Over the past eight years, as China’s posturing in Asia became increasingly aggressive, many criticized then-US president Barack Obama for failing to stand up to the Asian giant. It was on Obama’s watch, after all, that China captured the disputed Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) from the Philippines and built seven artificial islands in the South China Sea, on which it then deployed heavy weapons — all without incurring any international costs.
Many expect Obama’s tough-talking successor, US President Donald Trump, to change all of this. He is not off to a good start.
During the campaign, Trump threatened to retaliate against China for “raping” the US on trade, to impose massive tariffs on Chinese imports, and to label China a currency manipulator.
Soon after his victory, Trump took a congratulatory telephone call from President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), thereby breaking with nearly 40 years of diplomatic orthodoxy. Trump then took the matter a step further, publicly suggesting that he would use the “one China” policy as a bargaining chip in bilateral negotiations over contentious economic and security issues.
However, Trump backed down. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) made it clear that he would not so much as talk to Trump on the phone without assurance that the US president would pledge fidelity to the “one China” policy.
The call happened, and Trump did exactly what Xi wanted, ostensibly without extracting anything in return.
Trump is not the only figure in his administration to stake out a bold position on China and then retreat meekly. During his Senate confirmation process, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declared that the US should “send China a clear signal” by denying it access to its artificial islands in the South China Sea.
China’s expansionism in the region, Tillerson asserted, was “akin to Russia’s taking Crimea” from Ukraine — an implicit criticism of Obama for allowing the two developments.
However, Tillerson, like his new boss, soon backed down.
The US, he now claims, merely needs to be “capable” of restricting China’s access to the South China Sea islands, in the event of a contingency.
And yet China’s behavior merits stronger US action now. The country is attempting to upend the “status quo” not only in the South China Sea, but also in the East China Sea and the Himalayas. It is working to create a large sphere of influence through its “one belt, one road” initiative. And it is re-engineering transboundary river flows. All of this is intended to achieve Chinese leaders’ goal of re-establishing the country’s mythical “Middle Kingdom” status.
Flawed US policy has opened the way for these efforts, in part by helping to turn China into an export juggernaut. The problem is not that China has a strong economy, but rather that it abuses free-trade rules to subsidize its exports and impede imports to shield domestic jobs and industry. Today, China sells US$4 worth of goods to the US for every US$1 in imports.
Just as the US inadvertently saddled the world with the jihadist scourge by training Afghan mujahidin — the anti-Soviet fighting force out of which al-Qaeda evolved — it unintentionally created a rules-violating monster by aiding China’s economic rise. And it sustained its China-friendly trade policy even as China’s abuses became bolder and more obvious.
It is ironic that China, which has quietly waged a trade war for years, has responded to Trump’s threats to impose punitive tariffs by warning of the risks of protectionism and trade wars.
However, a growing number of countries are recognizing that reciprocity should guide their relations with Beijing.
Trump himself might yet challenge China. When he agreed to abide by the “one China” policy, he said that he had done so at Xi’s request, suggesting that his commitment to the policy should not be taken for granted.
Moreover, even without defying the “one China” policy, Trump has ample room to apply pressure. He could start by highlighting increasing Chinese repression in Tibet. He could also expand political, commercial and military contacts with Taiwan, where the “one China” policy has had the paradoxical effect of deepening people’s sense of national identity and strengthening their determination to maintain autonomy.
In any case, as China continues to pursue its hegemonic ambitions, Trump will have little choice but to pivot toward Asia — substantively, not just rhetorically, as Obama did. To constrain China and bring stability to Asia, he will have to work closely with friends. His efforts to establish a personal connection with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the high priority his administration is assigning to relations with India and South Korea are positive signs.
By failing to provide strategic heft to his Asia pivot, Obama left it unhinged. Trump has the opportunity to change this. If he does not, China will continue to challenge US allies and interests, with serious potential consequences for Asia and the world.
Brahma Chellaney is a professor of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and a fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing