The world was watching the presidential debate closely last night, searching for clues as to how a President Clinton or a President Trump would manage America's foreign policy.
Charles Sennott, head of The GroundTruth Project, says foreign observers gravitated toward Clinton's commitment to America's diplomatic and military partnerships around the globe.
"If you look at The Guardian, if you look at Le Monde, there's a great amount of relief in the world to hear someone speaking sanely, talking about honoring commitments to NATO, talking about understanding the really complex equation around first use versus first strike," he said.
On the other hand, Sennott said Trump attempted to apply his business-oriented outlook on foreign policy, and a worldview based on transactions rather than ideals emerged.
"It's not transactional, [like] they pay us and we protect them, like it's some Mafia protection in a tough neighborhood. That's not the spirit of the Marshall Plan and not the purpose of NATO," Sennott said, referring to American initiatives to rebuild and protect Europe following World War II. "The idea is we are an alliance and if you go after one of the people in its alliance the others come and protect them."
What's more, Sennott adds, is that agreements like NATO have actually benefited the United States—even its economy.
"America has profited greatly from opening to the world," he said. "The confidence in the economy and in world markets is based on these agreements, and when you erode them you erode that confidence and jeopardize world markets."
To hear more from Charles Sennott, tune in to Boston Public Radio above.
