Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton take the stage at the third and final Presidential debate.

The differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on foreign policy appear to be more than they actually are. However, this fact has been muddled by the necessity for Clinton to appear to agree with President Obama’s failing foreign policy, together with the need to look different from Trump. Nevertheless, one has to question Clinton’s competence from her own record as Secretary of State. 

Trump’s View of Foreign Policy from the Third Presidential Debate

One very important difference  between Trump and Clinton is the set of two intertwined issues of immigration policy and border control. Unlike Clinton, Trump picked up early on the national anxiety about foreigners, particularly hispanics, from crossing our borders illegally and taking up residence. People may be more exercised than they should be about the feared loss of our culture through inundation by foreign immigrants, but they do have a right to demand that immigration be regulated to a degree we can tolerate. After all, our capability to absorb newcomers is finite, as Europe is now learning to its own cost with the influx of Syrian refugees.

Yet, there is another fear about border control that is very rational and valid. Given the success of Islamic State operatives in infiltrating across European borders, almost certainly hidden among Syrian refugees, to launch terrorist attacks, we would be fools not to worry about the same happening to us. In addition Trump noted the problem of drug smuggling on the southern border. However, the ISIS terrorist attacks in Europe should motivate all of us to want “The Wall” Trump promises to build.

As Trump proudly noted, the unions for U.S. Border Patrol agents and for  agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) both endorsed him. In the case of the ICE  union, this was their first ever endorsement for a presidential candidate. The fact these unions felt the need to endorse a Republican candidate says a great deal about the seriousness of their problems at the Mexican border. In particular these two unions are very much in favor of “The Wall” Trump wants to build to get control of what flows across it.

Trump claimed Clinton wanted “open borders” and to give amnesty to illegal immigrants already here. Saying that amnesty allowing illegal immigrants to stay would be an insult to immigration applicants asking to enter and awaiting their turn, Trump declared amnesty could not be allowed. After the borders are secured would be the time to address possible amnesty in his view. After the wall is built, illegal immigrants could go back to their countries of origin and then return to apply for citizenship. At no point in the debate did Clinton express any concern whatsoever about Islamic jihadists diffusing through our porous borders to do us harm.

Is Clinton Pivoting Away from the Obama Policies?

In answering Trump’s charges that she wants “open borders”, Clinton denied it, saying she had voted for border security while she was in the Senate. She also noted how massive a law enforcement operation would have to be to round up the approximately eleven million undocumented immigrants and deport them. She said she would rather put the priority for our limited resources on deporting violent criminals among the illegal immigrants. She declared that within the first hundred days of her administration she would submit to Congress a proposal for comprehensive immigration reform.

The moderator Chris Wallace quoted from a speech she gave to a group of Brazilian bankers for $225 thousand and leaked recently by Wikileaks. In that speech she supposedly gave, she said “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.” Wallace asked if that was indeed true, if her dream was really for “open borders”. In her answer she did not deny the Wikileaks document was accurate, that she had indeed said what was in the hacked email. That was the most lasting impression I had from her response, that she would give credence to the seemingly unending Wikileaks supply of her hacked email. Since most of the news media (with the exception of a few like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News) have been studiously silent about their contents, I suspect I will have to write a post on them in the near future.

In answer to Wallace’s question, Clinton said if Wallace read the email further on, he would have seen what she was really dreaming about was cross-border trade in energy. Nevertheless, her expression of a dream about “a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders” seems to be more inclusive than just an open-market for energy.

Clinton then skillfully pivoted to note the Clinton emails provided by Wikileaks had actually been hacked by Russian intelligence. (Remember all the accusations she had violated 18 U.S. Code § 793, subsection f  by putting highly classified material on her unsecured servers? If the Russians had access to this piece of email, is there any remaining doubt they also had access to all the TOP SECRET/SAP documents also present on her server? What more shall we learn from Wikileaks?) Clinton challenged Trump to condemn and disavow any help from the Russian government, and to say that he would not have the help of Putin. Trump noted that was a great pivot away from “open borders” to the villainy of Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence. Then concerning Putin and the Russians, he said

 … so I just want to tell you, she wants open borders, and now we can talk about Putin. I don’t know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be  good. If Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS, that would be good. He has no respect for her, he has no respect for our President.

Clinton, of course, accused Trump of being Putin’s puppet, working hand-in-glove with Putin to subvert American elections. Wallace then asked Trump the direct question whether he condemned Russian interference in the election or not, to which Trump replied, “By Russia or by anyone else …”

Clinton continued by accusing Trump about being cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons. Trump denied the accusation and noted the Russians have been busy during the Obama administration increasing the number of their nukes while the U.S. just stood by and ignored it. Trump also said supporting our allies’ defense was a very expensive activity and we had to renegotiate with them to ensure that they bore some of the cost for the common defense. He said this insistence was misunderstood by Clinton as meaning he advocated getting out of those alliances. Clinton retorted that he did indeed want to tear up the alliances.

From what Clinton said during this last debate,  I had the impression she had a much more hawkish view about our foreign adversaries than does her erstwhile boss, President Obama. She particularly emphasized the importance of standing by our alliances. In addition the public stances of both Trump and Clinton on foreign trade appear similar with their rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Perhaps feeling the tremendous disapproval of many on the results of Obama’s failed foreign policies [see A Failed, “Lead From Behind” Foreign Policy (1) and A Failed, “Lead From Behind” Foreign Policy (2)], she feels a need to pivot away from Obama. This is why I wonder if the foreign policy differences between Trump and Clinton are more sound and fury than an actual divide.

Nevertheless, one also has to wonder if Clinton, inveterate liar that she is, really means everything she is saying. Or is she just showing us her  public positions and keeping her private, real positions secret?

Views: 1,513

GO TO HOME

Sharing is caring!