Donald Trump’s national security strategy

HAVANA — In December 2017, the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy (NSS). It is the 16th such Strategy issued by virtue of the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act, which, among other decisions with strong impact on the United States’ security systems, established a rule for the Executive to draft this type of report.

Its objective is to convey the vision of each administration regarding the challenges, threats and opportunities faced by the nation, as well as the policies aimed at dealing with them. It is not of an academic nature; it is a political manifesto whose purpose is to find a consensus for the government’s agenda.

In general, it is a very broad document that broaches a large number of issues supposedly related to the nation’s security, which, in the case of the United States, is not limited only to what happens within its borders but extends to the U.S. “interests” and the promotion of the “values” of “the American way of life” worldwide.

Any phenomenon that conflicts with those interests constitutes a potential “threat,” not only for the United States but also for the global system ruled by that country, so it’s imperative to read these documents as an expression of an imperialist doctrine that can affect us all. All the more so when, as in this case, it starts from the premise of “America First,” a kind of express train that has priority at all stations.

This imperialist focus comes up in all the strategies drafted and arises from the justification that such rights, denied to everyone else, are granted by virtue of the exceptional qualities of the United States of America. Sometimes we’re amazed by the weight still carried by the Manifest Destiny doctrine on the ideology sustained by U.S. policy.

The approved NSS has many elements of continuity, especially when setting down the strategic objectives of the United States. Nevertheless, the various junctures have imposed changes at the time to define the main direction of the actions intended to satisfy them.

Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush elaborated them in the context of the Cold War; George W. Bush focused on the war against terrorism; Barack Obama’s distinctive element was his emphasis on the application of the “smart power” doctrine.

Donald Trump expresses a return to the idea of “preserving peace through strength,” which implies major increases in the military budget, with the argument that — counter to Obama — technological development is not enough but “what matters is the size of our forces,” as the NSS posits.

To this end, it becomes necessary to create a climate of insecurity that justifies the magnitude of the expenses (“an extraordinarily dangerous world,” according to the NSS, where the sovereignty of the United States is threatened, although nobody can explain by whom.) The major beneficiaries of this logic are the military-industrial complex and the companies linked to the industry of the so-called “securitization” applied in all areas of the country’s social life.

Both Obama and Trump placed the economy at the center of the problems of U.S. national security. “Economic security is national security,” says the NSS, and that’s rather accurate, inasmuch as the loss of competitiveness is the real strategic problem of the United States.

Whereas Obama tried to solve this problem within the existing international economic order, favoring the multinationals and the United States’ financial capital, Donald Trump’s NSS reflects the limits of neoliberal globalization for U.S. society itself and the reaction of some sectors to its domestic effects.

On the basis of this contradiction, a political base was built that carried Trump to the presidency; now the NSS must satisfy its demands. The arguments are the alleged “unfair competition” in the trade with some foreign economic actors, the need to protect the national manufacturing industries and a rejection of immigration, identified as the major culprit of the misfortunes of the white-American middle class.

It seems paradoxical that the U.S. now presents itself as a victim of the order created by its own hegemony.

Although the NSS does not say it plainly, everyone knows that “America First” is not for everyone, which is why racism and xenophobia contribute to exclusion and justify the enormous reductions in the social costs projected by this government. It justifies the need to balance the financial deficit on the backs of the poor and homeless and it is sharpened by a tax reform that benefits mainly the wealthiest and the major businesses.

Like the previous NSS, the Trump administration analyzes the situation of the various regions of the world. The order in which they are mentioned gives us an idea of their priorities to the U.S.: Asia-Pacific, Europe, Middle East, Central and Eastern Asia, America and Africa.

It also restates the alleged objectives of the U.S. in the Third World: to encourage reform, promote effective governments, respect human rights, terminate corruption and strengthen legal systems. All these missions seem very noble, were it not because the measuring rod is dependence on the United States, with consequences sometimes disastrous for the countries where they are applied.

China and Russia appear as threats in almost all the regions; North Korea and Iran as great dangers to international security. Venezuela and Cuba are the problems identified in a continent that is again considered as the United States’ “safe backyard,” although migration and drug trafficking are shown as affecting the security of the U.S. borders.

Since the days of George W.Bush, the United States’ NSS have stressed the danger created by the existence of non-state actors linked to terrorism. In some cases — such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, whose origin can be traced to the U.S. government — that assertion is evident; in others, we see functional manipulations of the U.S. interests that prevent an international consensus to deal effectively with their scourge.

With a more moderate language that distances itself from the ordinary excesses of the current president, the new NSS merely repeats many of the proposals made during the electoral campaign.

Although many experts consider such proposals hard to materialize because of the conflicts they generate within the system itself, Trump states — in the introduction to the document — that in barely one year of its application, the new strategy has had extraordinary success in the nation and its international relations.

Playing fast and loose with the truth is another characteristic of the U.S. president that we must consider when studying his National Security Strategy.