Daily Times

A Trump 2.0 administration may significantly shift the US National Security Strategy (NSS) in the upcoming months.

Such changes may have a profound impact on US friends and foes alike. Since the end of the Cold War, a debate has emerged in the US regarding a potential shift in policy towards “offshore balancing” and the withdrawal of forward-deployed forces from the rest of the world.

Proponents of this school of thought argue that the US can effectively secure its interests by adhering to its traditional isolationist policies. They contend that the US should leverage its geography, being protected by two vast oceans on its western and eastern flanks.

They also claim that it is not in the interest of the United States to risk its security for the benefit of other states. Therefore, the US needs to withdraw its extended nuclear deterrence guarantees to its allies and partners. Hence, they maintain that nuclear proliferation is inevitable. Consequently, they argue that the US should allow its partners and allies to develop their own independent nuclear weapons. The Trump administration’s policy tilt is towards offshore balancing and isolationist policies.

It is likely that the Trump administration may change the US existing policy of “primacy.” Meanwhile, since the end of World War II, the US has adhered to a policy of primacy. It implies that the United States may maintain a stronger military position in important regions of the world.

Due to this policy, the US has maintained a dominant military position in key regions, particularly in Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific. Proponents of offshore balancing contend that the United States’ relative power has declined, and in the contemporary strategic landscape, it is no longer in the position to maintain a dominant military presence in key regions of the world. Hence, it is high time to shift the US grand strategy.

Proponents of this approach also claim that when the US withdraws its forward-deployed forces, regional states will forge a counterbalancing coalition against rival states like China and Russia. This rhetoric was prominent in Trump’s election campaign. Trump has already criticized traditional US allies, stating that these states are not paying their fair share of defence costs. By spending more on defence, these states may be able to counterbalance rising threats, particularly from the Russia and China.

Scholars also argue that the US is unnecessarily spending its resources on the security of other states, and that it should allocate these resources to benefit its own people instead. The Trump administration’s political slogan, “Make America Great Again,” reflects this sentiment. Furthermore, critics of offshore balancing and isolationist policies argue that such policies on the part of the US may result in the loss of US global leadership. This could compromise the US dollar’s status as an international reserve currency.

The Trump 2.0 administration is likely to pay less attention to its allies and partners, aiming to compel them to form a coalition against the rising threats of China and Russia. This approach will significantly impact states relying on the US extended deterrence and security umbrella. Such approaches and policies of the United States could create more chaos and disturbance globally. The evolving US approaches may have negative repercussions on nuclear non-proliferation efforts. There is also an expectation that the new Trump administration might permit selective nuclear proliferation to some of its allies and partners, particularly South Korea.

It seems that new Trump administration tilt towards ‘offshore balancing’ and isolationist policies may not generate tight alliance politics like the Cold War era. However, it appears that the United States remains committed to providing advanced military technologies to its traditional allies and partners, with the expectation of countering the rising threats of China and Russia, as well as, to some extent, North Korea. It may also expect that its allies and partner came up with the

Likewise, new Trump administration continue to consider India as a strategic partner with an expectation to counterbalance rising China. It is likely that the United States continue to provide advance military technologies to India with a negative repercussion on South Asia strategic balance.

Finally, after the withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan, it has marginal interests in this region. Unlike the past, it may no longer consider Pakistan as a strategic ally. But Pakistan can strengthen its existing relationship with the United States by focussing on its economy.

Strong economic growth in Pakistan can regenerate US interests in the region.

The writer is a freelance columnist.