Edward Martin and Mattia Caniglia from the Centre for Global Security and Governance recently conducted an interview with Robert Traynham, asking him for his views on a variety of topics ranging from the US elections to Britain's position in the EU and current negotiations.
CGSG: Do you think America under its new President will continue to seek further or strengthened relations with the Far East and what does this mean for relations with Europe in terms of trade, security and other factors?
Mr Traynham: Yes there is no doubt about it that the Far East probably is the front burner of international relations. China is a growing military threat, you know when you take a look at the artificial islands they are building outside their borders, they are just making this up as they go along, when you look at the rise of the middle classes, when you look at the Chinese communist regime, they are very, very much looking like a large superpower to the United States. That's probably going to be the next Geopolitical foe. I think Russia is probably going to be demoted and I think China is probably going to be promoted. To the second part of your question, I do think that means Europe is going to be put on the back burner, just with respect to how Americans deal with its time, what I mean by that is that the next President is primarily going to focus on China and Japan, my understanding is that Japan is also looking at challenging in a diplomatic way, Americas role in the world. So I think Europe is pretty much stable right now and the next President is going to focus the vast majority of time, probably 50% on the Far East and the other 50% of their time on the Middle East.
CGSG: Under President Obama, the United States is perceived to have withdrawn from its role of a "Global Sheriff", do you think this will continue under either a Republican or Democratic Presidency?
Mr Traynham: No I don't think so. I think the next President no matter who he or she is, no matter if their a Republican or a Democrat is going to look at the world a bit differently. The reason why I say that is because if you listen to the debates, Hilary Clinton if she is going to be our next President she's pretty hawkish. On Americas role around the world, she's very much more pro military than President Obama. Which makes sense, simply because she's a more moderate Democrat, simply because her husband was President of the United States for eight years, and she was Secretary of State so she has a different outlook on the world. I also think on the Republican side, when you take a look at the Ukraine with what President Putin has done there, as I mentioned with China and the artificial islands they're building, when you take a look at Iran and even though we have released the sanctions on Iran there are already some talks that they are cheating already, so I think there is going to be much more of a footprint, or eyes or assets towards Iran. When you take a look at Isis, and how they are growing unbelievably in the Middle East I do think the next American President most likely, I wouldn't necessarily say is going to start a war, that's DEFINTIELY what I'm not saying, but I do think the next president is going to be more aggressive in pushing back, from a diplomatic standpoint and also from a military standpoint around the world.
CGSG: Yes it appears to us that America has focused more towards the Pacific Area and has leant away from the conflicts of the Middle East, causing some concern in Europe.
Mr Traynham: I definitely think this is going to change. Based on the rhetoric from the candidates. I think all the candidates from the republican and democratic sides are more hawkish than our current President. I mean that in no disrespect to President Obama he just has a different thought process. I do not believe he thinks that America should be a global policeman, I think he has a different interpretation as to what being a global policeman actually means and therefore I think he has been a lot more pensive. and I just don't mean that in a negative way, I just mean in regards to his thought process and I just don't see, a president Clinton, or a President Sanders or a President trump going down the same route.
CGSG: Just in relation to your speech earlier, 72% of Americans now don't feel safe, 32% believe that the United States influence is declining and with candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump competing for the Presidency in a Bipartisan view, what does the United States need from its next President internationally and domestically?
Mr Traynham: I think the next President has to be a visionary. They have to have their own doctrine. For example, Truman had the Truman Doctrine, Reagan had the "Evil Empire", you know there was a vision for the world, through their eyes. Americans could understand it, it was very tangible to them and I don't know if many people really know what the Obama doctrine really is. So I think the next President really has to lay out what his or her vision is for Asia, for Europe, but also quite frankly how to deal with Russia. It doesn't look like President Putin is going anywhere, it does not appear that China is going to stop with the artificial islands, Isis is growing, and you know it's also interesting to see what is going to happen in Africa with respect to debt relief, with respect to AIDS and to immigration. SO there is a lot of things going on in the world that I believe that the United States want a clear vision on. I think the next President is going to have to lay that out in a very clear way.
CGSG: What does the United States think of a Europe that potentially does not include the United Kingdom, obviously we have a referendum on membership coming up soon? Will this change the special relationship?
