US President Donald Trump’s comeback to the White House in January has ushered in an overly grandiose global vision: He is aiming to construct a new world order centered on his preferred “America First” credo, which places US interests at the forefront of all foreign policy musings.
However, far from having its groundwork based on moral considerations, Trump’s vision has always been anchored in his transactional approach, and those demands have since become more unsettling and malevolent. Trump is pushing his agenda forward by using an amalgam of vindictive rhetoric, tariff-laden measures and political coercion.
The world is now approaching an era of unprecedented uncertainty, marked by the rise of Washington as a “transactional hegemon.” The US’ post-World War II era of maintaining a US-led system of security alliances, and acting as a global guardian of free trade and stability against authoritarian tyranny is on the verge of collapse.
In many respects, the superpower is no longer dedicated to using its power leverage to uphold liberal principles, shoring up the liberal international order and providing international public goods willingly. Rather, the Trump-led US is capitalizing on its outsized economic and military capabilities to acquire trade and investment benefits, and expand US territories overseas.
Nor would Washington be willing to cover the expense of security insurance to longtime allies and partners at no cost. To get the US provision of security and good graces, and mitigate Trump’s flurry of trade measures, countries are anticipated to meet his demands, such as increasing their defense spending, meeting tariff criteria and making “payments,” one of the initial options considered by the Trump administration.
However, Trump does not step away from supporting allies and partners. His endorsements are few and far between. The US under Trump 2.0 is highly selective — limited to like-minded states with the willingness towards burden-sharing — and sparing with its backing. Trump’s take is straightforward: Other countries should pay more in exchange for economic benefits and security protection from Washington.
It might be naive to yearn to bring back US moral or absolute support, as for Trump, there is no such thing as a free lunch. In light of his transactional reflections regarding trade balances and security arrangements, the transactional foreign policy of hegemony suggests that “everything is on the table.”
Trump’s transaction-driven stance and the resurrection of revanchism could make the anti-US sentiments run deep in Southeast Asia, where most middle and small states gained independence thanks to their dogged resistance to European colonial rule and imperial expansion.
Even more worrisome is that authoritarian powers, especially China and Russia, could be emboldened by Trump’s expansionist ambitions and the money-for-territory approach, leading to the degradation of sovereignty and territorial integrity that have been crucial in preserving global security for decades.
At a time when the future of global governance is clouded by the erratic policies of a superpower, rising powers in the Indo-Pacific region should take the lead. Capable and traditional middle powers, such as Australia, Japan and India, should stop their superfluous debates on Trump’s capricious foreign policy dispositions and embrace shared leadership with regional and rising powers, including Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam.
As international cooperation is the foundation for the world’s progress, second-tier nations should count on functional and strategic motivations to foster it as normative and domestic motivations dwindle in Washington. The world is yearning for practical, non-ideological and issue-based cooperation among states of divergent political composition.
For instance, Indo-Pacific middle powers such as Japan, Australia, India and Indonesia are well-positioned to spearhead concerted efforts to address common security issues, such as climate change, human trafficking, submarine cable infrastructure and online disinformation.
Although Taiwan’s international status is contentious, the nation’s hands-on knowledge and expertise make it an ideal partner for Southeast Asian nations looking to build resilient economies supported by high-tech innovation and an agriculture bolstered by “smart, resilient, sustainable, and healthy” strategies.
Additionally, in this fragmented world, emerging powers should join hands to devise a stronger “networked security cooperation,” perhaps starting with human security projects and regional economic integration to mitigate the negative aspects of the US’ aversion to commitments and Trump’s bullying transactionalism. While abandonment and entrapment are menacing for middle and small states, strengthening self-reliance and attaining collective security should top the list.
Huynh Tam Sang is a Young Leaders Program member of the Pacific Forum, a research fellow at the Taiwan NextGen Foundation, and a doctoral student in the Taipei School of Economics and Political Science at National Tsing Hua University.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Last week, Nvidia chief executive officer Jensen Huang (黃仁勳) unveiled the location of Nvidia’s new Taipei headquarters and announced plans to build the world’s first large-scale artificial intelligence (AI) supercomputer in Taiwan. In Taipei, Huang’s announcement was welcomed as a milestone for Taiwan’s tech industry. However, beneath the excitement lies a significant question: Can Taiwan’s electricity infrastructure, especially its renewable energy supply, keep up with growing demand from AI chipmaking? Despite its leadership in digital hardware, Taiwan lags behind in renewable energy adoption. Moreover, the electricity grid is already experiencing supply shortages. As Taiwan’s role in AI manufacturing expands, it is critical that
RSS