The election of President Donald Trump brings the region and the world great uncertainty, writes Greg Raymond.
The election of President Trump brings more uncertainty than direction. His election campaign was in broad strokes, and his radical propositions may yet prove to be merely opening gambits for negotiations. Where foreign policy was concerned, the Middle East received far more attention than Asia.
When he did mention Asia, it was to threaten tariffs on Chinese imports, and less military support to Japan and South Korea. Southeast Asia was not mentioned. Therefore whatever we can say about the implications for a Trump presidency for the Asia Pacific must be based more on considering his foreign policy leanings and political position as a whole, rather than specific policy pronouncements.
On this front, we are still left with immense contradictions. For example, how does any government cut taxes, reduce debt and increase military spending, all of which Trump has pledged to do? That said, the overall impression is of a future where far more than for many decades, the Asia Pacific region will be left to solve its own problems. This will be a bracing prospect for all countries, frightening for some.
The Trump administration enters the Whitehouse with a big domestic agenda. The economic challenges that Trump has elected to pursue including tax reform, revitalising United States manufacturing and dismantling Obamacare, will require energy and effort. The fact the Republican Party will control both houses of Congress will enable the new President to fully apply himself to this program. Unlike Obama, Trump will not be forced onto the international arena because of Congressional gridlock.
Moreover, Trump’s mandate is much more about restoring the centrality of white middle America, through wage growth, employment and immigration policy, than it is about American global leadership. It seems then that foreign policy will be much more a second tier priority than in previous administrations.
This means whoever Trump nominates as Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of State and Defense Secretary may be of greater than usual importance. It may be these individuals who carry the lion’s share of devising workable plans to implement Trump’s utterances on two items of tremendous global importance: trade and alliances. Both of these have been central to the global leadership the United States has exercised since the end of World War II.
Trump believes the US has been ‘dudded’ in international trade and he can do better. If he can’t he may unilaterally impose tariffs, including on goods from China. A businessman rather than an economist, Trump appears to place little store in promoting free trade and globalised commerce for their own sake. These goals were enshrined in US policy through the Bretton Woods institutions after the disasters of the mid-20th century, when protectionism brought the Great Depression, the impoverishing of Germany and the rise of Adolf Hitler. How would this affect China? Other economies in the Asia? The global economy? We just don’t know. What we do know is that the world economy continues to be fragile, and that China remains the bedrock of global growth, despite its gradual slowing. Will Trump be interested in second- and third- order impacts of US economic policies, or will screwing the other guy be his overriding aim? Again, we don’t know but the possibilities of him getting this badly wrong are sobering for countries in the Asia Pacific.
On alliances, Trump wants allies to do more for themselves. If that means nuclear proliferation among those most nervous about changing power balances like Japan, then so be it. Here we can perhaps concede that there is an incongruity in the United States maintaining 750 military bases overseas, while some US counties can’t pay for bitumen on their roads. Grumpiness with free-loading allies is nothing new.
The US was weary of war after the Vietnam conflict, just as it is now weary after its Iraq and Afghanistan interventions. After Vietnam, this prompted the Nixon Doctrine, in which US partners would be expected to defend themselves in all circumstances short of an attack by a major power. But Trump’s objections seem deeper. He appears uninterested in the notion that the credibility of US alliance commitments is what provides the strategic stability upon which economic growth can occur.
This orthodoxy grew out of the experience of Hitler and Chamberlain’s appeasement at Munich, and remains strong amongst Washington’s foreign policy elites. But it seems to have gradually waned in mainstream American politics. Obama, it is true, refused to carry through with his threat to impose a heavy price on Syria if it used chemical weapons. Obama also was much more restrained in responding to China’s island-building program than many in the foreign policy establishment wanted. However, Obama did inaugurate the Pivot policy, which sought to provide strategic reassurance to states rattled by China’s spectacular growth in economic and military capability.
The future of the Pivot is now anyone’s guess. The demise of its primary non-military strand, the Trans Pacific Partnership, is assured. But if this policy is discontinued, the damage done, may not be severe. Firstly, among Asian countries there was always considerable skepticism of idea of a rebalance to Asia in Asia, and for several reasons. The US had strong forces in the theatre already, what difference would a Rebalance make? At the same time the US economy could no longer offer the kind of opportunities that it once did.
