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.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
The pan-blue camp in the era after the rule of the two Chiangs — former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — can be roughly divided into two main factions: the “true blue,” who insist on opposing communism to protect the Republic of China (ROC), and the “red-blue,” who completely reject the current government and would rather collude with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control Taiwan. The families of the former group suffered brutally under the hands of communist thugs in China. They know the CPP well and harbor a deep hatred for it — the two
RSS