US President Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy — based on tactics and transactions, rather than strategic vision — has produced a series of dazzling flip-flops. Lacking any guiding convictions, much less clear priorities, Trump has confounded the US’ allies and strategic partners — particularly in Asia — jeopardizing regional security in the process.
To be sure, some of Trump’s reversals have brought him closer to traditional US positions. In particular, he has declared that NATO is “no longer obsolete,” as it supposedly was during his campaign. That change has eased some of the strain on the US’ relationship with Europe.
However, in Asia — which faces serious security, political and economic challenges — Trump’s reversals have only exacerbated regional volatility. With so many political flashpoints threatening to trigger violent conflict, the last thing Asia’s leaders need is another strategic wild card. Yet, in Trump, that is precisely what they have.
The US president has shown himself to be more mercurial than the foul-mouthed Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte or the autocratic Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Even the famously impulsive North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un seems almost predictable by comparison.
Perhaps the most consistent feature of Trump’s foreign policy is his obsession with gaining short-term advantage. In one recent tweet, he asked why he should label China a currency manipulator, when the Chinese are working with the US to rein in North Korea.
Days earlier, he had called the Chinese “world champions” of currency manipulation.
That tweet may offer additional insight into Trump’s Asia policy. It highlights North Korea’s sudden emergence as Trump’s main foreign-policy challenge, suggesting that the strategic patience pursued by former US president Barack Obama could be replaced by a more accident-prone policy of strategic tetchiness.
This reading is reinforced by US Vice President Mike Pence’s claims that the recent low-risk, low-reward US military strikes in Syria and Afghanistan demonstrate US “strength” and “resolve” against North Korea.
Such claims reflect a lack of understanding that, when it comes to North Korea, the US has no credible military option, because any US attack would result in the immediate devastation of South Korea’s main population centers.
The Trump administration’s current strategy — counting on China to address the North Korea challenge — will not work, either. After all, North Korea has lately been seeking to escape China’s clutches and pursue direct engagement with the US.
Given the bad blood between Xi and Kim, it seems that Trump’s best bet might be some version of what he proposed during the campaign: Meeting with Kim over a hamburger. With the North Korean nuclear genie already out of the bottle, denuclearization may no longer be a plausible option. Yet a nuclear freeze could still be negotiated.
Trump’s reliance on China to manage North Korea will not just be ineffective; it could actually prove even more destabilizing for Asia. Trump, who initially seemed eager to challenge China’s hegemonic ambitions, now seems poised to cede more ground to the country, compounding a major foreign-policy mistake on the part of Obama’s administration.
Of all of Trump’s reversals, this one has the greatest geostrategic significance, because China will undoubtedly take full advantage of it to advance its own objectives. From its growing repression of political dissidents and ethnic minorities to its efforts to upend the territorial “status quo” in Asia, China constantly tests how far it can go. Under Obama, it got away with a lot. Under Trump, it could get away with even more.
Trump now calls China a friend and partner of his administration, and seems to have developed a fondness for Xi himself.
“We have a great chemistry together,” he said. “We like each other. I like him a lot.”
That fondness extends beyond words: Trump’s actions have already strengthened Xi’s position — and undercut his own — though Trump probably did not realize it. First, Trump backed down from his threat not to honor the “one China” policy.
More recently, Trump hosted Xi at his Florida resort, without requiring that China dismantle any of the unfair trade and investment practices that he railed against during the campaign.
The summit with Trump boosted Xi’s image at home ahead of the Chinese Communist Party’s 19th National Congress later this year, where Xi may manage to break free from institutionalized collective rule to wield power more autocratically than any Chinese leader since Mao Zedong (毛澤東). It also indicated the Trump administration’s tacit acceptance of China’s territorial grabs in the South China Sea.
This will embolden China not just to militarize fully its seven artificial islands there, but also to pursue territorial revisionism in other regions, from the East China Sea to the western Himalayas.
Trump believes that “lots of very potentially bad problems will be going away,” owing to his relationship with the “terrific” Xi. In fact, his promise to “Make America Great Again” is antithetical to Xi’s “Chinese dream” of “rejuvenating the Chinese nation.”
Xi’s idea, which Trump is unwittingly endorsing, is that their countries should band together in a “new model of great power relations.” However, it is hard to imagine how two countries with such opposing worldviews — not to mention what Harvard University’s Graham Allison has called “extreme superiority complexes” — can oversee world affairs effectively.
It is conceivable that Trump could flip again on China (or North Korea). Indeed, Trump’s policy reversals may well turn out to be more dangerous than his actual policies. The need for constant adjustment will only stoke greater anxiety among the US’ allies and partners, who now run the risk that their core interests will be used as bargaining chips.
If those anxieties prompt some countries to build up their militaries, Asia’s strategic landscape will be fundamentally altered.
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
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry