US president-elect Donald Trump is to be sworn into office tomorrow after one of the most uncertain US presidential transitions in the post-war period. US foreign and trade policy could be entering a period of change as significant as any since the beginning of the Cold War, when then-US president Harry Truman helped build a consensus around US global international leadership.
Trump wants “a new foreign-policy direction” and his stance on Russia and China in his first 100 days could be key leading indicators of the degree of transformation on the horizon.
It is already clear that he will challenge key elements of post-war orthodoxy pursued, in different ways, by Democratic and Republican presidents based around US global dominance and commitment to expanding the liberal democratic order, including US-led alliances.
Specifically, with Trump’s commitment to putting “America first,” he is rhetorically committed to more combative relations with China; greater burden sharing with traditional military allies, including Japan and Europe; reviewing or scrapping trade deals, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); potential withdraw from the Paris Agreement — agreed to by more than 170 countries as a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol; the possibility of ending the Iranian nuclear agreement; and the prospect of pursuing rapprochement with Russia.
Yet, one reason the transition to the Trump presidency has been so uncertain is contrasting views of his incoming Cabinet.
For instance, US secretary of defence-designate James Mattis last week said that “Russia is raising grave concerns on several fronts,” including trying to “break the Northern Atlantic alliance [NATO],” and that Washington should keep the nuclear deal with Iran.
Meanwhile, US secretary of state-designate Rex Tillerson was forceful in his criticism of Russia and he indicated his support for free-trade agreements.
The balance of probability is that while Trump’s campaign rhetoric will be watered down in some areas, his instincts will powerfully shape the contours of the new team’s policies.
He knows that there is a sizeable body of US public opinion that supports him, with one Pew Research Center poll in April last year finding that about 60 percent of people believe that the US “should deal with its own [domestic] problems and let others deal with theirs the best they can.”
In his first 100 days, a key area to watch will be policy toward other “great powers,” especially China and Russia. Already, it is clear that Beijing could become the bete noire of the new administration and underlying Trump’s hawkish sentiment is a conviction that the country represents the primary threat to US interests globally.
Yet, he has also acknowledged that China can also play a potentially constructive role in key areas, such as North Korea’s continuing provocations.
In this context, Trump asserted last week that “everything is under negotiation” with Beijing and it appears that he might ultimately be looking for a “grand bargain.”
He has already begun to shake-up the bilateral “status quo” following his telephone call last month with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). This is believed to be the first such communication between a Taiwanese president and a US president or president-elect since the 1970s and a breach of the so-called “one China” policy, according to which Washington agreed to withdraw diplomatic recognition of Taiwan as part of a deal to secure ties with China.
China policy appears one area where Trump is relatively aligned with his Cabinet.
For instance, Tillerson last week said that Beijing would “not be allowed access” to its new, artificial islands in the South China Sea, and Mattis slammed the country’s behavior in the area, with China’s moves unsettling US allies.
Any “grand bargain” with China would need to extend beyond the security arena to economics too. Here, one specific measure Trump wants to see is Beijing floating the yuan.
He asserts that the country is “manipulating” its currency by keeping its exchange rate artificially low to secure an exports advantage.
However, it is US policy to Russia that has potential to be most controversial — with Congress already looking into allegations of the Trump’s ties with Moscow. While he might tread carefully in his first few weeks, his team has already been in “very frequent” contact with the Russian ambassador to the US — and is seeking a relatively early meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump believes Russia is not a serious threat to the US and that there is scope for rapprochement, hinting last week that he could drop economic sanctions if the country “is helpful.”
Specifically, he perceives there are common interests over issues such as preventing Iran securing nuclear weapons, combating terrorism and potentially even helping contain China in a new global balance of power.
One key area in which Trump will be most keenly watched internationally will be how any warming ties with Moscow might affect NATO.
He has described the military alliance as “obsolete,” sending chills down the spines of states in Eastern Europe, yet Mattis last week argued that NATO has relevance “as the most successful military alliance in modern world history, maybe ever.”
Already, uncertainty over Trump’s NATO policy is spurring Europeans to seek to reverse about a decade of defense spending cuts, with a European Defense Action Plan discussed last month that would see greater continental military cooperation.
Trump’s stance toward Russia and China could be key leading indicators of the degree to which US foreign and trade policy is now entering a period of change. While his campaign rhetoric will be watered down in some areas, a significant recasting could nonetheless be on the horizon.
Andrew Hammond is an associate at the Centre for International Affairs, Diplomacy and Strategy at the London School of Economics.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US