how he is going to massively increase the Us military budget, while slashing taxes. If he is going to maintain a presence in the South China Seas,he has intimated large tarrifs already against China,the threat they pose to US intrests, thats in conflict with his isolationist ideas.As is supporting his allies.One cannot do so without military presence ,supply or aid. He is contradicting himself at times.