Equally, it seemed far from assured that the US would necessarily choose to go to war with another major power over rocks in the South China Sea, East China Sea or even Taiwan. Moreover, the region was accustomed to the US’ wavering focus on Asia, with the leadership sporadically attending summits only for its attention to be drawn back to Europe or the Middle East.
Secondly, there is a respectable argument that Asian countries, with the exception of North Korea, have themselves contributed significantly to the long absence of any significant interstate conflict enjoyed by the region since the third Indochina war in 1979. Despite some serious rub points, most prominently displayed in the South China Sea, the states in the Asia Pacific have by and large adhered to a norm of dispute resolution through peaceful means. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will continue, particularly if China started to believe it could achieve a quick sharp military victory with minimal repercussions.
Will Trump’s administration maintain the defence posture necessary to deter raw aggression? It seems more likely than not, as the US retains significant economic interests in Asia Pacific and would not see exclusion in its interest. Trump has also committed to rebuilding a 350 ship navy. It’s unlikely these will be moored off the coast of continental United States – their use for power projection is a better bet.
Perhaps more concerning than the shelving of any specific policy, is what Trump may presage in terms of the tone of international relations. His unabashed admiration for Putin seems to signify a leader disconnected from the idealism that has animated US foreign policy from the time of Wilson. This could well ease tensions with the illiberal regimes in our region, as he appears unlikely to pursue a human rights agenda.
Trump’s vision for the US in the world appears to be one of selfish unilateralism. He looks prepared to weaken structures of collective security, such as NATO and collective problem solving, if they don’t deliver immediate returns. His negative attitude to the Iran treaty, negotiated with staggering effort with the remainder of the Security Council states plus Germany, is another example. If junking treaties negotiated by predecessors is pursued reflexively, without regard for the damage done to trust and relationships, we are looking at a period of significant turbulence and potential disorder.
Then there’s the absolute threat he poses to seriously tackling climate change at the global level, with the Paris climate deal already appearing in mortal danger having only just got off the ground.
Much of Trump’s long term impact internationally will depend on whether he can achieve enough of what he has promised at home, in his first-four year term, in order to have a decent shot at re-election. Most agree that given the lack of policy detail apparent from the outset, he may be a severe disappointment for those Americans expecting both prosperity and jobs. A failed re-election campaign will then limit his capacity to permanently change the US’ role in the world.
And with that, if it can survive ‘four more years’, the world just may heave a sigh of relief.
Greg Raymond is a research fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, the Australian National University, and editor of the journal Security Challenges.
The urge to predict what Trump will do so soon after his election is a puzzling one. Donald Trump is one of the strangest products of the marriage between US capitalism and popular culture that come to mind. He will be perhaps the first American president of whom so many commentators have concluded that he didn’t particularly want to become president. Yet, still ten weeks before his inauguration, it seems to be vital to assess what he will do.
Why don’t we just wait a little longer?
Let’s cast our minds back to Obama’s election eight years ago. Having just listened to his inspiring Grant Park speech in Chicago celebrating his electoral victory, what would we have predicted of the hope and change president?
That he would fail to close Guantanamo Bay as he had promised? That he would be the first US president to kill an American citizen with a drone, let alone countless citizens of other countries? That the wars he inherited from Bush or those he initiated himself would result in his bequeathing the Greater Middle East to his successor as a seething mass of turbulence? Let’s remember that the Islamic State hadn’t been heard of when Obama’s silken words wowed his audience at Grant Park and throughout the world, just as his honeyed tongue had worked wonders in Manassas, Virginia, on the eve of the election. Who would have thought that there would be no advance whatsoever towards reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians during Obama’s two terms?
If a newly-elected president who had at least served a term in the US Senate and written two articulate autobiographical volumes could so have confounded observers of US affairs eight years ago, why pretend that we have already any idea what on earth Trump may do come 20 January?
7
0
Well said Ken Ward. Though I abhor Trump’ racism and sexism – and that any American concern for human rights is now a goner – geo-strategically his new thinking way be a needed breath of fresh air. Eg. WHY NOT let Russia deal with ISIS instead of getting the US involved in yet another quagmire ? Why not have Japan and South Korea nuclear armed, since they’re already virtually so via America’s nuke umbrella ? Cost savings there and elsewhere could fund Trump’s other military and infrastructure modernisations. But he’s likely to be more restrained about spending that payload than any President we seen for a long, long time (not since Carter ?). His isolationist tendencies may be a good re-jive nation phrase for a tired giant. But probably means Australia has to move much closer to Japan, South Korea, India, and even smaller players such as Singapore (double the troop rotation to 28,000 ?), Malaysia, Vietnam – and even Indonesia.
1
0
“The president-elect is known to read little and rule by his gut. To govern, he’ll have to absorb vast amounts of information about issues he’s never confronted, and his inner circle will have to expand — greatly.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-style/2016/11/10/138bbd8a-a761-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trump%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Very troubling read about Groper-in-Chief Donald Trump.
3
1
VichaiN – I’m more optimistic. Looks like Trump’s team will be talented. Newt Gingrich as Secretary of State is positive, given his decades of experience, ability to get things done – and take the American public with him. Rudy Guiliani as Attorney-General – well he cleaned up New York when everyone else had failed. Good if he can ditto the entire country. Chris Christie as Commerce Secretary – he was a great centrist New Jersey Governor, good for business, jobs and growth – until stupidly closing that bridge. Ben Carson – eminently qualified as Secretary of Health. Reagan’s era of small government and big defence SEEMS over – but Trump’s reverting to a version of the non-interventionist Nixon Doctrine, is something I applaud. At last, at last.
2
3
Let us hope your instincts about the Trump cabinet is right. Chris B. The only people cheering Trump’s ascendancy to the (dis)United States of A. presidency are right wing hatred groups (Ku Klux Klan, Nazis. ..) plus of the disgruntled white Americans whose incomes had shrunk amid the global and US prosperity.
Personally I think Trump does not possess the temperament, intellect and the right stuff to be US president.
3
0
I am one of those “degenerates” that you are so bitterly bemoaning.
Can you live with that for next 4 years.
OR
Shall I start bemoaning about blatant shameless acts of Hilary that put this deplorable here as one of them that think you are absolutely wrong about Trump characters.
Just one important facts that you neo-liberal always failed to see:
Even A genuine KKK has a point to make as a truly deplorable. May be you should have a KKK neighbor to real know that been deplorable is real like instead of just following the the general media then regurgitating the virulence similar to the KKK.
0
0
Afraid New World? Afraid of themselves perhaps?
“….Will Trump be interested in second- and third- order impacts of US economic policies, or will screwing the other guy be his overriding aim? ….”
No one else is looking out for our interests and it’s about time we stick to our knitting and and allow many parts of the world to sort things out (and bankroll) their own issues. Interventionism has played out horribly in the Middle East and elsewhere and it’s time to put the GB policies and false promises of hope and change by BO to rest. Their policies and promises failed miserably and caused grave suffering to many. Time to be done with that sort of constant intervention and allowing our so called allies to have a free ride.
I believe Chris Beale has made some good points above. Trump is assembling a good team and the best managers hire and keep the best people for the job at hand. Get over the bitterness of a hard fought election and give him a chance to work.
1
2
VichaiN – I’m not cheering anything from Trump, except what looks like a return to the Nixon Doctrine of non-interference in the internal affairs of allies, and ONLY coming to their aid if they are directly attacked by a foreign, significant power. VichaiN, you and I have had disagreements in the past over Thai internal politics. But these have simply been my efforts to understand such. ALL my comments have been posted OUTSIDE Thailand. When in Thailand I’ve NEVER taken part in ANY political activity whatsoever. I’ve simply observed. IMHO Nixon was one of the best foreign policy Presidents America has ever had. If GrandDad Kennedy’s mafia had not swindled Nixon out of those few, crucial Chicago electorates in 1960, Nixon would have justifiably been President. We would have had none of that Camelot rot – and probably nothing as catastrophic as Kennedy and Johnson’s Vietnam debacle. I hope Trump follows Nixon.
1
3
Really must laugh, loudly too, that anyone could believe Ben Carson might pose as the US Secretary of Health. The man is a jerk, but indeed, he may be selected. Coz he does have an M.D. degree and he is dark of skin, thus satisfying two needs for the Trumpster (aka The Dumpster).
1
1
As it happens, Trump and his deplorables rule the roost. Mostly thanks to his opponent, the genuinely deplorable Hillary. Deal with it, folks.
4
2
‘His unabashed admiration for Putin seems to signify a leader disconnected from the idealism that has animated US foreign policy from the time of Wilson. This could well ease tensions with the illiberal regimes in our region, as he appears unlikely to pursue a human rights agenda.’
I think you mean ‘ideology’ rather than ‘idealism’. ‘Human rights agenda’…are we talking about the same country? American power is deeply cynical, not idealistic, and it completely disregards human rights.
Trump actually reveals the true face of global capitalism; a scam run by a cabal of crooks. The hand-wringing and whingeing of liberal types about Trump and Brexit shows that they are either utterly disconnected from reality or else they actually prefer falsehood. While they argue over transgender bathrooms, wars rage across the globe and the world’s poor are being crushed underfoot.
5
0
Afraid! The one thing that disturbs my sleep lately is that from the Oval Office the Groper-in-Chief Donald would send one from-his-gut tweet that starts a nuclear war.
1
1
Pray
Tell us what exactly is the protocol for lauching a nuclear tipped rocket . Just the land based one please. Do not want to be Scare monger at NM do wee?
1
0
The tweet is mightier than the tword. And Groper-in-Chief Donald now could use both powerful weapons with unrestrained malice aforethough. Afraid!
0
0
Agree 100% John Smith.
During the run-up to Gulf War II, I was getting the feeling that the Bush administration was lying so blatantly and so obviously that at some point they were going to take their tongues out of their cheeks, drop the pretense altogether, and just come out with it.
But they didn’t.
They did however come so close to tearing away the veil that it was left hanging by a few threads– the main one, of course, being the willingness of journalists to kowtow to power and “liberal” academics at universities and “think tanks” to keep pumping out the fog of propaganda that links imperialistic militarism to “democracy and freedom” rather than to the rapacious neoliberal capitalism that is its raison d’etre and progenitor.
And wouldn’t you know it? A reality TV star comes to inject a little reality right into the mainstream of global awareness.
As we are beginning to see in Thailand, atavistic rightwing elements are already pointing to the farcical revelation of what US “democracy” consists of by suggesting that the lady defecating on Trump’s image in public and footage of the “radical left” smashing the windows of coffee shops “prove” that Americans don’t accept their version of Thaksin so why should they?
(It seems they have yet to thank New Mandala for providing ideological (idiotic?) support for the Trump=Thaksin equation.)
However, as with so much of what the far right in Thailand proposes as political argument, this is as moronic as the insistence that Thailand’s political conflict over the past decade has been a “succession struggle”. Or that Thaksin represents Thailand’s great hope for the achievement of liberal democracy. Or that the US cares a whit about whether or not that democracy takes root in Thailand.
1
0
I’m ashamed for my country and afraid for its future. I voted with the majority of the electorate for Clinton, so I will have no responsibility for the damage and possible horror Trump will inflict upon the world. I will pray for those who chose hate, racism and demagoguery. I hope god can forgive them for the monstrosity they may have let loose on us all. I wonder hope many will proudly tell their grandchildren that they voted for Trump?
0
1
The only god i can see in this story is the trumposaurus… no other imaginary friend available alas………..
1
1
All the armchair quarterbacks predicting “doom and gloom” even before Trump’s inauguration in Jan. 2017. As a citizen, I could not bring myself to vote for “crooked Hillary,” and am so relieved that she was soundly defeated not by Trump, but by the hard working, conservative, silent majority in most of the states, as the colors on the “electoral map” clearly shows. I’m not a fan of the “Donald” but I believe that he will surround himself with capable people like the VP “Mike Pence” and am hoping that some good will come out of this result.
I have travelled extensively around this once great nation and it breaks my heart to see how it has squandered it’s blessings. It is no longer a level playing field and the establishment, the elites, the 5 percent, control most if not all of the wealth. The number of illegals in the millions, have been allowed to come in by the Democrats, who were seeking easy votes. I came as an foreign student decades ago and took a number and waited my turn and did it the “right way” and was naturalized, respecting the laws and abiding by it.
We hard working folks are tired of the same crap these same old politicians dish out every four years when they need our votes to get them re-elected.
I cannot wait to vote for a woman President, but will do so only IF she is someone with backbone, someone who is ethical and has integrity. Unlike “crooked Hillary” who has lied repeatedly, and taken our votes for granted, has been in cahoots with wall street, as the Wikileak emails clearly shows us. So many who have tampered with evidence as she did, who have been careless about “highly classified” material and information have gone to jail and had to serve time, but she has gotten away with it. Ever since she and her husband “slick willie” left the WH, they have lined their pockets and enriched themselves beyond their wildest dreams. The American people are not fools and know what is going on and that’s why she lost to Obama and now lost out to the “Donald.”
Yes, the “Donald” is a great unknown to most of us here in the states as well as to the rest of the world. And it still remains to be seen if he is able to accomplish anything and fulfill what he promised to do. The USofA does not belong to him, it belongs to the American people and he was elected and will have to decide what he wants his legacy to be, after his term ends. I do firmly believe that it will be a one term presidency.
P.S. Don’t believe all that you have read about the “donald” from the main street media, where most of you might get your information. They were all united together in destroying him every which way they could, and even predicted that “crooked Hillary” would win easily and by a landslide. But they had a “rude awakening” after midnight on election day, when the results came in. He’s not perfect in any way, and neither is anyone of us. We all have our character flaws, weaknesses, and shortcomings, and “skeletons” in the closet.
6
1
I agree with most but “establishment, the elites, the 5 percent, control most if not all of the wealth” that is exactly what trump himself is part of?!
2
1
Lord Airbus – and Ryan K – have you checked the SIZE of the US economy lately ? It’s unlikely Trump owns/ controls a fraction of 1% of it ! Anyhow, he’s simply a brilliant brand marketeer.
0
0
Well actually “crooked Hillary” out-polled “straight-Donald” in therms of the popular vote, albeit by a small margin. However, we also have to consider those who voted for other parties – neither for the Republicans or Democrats – and analyze of the two candidates which were they closer too or more supportive of. Moreover, we also have to consider those who did not vote (probably a significant number of African Americans: might not have tipped the states in favor of Clinton but would likely boost her popular vote) as not all “non-voters” restrain from voting because they cannot be bothered. Still we live in interesting times as “The Donald” appears as though he will be forced to back-pedal on many of his one-liner policy statements he made during the actual election campaign. However, grubby politicians that play to the worst biases and prejudices of the electorate cannot or should not be able to turn around and argue we only did this to be elected. Oh and Ryan K (not sure that is your real name) having Pence – that right wing Christian fundamentalist as DVP – is capable of what?
1
2
As of the day before yesterday Clinton had secured 1.8 million more votes than Trump.
2
0
Chris B. here is a warning to President-Elect Donald Trump: “You have a bunch of losers following you around. The ones in your organization can’t do any damage to the country but I can see why you have had so many failures in your business. Now you will be selecting a cabinet and you MUST choose the right people. Show the world that you will only settle for the absolute best. You should have Republicans and Democrats on your staff and women and people of color. Don’t do what the pundits are all predicting. Giuliani and Gingrich who hang on to you like leeches are out of touch hacks whose time has come and gone. Donald, they are just not worthy of you. Neither is Christie who is despised by the entire state of New Jersey and has zero credibility. The likes of Palin and Carson are also far beneath you. They are cartoon characters, and they are out of touch with most of America. You more than anyone need people who really know governing and politics. You major concern was always could you trust people. And you put people into positions they didn’t deserve because you could trust them, but you must realize that people who would do anything for you are often just holding on to the jobs they know they wouldn’t otherwise have. You will find trust worthy people outside your inner circle.”
The warning came from an insightful ‘Open Letter To Donald Trump’ from someone who was close to Donald after 18 years of working directly under/with him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/to-donald-trump-my-former-boss_us_58276828e4b02d21bbc907c7
0
1
Be more Afraid: Groper-in-Chief Donald has appointed Steve Bannon, an anti-Semite, anti-Muslim, mysoginistic ultra-rightist as his Chief Strategist.
America’s White Supremacists have breached the White House. And Groper-in-Chief Donald is their Glorious Leader.
4
0
More on Steve Bannon, Groper-in-Chief’s Chief Counsel
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/11/26/look-steven-bannon-and-his-years-harvard-business-school/B2m0j85jh5jRKzKbMastzK/story.html
Steve Bannon is not an easy read . . . and maybe not a White Supremacist nor anti-Muslim nor anti-Semite as I initially thought.
The guy is definitely smarter than Groper-in-Chief and more depth.
0
0