Mr Traynham: Let me answer this first. The Special Relationship is just that. It is a special relationship that we have with the UK. Shared history, shared language, shared values about the world. This relationship was solidified really after WWI, became stronger during WWII, and the Iron Curtain speech made by Churchill in Missouri intensified things even more and because of the relationship between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It's just that, it's so special I don't see it going it anywhere any time soon. However, I just can't even imagine a Europe without the UK, I think Americans think that way too. To have Europe without Britain is just unimaginable. So I've not heard this come up widespread in America just yet , but I just can't imagine it happening.
CGSG: You have mentioned the mistrust of Hilary Clinton that many Americans have, can you please expand on this as its not common knowledge to the European audience. Do you think her gender will play a role in the role for the Presidency, particularly when you consider she would be the first female President following the first African-American President.
Mr Traynham: I think most people forget how long Hilary Clinton has been in the world view and been on the international stage. So this is the sixth time that she has been introduced to the American People. The first time she was first lady of Arkansas for twelve years. The second time she was a presidential candidates spouse back in 1992. The third time she was first lady of the United States. The fourth time was when she became United States Senator for New York. The fifth time was when she became a Presidential Candidate herself in 2007 and then became Secretary of State. And now she is a Presidential Candidate again. We've seen different variations of Hilary Clinton over the years. We got two for the price of one back in 1992. We heard that she was not going to be of a forceful first lady, more of a gentle one. She came out with healthcare reform in 1993, the American people recoiled from that and as a result she became a little bit more feminine. We had the Benghazi email scandal where she said one thing, the facts said something different in terms of your interpretation. When she was running for President back in 2007 she said that when she was landing, I think it was in Bosnia, she was landing under gunfire whereas the Secret Service are on record as saying that never happened. You also have the Whitewater scandal back in 1994 so there are a lot of Americans out there that feel as though they know Secretary Clinton very very well and they don't like what they see and they don't like what they know. Now conversely there are a lot of Americans out there that know about Hilary and they like her so she's a very polarising person in many many ways. I think a lot of people in America are saying "here we go again, Secretary Clinton is running for Office again, I don't know if I can trust her or not I have to do some more research because of all the things I have heard over the last few years". We shall see. To go to your second point regarding gender, you know this is one of those things that Americans don't like talking about because it seems that perhaps your sexist if you talk about it. But the reality is it's the same exact phenomenon on whether you were racist if you thought Barack Obama couldn't become President back when he ran in 2007. Gender will play a role in this there is no doubt about it. I think that's one of the main reasons you don't see Secretary Clinton very feminine, you don't see her wearing dresses very much, you actually see her wearing trouser suits a lot. Often you hear being very forthright in her rhetoric and not very lady like or feminine. You don't hear her being a wife, or a mother, or a grandmother, you hear her being a Secretary of State or a Senator or a Presidential Candidate. So a much more authoritarian way as a opposed to a feminine approach. So we don't know as we've never had a female candidate of her calibre run for the office before, but I'm sure gender will play a role, just like race did for Obama back in 2007.
CGSG: Is it possible that the potential for the first female President following the first Afro-American President demonstrates that the American Dream is alive and kicking? What do Americans think of this?
Mr Traynham: So the American Dream in many ways is a contradiction. The American Dream is be the best you possible can be, pull yourself up by your boot straps no matter who you are, no matter your race creed or colour you can be President one day. You can be a billionaire one day. You can do it. However, now we have that with Barack Obama people are like "oh, I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with this." and now we have the same with Hilary Clinton "oh, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this". As much as America says they are for these things, we are for diversity etc, now that we have it, people are starting to say did I really ask for this as I'm not sure I want this. It's a contradiction.
CGSG: Why do people who are unlikely to ever become President, despite the American Dream, in terms of polling and perhaps not having the necessary funds or backing of their party, why do they still compete in the US electoral race? What do they have to gain, what do they have to lose, why do they compete?
