Hang Nguyen. Asian Affairs: An American Review. Volume 44, Issue 4. October-December 2017.
“Campaign in poetry, govern in prose” — Mario Cuomo, 2017
Introduction
Trump’s campaign rhetoric suggested to different Asian capitals that under the Trump administration there would be a dramatic change in the U.S. Asia policy. Trump had questioned not only U.S. security umbrella for Japan, but also China and international free trade. This paper seeks to examine Trump’s rhetoric about Asia during his presidential campaign and evaluate the Trump administration’s foreign policy toward Asia.
Toward that end, this paper will give an overview of what Trump had stated during his presidential campaign and analyze the Asian viewpoint of how the world would be under a Trump-led United States. Among many of Trump’s announcements on Asian affairs, China and American allies in Asia had emerged as those he was most concerned about in this region. Following a critical review of Trump’s announcements, the paper goes on to examine the Asian perspective on those announcements. It will demonstrate that Asia believes that if Trump would be able to translate his words into action, political tensions, trade protectionism, and arms races would be rising in Asia and all over the world. Furthermore, the paper will examine the Trump administration’s foreign policy to Asia and underscore that there are various forces that are involved in checking a U.S. president’s power, thus Trump cannot do whatever he had proposed. It is said that there is a great gap between words and actions, and Trump is no exception.
Trump’s Campaign Rhetoric and Asian Perspective
Many observers, analysts, and strategists in Asia are concerned about a shift in U.S. policy in Asia under the Trump administration. Looking back at many of Trump’s announcements from June 16, 2015, the day Trump announced that he was running for president, Asian countries have good reasons to worry about Trump’s foreign policy. As a billionaire and a reality television star, Trump has hardly any experience in foreign policy, security, and international affairs. He has had a successful business career, but it is doubted that if he could manage to formulate a U.S.-Asia policy in a way that will contribute to regional peace, stability, and prosperity. In his official announcements, Trumps touched on various matters, among which China and American allies in Asia appeared to be ones of his deep concerns.
On China
Referring to China, Trump called China “the great abuser of the United States.” He said that “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country,” adding “That’s what they’re doing. It’s the greatest theft in the history of the world.” Trump has seen China as a problem both in trade and in what this Asian country is doing in the South China Sea. For example, regarding trade with China, Trump stressed that China has taken advantage of its membership in the World Trade Organization and Americans have been losing their jobs to the Chinese people. He said that the United States has lost 70,000 factories since China officially became a member of the World Trade Organization and has had a huge trade deficit (about $500 billion dollar) with China. Trump also accused Beijing of currency manipulation and held that Chinese currency manipulation needed to be stopped, as it has negatively affected U.S. trade with China: “China, who’s made a fortune with us, they make our products, they make our money, and they’re fine.” He underlined that under the Trump presidency, the United States would “stand up to China” and “stop the jobs from leaving” the United States. Indeed, Trump’s announcements on trade with China were consistent with his major goal: “Negotiate fair trade deals that create American jobs, increase American wages, and reduce America’s trade deficit.” Trump’s determination to deal with trade imbalance with China by taxing Chinese products and imposing a tariff on China as the Chinese—in his words, “do it to” the United States—indicates that under a Trump administration, the U.S.-China trade relations would be restructured in the way that is reasonably fair for the United States.
On the South China Sea
On the South China Sea, Trump strongly criticized China’s artificial island building and militarization in the South China Sea. In his view, the United States needed to counterbalance China’s growing assertiveness and military power. He supported a hard-line to China as he supposed that the Obama administration had been too soft to China. In his speech at Jacksonville, Florida, on November 3, 2016, Trump blamed the Obama administration for China’s increased unilateralism in the South China Sea, saying that what China was doing in the South China Seas was “such a big violation,” but China has “no respect for Obama” and no longer respects the United States. Trump once predicted that China would become an influential force in Asia at the expense of the United States. In his speech on national security in September 2016, Trump had proposed to expand both the U.S. Navy and Marines. He specifically said that the United States needed to increase the size of its Navy to 350 ships. Noticeably, Alexander Gray and Peter Navarro, two of Trump’s campaign advisors, suggested in their essay published in Foreign Policy two days before the election that rising China needed to be contained by increasing U.S. military expenditure.
Rebuilding U.S. military, in Trump’s view, is vital to protect U.S. strategic interest. It seems that in his plan to “Make America Great Again,” Trump would seek to formulate a U.S.-China policy that is alarming to China. Trump and his team would seek to prevent China’s growing influence and to renegotiate trade deals with China in the way that Beijing might brand them as unfair and unilateral. Though Trump’s policy to China is a story yet to be written, there would be substantively and symbolically significant changes in U.S.-China relations under the Trump administration.
On American Allies in Asia
Before Trump was elected as U.S. president on November 8, 2016, there was no uncertainty around the guarantee of U.S. security to its Asian allies. Since U.S. imperial expansion in the Philippines in 1898, throughout the Second World War, the Cold War, and the Post-Cold War period, the United States has established itself as a power in the Asia-Pacific. As the only power with a network of close allies in the region, the United States has a major role in preserving the rule-based order in this part of the world. The permanent presence of U.S. troops in Japan and South Korea has been a crystal clear indication of U.S. long-term commitment to defend American allies in Asia and involving Asian security. After Trump becomes the President-elect, it is unknown whether or not the United States will continue its security guarantee to its Asian allies and its rebalance policy to Asia. There is a state of uncertainty in Asia. That uncertainty, to be sure, stems from the reality that during his presidential campaign Trump had made many announcements on the burden of allies on the United States and his proposal to reconsider defending U.S. allies. Trump had not only questioned the decades of U.S. foreign policy consensus but also challenged Asian security and stability.
Trump had made it clear that it was time for the American allies in Asia to protect themselves or to pay the United States for defending them. Though seeing the benefit of having a secure Asia, Trump stressed that the benefit was not big enough, and the United States simply could not shoulder that burden any longer. Trump was frustrated that the United States was bound to defend Japan: “You know we have a treaty with Japan, Where if Japan is attacked, we have to use the full force and might of the United States … If we’ve attacked, Japan doesn’t have to do anything. They can sit home and watch Sony television.” For Trump, it is just unfair for the United States to spend its resources on Japanese security while Japan is wealthy enough to pay for its own defense. In the same tone, Trump strongly criticized South Korea for free-riding on the United States for security. He just put it bluntly: “So the young man from North Korea starts acting up and having one of his fits, we immediately get our ships going. We get our aircraft. We get nothing for this … I’m not saying that we’re going to let anything happen to them. But [South Korea has] to help us.” Trump made it clear that South Korea is a rich industrial country that can pay the United States the cost of defending South Korea. According to Trump, Japan and South Korea had to share the security burden with the United States in a reasonably fair way. As a debtor nation, the United States should no longer pay a fortune to these wealthy allies who might not do anything in case the United States was attacked. He underlined that “I would want South Korea to pay us a lot of money. […] We’re defending them, […] but South Korea should pay us and pay us very substantially for protecting them,” and that “if we say to Japan we need help, you have to help us, because we can’t continue to lose a fortune defending you—you have to be prepared to walk. You have to be prepared. That doesn’t mean I want them to arm, but it’s possible. You know, there’s a group of people that are very smart people, that say maybe it’s better for us if Japan pays their own way, they arm, and they take care of North Korea instead of us taking care of it.”
Indeed, Trump asserted that the United States could no longer defend Japan and South Korea. He went further by suggesting that both these allies could have their own arms. If South Korea and Japan still wanted security guarantee from the United States they had to pay the Trump administration substantially. When asked about the possibility to withdraw the U.S. troops from Japan and South Korea, Trump said: “The answer is not happily but the answer is yes. We cannot afford to be losing vast amounts of billions of dollars on all of this. We just can’t do it anymore. Now there was a time when we could have done it. When we started doing it. But we can’t do it anymore. And I have a feeling that they’d up the ante very much. I think they would, and if they wouldn’t I would really have to say yes.” Trump even suggested that South Korea and Japan should have their own nuclear weapons rather than relying totally on U.S. nuclear umbrella. In an interview with the Times about Japan, he explained that “If the United States keeps on … its current path of weakness, [Japan is] going to want to have [nuclear weapons] anyway with or without me discussing it.”
Trump even implied that Tokyo and Seoul would try to develop nuclear weapons—regardless of what Washington does—because many in the world have already possessed this kind of weapon. To borrow his words, “It’s only a question of time. … You have so many [nuclear] countries already.”
Trump’s proposition to reduce security commitment with American allies in Asia is based on his belief that the United States is now a weak nation with a deplete military and a huge amount of debt. While U.S. allies are becoming more and more prosperous, the United States that is no longer great should not defend its allies without reasonable returns from them. Trump’s victory has shaken the conception that U.S. allies can rely on the United States not only for security guarantees and economic cooperation. The next U.S. presidency appears to be a threat rather than a hope for Asian peace and prosperity.
Asian Perspective
The U.S. president’s world view does determine Asian affairs. In reality, of all world countries, Asians are the most interested in this subject. The reason is simple: Asians have had to be. U.S. policies have a great influence on Asian peace and prosperity, and the making of U.S. policies have been to a large extent based on how the U.S. President views the world. Looking back at many of Trump’s statements on Asia, Asian capitals feel uneased and deeply concerned about Trump’s world view. In general, Asian countries maintain that a Trump administration is likely to trigger crisis in the United States relations with Asia. Based on what Trump had stated about Asia from the South China Sean and China to American allies in Asia, Asian governments sketched out how the world would be with a President Trump.
From an Asian viewpoint, if Trump’s words were translated into actions, political tensions, trade protectionism and arms races would be rising in Asia and all over the world.
Political Tensions Rising
From an Asian view, the way Trump sees the world and American position in the world shows that under the Trump presidency there would be little place for promoting values and international norms; instead, national interests would be prioritized. Commenting on Trump’s victory over Ted Cruz in May 2016, Global Times, China’s state-run media, released an editorial entitled “Unpredictable Trump could swing either way on China,” which shows the Chinese government’s perspective on a Trump-led United States. It is stated in the editorial that Trump’s current policy proposals suggested that, under a Trump presidency, the United States might be inclined to isolationism and attach more significance to “America First” and the American economy, adding that, “Ideology will be downplayed. Washington might engage in more squabbles with its free-riding allies.”
From China’s view, Trump’s pragmatism would bring changes to the U.S.-China relations. However, China believed that those changes would “not be as great as suggested by his unrestrained performances.” China thinks that the best way for it to deal with uncertainties in relations with the United States is to increase its strength: “We believe that no matter whether Trump or Clinton prevails, they will see a “China with strength” from different perspectives.” For China, Trump was simply “an anti-establishment candidate whose foreign policy approach is more a blame of the existing foreign policy establishment than “a useful set of proposals to improve the wisdom of the White House.” According to China, what Trump put forth in his foreign policy speech in April 2016 showed that he was inexperienced in international politics: “Vowing to put ‘America first,’ Trump encapsulated the specifics of his foreign policy based on a simple reworking of his campaign slogan ‘Making America Great Again.’ However, without nuances and insights, most of his foreign policy will prove hollow, nationalistic and inconsistent.” Indeed, China maintained that Trump was seriously erred in his proposal to use U.S. economic power as leverage to get China to do “what they have to do with North Korea.” Trump did not really understand how economies work in the contemporary world, and thus outlined “a fractured foreign policy.”
Also, Japan thinks that Trump’s remarks on the world indicated he is likely to formulate policies that cause tensions in international relations generally and in U.S.-Japan relations particularly. It was reported that “Trump has ‘thrown a bean ball’ at Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s administration with his remarks on withdrawing American forces from Japan.” Japan was deeply concerned about Trump’s determination to ask Japan to pay more for the U.S. security guarantee. In an interview with the Nikkhan Gendai, Naoto Amaki, a former Japanese ambassador to Lebanon said that: “The thing about Trump’s remarks is that many Americans share the same ideas.” He even predicted that Trump as U.S. president might ask to review the security treaty between Japan and the United States and even dissolve this treaty alliance. According to Amaki, Trump would be a trouble for Japan. This was echoed by Yoshihisa Komori, a U.S.-based Japanese journalist who insisted that Trump does not have the sensitive nature needed for diplomacy, and “he’s just calling for making America’s national interest a top priority.” Assessing Trump’s insistence on asking Japan to contribute more for U.S. military bases in Japan, Komori said “Trump thinks the situation is not give-and-take, but give-and-give. So he would make Japan spend more.”
In general, Asia sees a Trump presidency would be threatening to world security and stability. His assertions and statements are damaging U.S. security interests and reputation, and make Asian nations “confused, shocked and bewildered.” Trump’s belief of the U.S. role in the world is reflected in his campaign slogans: “Make American Great Again” and “America First” are likely to lead him to form policy detrimental to U.S. allies and partners. Trump, with his isolationist stance on the U.S. standing in the world, would seek to retreat from international commitments and place a great emphasis on protecting U.S. national interests. He would be far more focused on building U.S. internal strengths and thus undoubtedly seek to abdicate U.S. responsibility as a world leader for providing global public goods. Trump’s denouncing of major allies might make Japan and South Korea consider employing new national defense strategy. They might think of building up their defensive capacity or even secretly developing their own nuclear weapons. If a Trump-led government seriously reduced its security commitments with Japan and South Korea, which are hosted 54,000 and 28,500 U.S. troops respectively, China which has been seeking to expand its economic and political influence in Asia. China will likely see a good chance to escalate its military building and oil drilling in the South China Sea. This will likely escalate the risk of conflicts between China and other Southeast Asian nations, particularly Vietnam and the Philippines. Regarding foreign relations, the United States under Trump is about to have a stress test with the world and particularly with Asia. Now, Donald Trump is heading to the White House, and it is worth noting that his plan, to the extent it is implemented, to abandon U.S. long-standing security commitments to Asian allies and friends, will especially encourage China to challenge U.S. primacy in Asia. As China is emboldened to expand and consolidate its power in Asia, many Asian nations are likely to bandwagon against China. No doubts, Asia will likely be trapped in tensions, or even prolonged conflicts, which could spill into other parts of the world.
Trade Protectionism Rising
Economically, there will be more trade protectionism. In reading Trump’s 7- point plan to rebuild the U.S. economy by fighting for free trade and his presidential campaign announcements, we can see that trade protectionism would become a common tool in the world economy. Raising tariff, reducing imports, restricting quotas, and increasing government subsidies would be used more often by the United States and other countries to compete with each other. Trump said he supports free trade and free markets; however, the way he proposed to bring jobs and businesses back to America proved he would seek to restrain trade between the United States and other nations. Trump proposed to impose a 45% tariff on China, 35% on Mexico, and arbitrary tariffs of between 15%-45% for any country labelled by Trump as a “currency manipulator.”
According to Alex Carpi, a senior fellow at the National University of Singapore, “These protectionist tariffs would be the precursor to a destructive chain of events that would harm manufacturers and consumers in both the United States and Asia and would lead to disrupted supply chains, imploded trade relationships and, ultimately, trade wars.” As a world’s economic power, the U.S. economic and trade policy doubtlessly has a great impact on the world economy. The trade policies of a Trump White House appear damaging not only to the United States but also to the whole world. It is estimated by the Peterson Institute of International Economics, a non-partisan think tank, that “Trump’s trade policies would cost the U.S. 4 million jobs and send the U.S. into a recession.”
If Trump’s trade policies are really implemented, the global economy will likely slide into rampant protectionism. This had been pointed out by Stephen Moore and Lawrence Kudlow in their 2015 article titled “Is Donald Trump a 21st Century Protectionist Herbert Hoover?” published in National Review: “The U.S is the hub of the global trading system, so any lurch toward protectionism in America would give other nations an easy excuse to erect higher trade barriers. The ensuing domino effect could shut down the global trading system. No wonder financial markets are so jittery.” Indeed, for Asian countries, Trump’s protectionist policy and tariff measures are extreme.
After many years enjoying a huge trade surplus from the United States, China can be among the first nations a Trump-led United States demands to widen its market access. Speaking at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 2016 CEO Summit in Peru on November 19, 2016, Chinese president, Xi Jinping called on APEC countries to work together to promote regional trade cooperation and economic integration in a clear reference to Trump’s proposal for protectionist policy, which would hurt both the United States and other countries in the world trading system. Xi Jinping put it forth that “We should deepen and expand cooperation in our region,” underlining that “Any attempt to undercut or exclude each other must be rejected.”
That a Trump-led United States will likely cut imports with high tariff is worrisome to many Asian governments. For instance, Vietnamese exporters are deeply concerned about Trump’s protectionist policy. The Vietnam News released an essay entitled “VN exporters fear protectionist Trump policy,” showing Vietnamese exporters’ view on the impact of a Trump-led government on Vietnam’s foreign trade. They all think that such protectionist measures as higher anti-dumping duties and technical barriers to trade would be adopted, and this would negatively affect Vietnamese industries, namely fisheries, steel, and electronic components. Obviously, Vietnamese enterprises fear that “US firms’ demands for anti-dumping action will get more traction since the new president is a businessman. According to Nguyen Viet Ha, Managing director of BowerGroupAsia, Trump’s views and opinions, particularly about international trade, are not the same as Obama’s. Ha asserted that Trump does not advocate free trade agreements because Trump thinks that they are taking away jobs and businesses from Americans to overseas. In Ha’s own words, Trump’s public announcements imply that “Obama’s legacy on international trade will likely be short-lived under President Trump.” Vietnam has sought to integrate deeply in the world economy and become a rapidly growing market. The challenges in trading with the United States under the Trump presidency would be unavoidable. Once Trump’s protectionist trade measures are carried out, especially higher tariffs, Vietnam’s export oriented economy would suffer.
Also, Australia has certain concerns about the implications of Trump’s victory on international trade, as the United States seems to be “going down a new isolationist path with Trump.”
Gorana Grgic, a lecturer in U.S. politics and foreign policy at the University of Sydney, pointed out that trade protectionism would cause disruptions in trade and instabilities in the market that could affect Australia directly. Worrying that Trump’s protectionist approach would well impact Australian economy, Kumuda Simpson, a lecturer in international relations at La Trobe University warned that Trump’s message of economic disenfranchisement and anger at globalization must be taken seriously.” Agreeing with these leading Australian academics, MP Bob Katter underlined the adverse impact of a Trump presidency. In his response to reporters in Canberra, MP Bob Katter said that “Free-marketism is now dead.” In addition, Bernard Keane, Crikey’s political editor, asserted in his analysis of Trump’s trade protectionism and its impact on Australia that “Australia—and the world—is sliding back into protectionism, and it will impoverish us all.” Henry Ergas, a columnist of the Australian shared Keane’s view that Trump’s taxi and trade policies could be detrimental to Australia and the world. Ergas believes that it is becoming more and more difficult for Trump to back away from the anti-trade pronouncements that dominated his campaign trail. He points out that Trump’s trade policies will pose obvious risks for Australian economy, and that when Trump becomes U.S. president on Friday, January 20, 2017, the world, which is no longer in great shape, might even “get uglier.”
Indeed, the Asia-Pacific region cannot help wondering whether Trump would be able to translate his words on international trade into actions. The panic in the world financial market is partly a consequence of Trump’s strong criticism on free trade. Viewing international trade as a negative-sum game for the United States, Trump proposed to prevent U.S. firms from building plants overseas and erecting trade barriers against foreign exporters. His vision of the world trading system had been seen by many Asian capitals to be pessimistic and extreme. Following Trump trade policy approach, inappropriate solutions to the United States’ competitiveness deficit could be put forth. More seriously, when the United States is going protectionist, China and other Asian countries are inclined to go protectionist. Once many Asian economies are going in the same direction, and they are the economies that contribute the most to global economic growth, the global economy will be in recession or stagnation.
Arms Racing Rising
Trump’s abilities to put his policy proposal into force are uncertain. However, it is certain that if he is still inclined to renegotiate the Iranian nuclear deal and pull U.S. resources out of the Asia-Pacific, particularly East Asia as he pledged in the presidential campaign, it will trigger a global arms race. Writing in an editorial published on the USA Today Web site, Trump sees Iran as “an existential threat” to Israel, U.S. Middle Eastern allies and the United States itself. Trump put it forth that “If we have to wait until the next president is sworn in to revisit this nuclear weapons agreement, then the next president better be someone who knows how to negotiate and who will do what is best for the United States. […] When I am elected president, I will renegotiate with Iran—right after I enable the immediate release of our American prisoners and ask Congress to impose new sanctions that stop Iran from having the ability to sponsor terrorism around the world.” The catastrophic consequence of the Trump’s renegotiation will most likely be a nuclearized Iran, and this means that the Middle Eastern countries which have seen Iran as a strategic threat would seek to develop nuclear weapons.
Similarly, Trump’s insistence that Japan and South Korea have to defend themselves in the face of a nuclear North Korea clearly shows that he might support these Asian allies to have nuclear arsenals. Trump, when speaking about his foreign policy approach stated that “at some point, we cannot be the policeman of the world. And unfortunately, we have a nuclear world now.” Trump believed that there was proliferation of nuclear weapons in the past and thus it may happen again in the present time and in the future. Trump has indeed provoked serious concerns in Asia. If U.S. allies in Asia are forced in the situation that they have to really do something to protect themselves, they are likely to turn to nuclear weapons as the best option. If that happens, then the world has a nuclearized Japan, a nuclearized South Korea. The list may be longer, and that will create a whole new ballgame in Asia.
Besides showing support for nuclear proliferation, Trump promised to build up U.S. conventional military power. He once put it forth that the United States was a rich country with very powerful military and huge capacity in various ways. In his assessment, the United States nowadays have a severely depleted military, and the U.S. nuclear arsenals are in really bad shape. Recently, the president-elect has revealed his plan to strengthen U.S. military presence in Asia. Rudy Giuliani, the president-elect’s frontrunner for secretary of state, in his remarks to global business leaders in Washington on November 16, 2016, said that Washington would increase U.S. troops in the Asia Pacific to 550,000 instead of going down to 420,000. In addition, the U.S. Navy will be strengthened and expanded from 280 to 350 ships. In Rudy Giuliani’s words, “At 350, China can’t match us in the Pacific. […] If you face them with a military that is modern, gigantic, overwhelming and unbelievably good at conventional and asymmetric warfare, they may challenge it, but I doubt it. Trump himself declared that “We want to deter, avoid and prevent conflict through our unquestioned military strength.” Trump maintained that fostering the military will better prepare the United States for global threats. On Trump’s plan to build up U.S. military, Adam Lockyer, security studies analyst at Macquarie University, Australia said the United States could possibly have “a lot more military muscle” under the Trump administration.
Zhu Feng, Director of the South China Sea Centre at Nanjing University, China echoed Lockyer, predicts that Trump’s military policy in Asia would be a continuation of the existing on with a high likelihood of expanded U.S. military presence in the region. Similarly, commenting on the possibility of U.S. military build-up under Trump and China’s reaction, Jingdong Yuan, an expert on Asia-Pacific security from the University of Sydney’s Centre for International Security Studies highlighted that “neither America’s will to remain predominant nor China’s desire for a Sino-centric order in Asia are realistic.” He believed that if the United States and China both “pursue these extreme goals, conflict will become more likely and it will be deeply destabilizing for the region—Australia included.”
In the sense that the Trump administration aims to consolidate the U.S. military to maintain its superior military strength, China, India and other nations are going to pursue modernization of their armed forces. Hence, there is some real anxiety in Asia and in the world about what this is going to mean. The risk of a slide into arms races, which ultimately involves nuclear proliferation, is very real. Trump declared that the world will be more secured if the U.S. allies pay a fair share to support the common defense and security, emphasizing that under his presidency there will be “a free world that is properly armed and funded, and funded beautifully.” However, it is doubtful that the world would be safer with increased arming. Arms races always can escalate to armed wars. In the current world, with many nuclear powers, it is too dangerous to trigger arms races and escalation. Seriously, many in Asia and elsewhere in the world are questioning the Trump administration’s ability to maintain the global and regional peace and stability.
Trump: Government Reality
Since Trump entered the White House, it seems unlikely for him to develop a hard-line policy toward U.S. Asian allies and China, and exhibit significant changes in his policy to Asia, as he said to U.S. voters in his presidential campaign. One thing that can be certain is that he would not allowed to do whatever he wants, as all U.S. presidents are constrained by various major forces in the foreign policy process. Externally, the global political developments are the first key source of U.S. foreign policy. Domestically, the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court are the major forces in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy. Also, the unelected actors namely, the bureaucracies, media, public opinion, interest groups have certain roles in developing U.S. foreign policy. This means that there are countless ways to influence U.S. foreign policy development. Trump, like many other U.S. presidents, is constrained by these forces. Thus, it would be very hard for him to translate into real action all of his campaign pledges.
There had been some evidence that President Trump could not deliver what he had promised. As president of the United States, Trump began to change his tone in talking about the US-Japan alliance. His admnistration sees the benefits of maintaining U.S. troops in Japan and promoting trade relations with Japan. For instance, Trump usually criticized Japan for trade issues and free-riding on U.S. security umbrella. Many of Trump’s voters would expect him to have a hard line in dealing with Tokyo. It turned out to be that Trump could not deny the significance of the alliance with Japan. Trump made it clear in a joint news conference with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that “the United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100 percent.” The Trump administration remains committed to the security of Japan, and it wants to work with Japan to foster this crucial alliance. He even made his voters more disappointed when he showed his apparent eagerness to strengthen the friendship between the two countries: “The bond between our two nations and the friendship between our two peoples runs very, very deep. This administration is committed to bringing those ties even closer.” In July 4 2017, U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis had a phone call with Japanese Minister of Defense Tomomi Inada over North Korea’s test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Jim Mattis re-affirmed “the United States’ ironclad commitment” to U.S. alliance with Japan. The United States would use its full range of capabilities to defend Japan from North Korean nuclear threat.
Similarly, President Trump has gradually realized that no U.S. president could do whatever he had proposed to do during the presidential campaign. This can be seen in the changing way that President Trump deals with China. Many of Trump’s voters might have expected that President Trump would employ a hard-line approach to Beijing to take jobs back for Americans. However, it seemed impossible for President Trump to deliver what he had pledged. In a White House statement in February 2017, it was stated that in a telephone conversation with President Xi Jinping of China, President Trump had agreed to honor “one China” policy. Furthermore, it was asserted that Washington and Beijing would have discussions and negotiations on various issues of mutual interest. By reiterating Washington’s traditional stance of recognizing Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan, after his earlier threat to uphold the “one China” policy if China did not compromise on trade, Trump showed that he had no ability to enforce a new version of the U.S. policy on China under his presidency. Furthermore, the Trump administration restated U.S. willingness to advance U.S.-China relations on the basis of mutual interests. This is made clear in U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis’s joint press availability in June 2017. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson underlined that U.S.-China relations have transformed significantly over the last four decades, and the United States expects to engage and live with China in the next four decades. He put forth,” In furthering this relationship, we need to work to expand areas of cooperation, as we did today, on issues where we have shared security interest. But we also need to address, directly and very frankly, areas where we face threats or areas where we have differences so that we can narrow these differences and solve the problems.” As for his part, Jim Mattis maintains that “the United State seeks a constructive and a results-oriented relationship with China. Events like the Diplomatic and Security Dialogue we just completed represent our effort to elevate and focus our bilateral discussions. I’m committed to improving the U.S.-China defense relationship so that it remains a stabilizing element in our overall relationship. Our two nations can and do cooperate in mutually beneficial ways. No doubt, the Trump administration strives to build mechanisms that would reduce risks between the U.S. and Chinese militaries and to establish new effective channels of communication to broaden and deepen cooperation between the United States and China. This was reconfirmed at the meeting between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany, in July 2017: “The two leaders also reviewed work in other areas in the bilateral relationship, including economic issues such as reciprocal trade and market access. President Trump and President Xi directed their security and economic teams to make progress in upcoming dialogues.”
As President, Trump has realized why Obama and many other U.S. presidents could not always deliver what they had promised. Once he enters the White House, he, like his predecessors, are surrounded by different forces. These forces, both internal and external, have been established for a long time and have their own interests. They would not let the U.S. president do whatever he wants. The very fact is that Trump as a President will have to agree with what these forces wish. Donald Trump may see that politics is not like business, which is all about deal-making. Foreign affairs should not be understood as a zero-sum game in which he can make America great again at the expense of American traditional allies and partners.
Conclusion
By underscoring the “America First” and “Make the America Great Again” worldview, Trump has undermined U.S. alliances and free trade. Trump seemed to see Asian nations mostly through an extreme lens and often as irresponsible partners and rule-breakers. From Asia’s perspective, his announcements are worrying. Many in Asia hold that the Trump administration could possibly make the word become unstable and insecure with political tensions, trade protectionism, and arms races. His policy proposals, if carried out, would certainly generate conflict and instability in Asia and the world.
As the 45th President of the United States, Trump seeks to re-evaluate and reconsider U.S. policy toward Asia to further advance U.S. economic, diplomatic, and security engagement with this part of the world. Trump’s policy on Asia could possibly produce a huge change, but a change in continuity. Despite his serious criticism of Obama’s policy toward Asia, his deep antipathy to U.S. security commitments to American allies in Asia and his severe accusation of China as a currency manipulator, Trump and his team have found it vital to maintain some elements of Obama’s rebalance in Asia for U.S. national interests. Given their heavy reliance on the U.S. security umbrella, U.S. allies in Asia must choose to cautiously cooperate with the Trump administration. As for China and other states in the Asia-Pacific region, they are cautiously optimistic about the Trump administration in hopes of avoiding tensions and conflicts, as their main current goal is to preserve a peaceful international and regional environment to grow and develop.
In 1987, Trump published a book entitled The Art of the Deal, in which he wrote “You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.” In the coming years, if the Trump administration could not deliver the goods that the Americans and the peoples around the world have desired to have—prosperity and peace for all—people would eventually see Trump as poorly qualified for the job.