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.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS