What happens to Asia under Trump
The U.S. President-elect has taken unconventional stances on many issues. Trump’s foreign policy pledges during his campaign have been less shocking than others; in fact, if he receives proper support from seasoned foreign policy experts, the Trump era may not be disastrous for East and Southeast Asia after all. But this is, of course, a big “if”.
America first
Trump’s campaign slogan “America first” resonated extremely well among Americans: NATO allies did not contribute their fair share; friendly foreign governments were corrupting establishment politicians; Obama and Clinton only worsened the chaos in Libya and Egypt; etc. Disputable though most of these claims are, they speak to the insecurities Americans feel about the super power’s role in the world. Unlike Clinton’s liberal interventionist approach, Trump is much less interested in promoting peace and democracy and establishing international influence.
As for allies in Asia, using Trump’s own words,”[South Korea and Japan] are paying us a tiny fraction of what it’s costing”; and “if [America is] attacked, Japan doesn’t have to do anything. They can sit home and watch Sony television.” He even threated to withdraw from the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. Geographically, both South Korea and Japan are usually considered important for curtailing China’s ambition and influence.
To put such concerns into context, Trump might undo the incumbent Obama’s foreign policy efforts in Asia. One of Obama’s key foreign policy contributions is rebalancing US’s security focus to Asia. There are at least two reasons. First, US cannot miss the opportunity to tap into the most profitable emerging markets, especially when growth is stagnant in other regions. Second, China will probably be America’s most threatening competitor in the 21st century. America needs solid Asia-pacific partnerships to maintain its status. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), for example, would have been Obama’s major legacy as the first Pacific president, though Congress seems unlikely to ratify it before January.
Renegotiating US-Asia Relationship
Friendships between countries don’t last long. America’s allies in Southeast Asia are not easy to maintain. Under the leadership of the new President Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines has recently switched allegiance to China from its long-term protector, the US. Demonized by Western media and unwelcomed by Obama, Mr. Duterte paid a visit to Beijing and came back with much-needed foreign investments and more access to disputed islands . Duterte and Beijing collectively set the path for other US allies in the region. It is only a matter of time before they realize how willing Beijing is to soft down; after all, President Xi simply needs unscathed territorial integrity to comfort his regime’s patriotic supporters, and money is less of a concern.
However, “America first” does have its appeal. On a principle level, military support on behalf of allies should not happen at the cost of domestic interest. From the Vietnam War to Afghanistan and Iraq, none of the interventions could be labelled as successful without regrettable consequences. If Trump does adopt the extremely self-centered realist view, he would need to challenge the old diplomatic norms that define US-Asia relationship and renegotiate rules.
Luckily, some of Obama’s legacy could facilitate allies in Asia to transition from their current state of military dependence. Besides boosting US military presence in Japan, President Shino Abe has simultaneously moved his country towards the possibility of stronger self-defence capability, with Obama’s acquiescence. A revision of the Japanese constitution that prohibits the use of force in settling international disputes seems achievable and would be a milestone towards a stronger Japan against China and North Korea. Many predict that such efforts of Japan and countries alike will be accelerated upon Trump’s election victory.
The Businessman Approach
What worries foreign governments is both the President-elect’s blatant rhetoric and his non-existent track record to predict how he would deal with diplomatic relations. Tremendously confident of his claimed success in the business world, Trump will be more willing to seek advice from his own “Art of the Deal” than Washington think-tanks.
The businessman approach is likely to be selectively multilateral. Trump would collaborate with countries to realize narrow US interests. The theoretical advantage of this is that America’s direct interests, both in terms of defence and trade, can be easily preserved. However, US would significantly lose its credibility, making it less predictable and more risky to align with. Much as Mr. Trump loves to look inward and focus domestically, global competition for political power and economic profits is still the reality. It is hard to see America being great when it loses its super power and strong ally status and may not even keep its own narrow interest intact.
For a businessman like Trump, tangible factors such as costs and efficiency weigh more than long-term rapport or ideological differences. He sees NATO allies as a cost burden, but would not recognize the value of maintaining diplomatic influence and security for an increasingly connected world. Authoritarian dictators are efficient in management and control, so Trump has shown no problem praising Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un and Saddam Hussein, on the other hand. Although his willingness to talk to North Korea shows some prospect, his advisors would need to give him good lectures about the differences between running a profit-seeking business and a complex nation.
Finally, it is worth noting that all the analysis above is assuming that Mr. Trump honours his pledges on the campaign trail. Furthermore, he also needs experienced foreign policy advisors. His recent hiring decision of Breitbart’s Steve Bannon as Chief Strategist does not allow optimistic speculations. The front-runners for the Secretary of State post include John Bannon, who enthusiastically advocates for attacking Iran. The Trump campaign’s advisors, Gray and Navarro, expressed noticeably different foreign policy visions from Trump’s. Only time will tell which direction President Trump will end up taking.