Mr Traynham: I think it actually goes back to the American Dream actually, they have something to contribute to the American system in terms of the dialogue, in terms of the debate. I don't believe anyone except Barack Obama thought he was going to become President in 2007, with respect to his name, with respect to his polling, nobody thought that. Technically speaking I don't think Bernie Sanders six months ago thought that he would be where he is today. There is something about our system that triggers in people a desire to run. Anyone can be President. This ability to think that your better than the other candidate in terms of ideas and the beauty of our system is that maybe people will think "hey he is on to something here" and look at Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump today. I really do think Barack Obama is the epitome of that. Look at Harry Truman-Harry Truman didn't have a college degree, Harry Truman wasn't even going to be Vice-President and he was picked out of the wazoo when Franklin Roosevelt died. Harry Truman was speechless for five minutes when he found out he was going to be President of the United States simply because, this guy from Missouri who failed at everything he did before, he was a failed farmer, he was a failed haberdasher, he also failed in WWI, he failed in everything he did and all of a sudden he becomes President and so it speaks about who we elect . Lets even look at Franklin Roosevelt, I mean he came from a privileged background but many people forget the fact that he was paralysed from the waist down and remember he got elected in 1933. First off I'm not even sure someone who is paralysed today could be elected President. I mean one would hope that person could but even today that's kind of a phenomenon but back in 1933 someone who couldn't walk was elected President so I think it goes back to the uniqueness of our system and the American people have this uncanny ability to pick out of a crowd and say this is "who I want to lead me".
CGSG: Do you think the rise of Populism is a Western phenomenon? We see it with the rise of Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, we see it in Europe as well with Marie Le Pen and the Left Leaning parties in the economies that are really struggling. Do you think it's a reaction of the Western World to the way that the Global Economy and the way we approach threats is going-is it setting the tone for the rest of the 21st Century?
Mr Traynham: There is no doubt about it, the economic unrest that we are feeling in the United States is replicated all around the world. It bears similarity to the "golden age" in the late 1800's when the railroad tycoons and the shipping magnates had a huge amount of wealth, the top 1% literally controlled all of the economies around the world and so the people said enough is enough and that's when you saw the rise of unions, the rise of strikes, the rise of worker's rights the saw the minimum wage, there are so many things that came out of that movement and it feels that way now where people are saying "look, I'm not mad that you created this phone and now you're a billionaire, that's great, I want my son to be like you. But I feel like the system is rigged against me and we can't even make the phone because of X,Y or Z. Or at this stage of life I'm working more and more and earning less and less". That's when people feel the system is rigged against them and that's when they rise up and say "enough is enough"
CGSG: Would you define the rhetoric of Donald Trump as a Populist rhetoric?
Mr Traynham: Yes I would. I believe a Populist is someone who does not have core beliefs or convictions, that really does take the mood of the room, and follows the room, in other words a leader who leads by taking a poll or a temperature check with the masses. And I think both Trump and Sanders do a very good job at that. Populist leaders at the minute seem to be in vogue, they seem to be what is needed at this moment in time, but in a year or two? Who knows.
CGSG: In regards to China, the world's second largest economy, the main competitor to the US position of world leader and there's a hope that through trade conflict can be avoided. But with Chinas behaviour in the South China Sea and the presence of the United States fleet and the US' strategic interests in the area, is conflict between the two inevitable?
Mr Traynham: I sure hope not. I think that China is being very provocative with what they're doing, this conflict goes back to 2001 there was trouble over Hainan island and a Chinese jet clipped one of our planes and held I think it was four pilots hostage for a couple of days. So china is being much more provocative, they are much more aggressive in terms of territory, eg Taiwan, we recognise Taiwan's unique status there, China believes that Taiwan is part of its territory. Let's just put it this way, it feel like Russia or the Soviet Union in the 80s where both sides have their finger on the button and there needs to be some kind of cooling off period; but to return to your question I do believe this is the reason why the next president has to focus on China and has to focus on building some level of communication with trust with them. Granted they're communist. Granted they have a different outlook on life. So there is always going to be a different world view with respect to how we deal with the Chinese, but it is the second largest economy, it is getting larger. I hate to say this but in the 19th century it appeared it really was the British century in many ways, from an economic standpoint. In the 20th century it was the American century in terms of the industrial revolution happening in the country and so forth. The 21st century really does look like it's going to be the Chinese century. It is very possible mathematically that China could overtake the United States in terms of economic size/superpower status. If that is the case then China becomes the number one player around the world and the next president is going to have to confront this and use our military might to become not necessarily number one, but at least remain equal with China. So it's very very very possible that china could become the number one economic power, but not the military power so it's going to be a constant dance back and forth I think for the next ten to fifteen years. it must be noted that if China enters recession that's not good for us as they have a lot of our debt so it's a delicate balance.