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.
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS