[foxdemon]

Trump has been touring Asia. This hasn’t received much attention on POFO. Yet it seems the image of America in Asia is that of a power in decline.

Is America a nation in decline?

The trouble with Donald Trump's Asia trip

By John Barron
Updated Tue at 2:44pm



Trump in front of a flag
PHOTO: Has selling a vision of 'America in decline' come back to bite Trump as he meets with Asia's most powerful leaders? (Reuters: Kevin Lamarque)


Donald Trump's 12-day, five-nation tour of Asia is historic. It's a quarter of a century since an American president made such a lengthy tour of the region.

In late 1991 and early 1992, president George Bush (no need for initials in those days) embarked on a victory lap following the end of the Cold War and the Gulf War, crowning America's global hegemony as the world's only super-power.

Bush had served in the region in World War II, and was greeted as an old friend in Sydney for New Year's Eve, and even by the Japanese who had shot his plane down 48 years earlier.

Those were heady days. Communist dictators had been toppling faster than Hollywood moguls accused of sexual harassment. Political scientist Francis Fukuyama would soon be writing about "The End of History" and the enduring dominance of liberal democratic and capitalist societies.

Trade barriers were coming down, Europe was uniting under a single currency, concern over the environment was growing, and the world came together at the 1992 Earth Summit leading to the Kyoto Accord.

It turns out to have been more of a turning point in history than an end point.

When dinner goes wrong

For George Bush, things started to go badly on that Asia tour. Seated at a state dinner in his honour hosted by Japanese prime minister Kiichi Miyazawa, the 67-year-old American president suddenly turned pale, vomited, and slid to the floor.




George HW Bush
PHOTO: George Bush was the last US President to tour Asia this extensively, representing an America at its peak. (Reuters)


For a few minutes, until Bush regained consciousness, the world faced the possibility of the seemingly incompetent vice-president Dan Quayle becoming the most powerful man on the planet.

Back home, Bush was facing a challenge for the Republican Party nomination by former friend and Nixon speechwriter Patrick Buchanan. Buchanan's campaign was like a prototype for the kind of campaign that swept Trump to power: economically populist and anti-immigrant, fuelled by racial and social resentment.

The Japan "incident" helped make Bush look old and hapless, and as the American economy faltered he would soon be replaced by the younger Democrat Bill Clinton - a baby-boomer who would win the White House despite a number of scandals around extra-marital affairs and dodging the draft in Vietnam.

What a golden age 1992 now seems, when a bout of flu and the prospect of someone like Quayle, who couldn't spell "potato" without adding an extra "e", was enough to damage a better than average President like Bush.

Twenty-four years after losing the presidency to Bill Clinton, George Bush would announce he had voted for Clinton's wife Hillary for the presidency over his own parties' nominee, Donald Trump.
How did Trump go?

But wait, what about Trump in Asia? What has he done wrong? Did he hurl on the Japanese PM? Did he grope a woman he was being photographed with? Old George Bush did both of those things.



U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin
PHOTO: Trump and Putin take part in an APEC family photo in matching shirts. (Reuters: Sputnik/Mikhail Klimentyev/Kremlin)


Well, Trump didn't look great in those silly APEC shirts. Hardly a scandal, but likely to rile a man who has his ties especially tailored to hang below his waistline and disguise his girth.

He mostly stuck to his script in addresses to parliaments and various dignified occasions. He didn't even push anyone out of the way like he did at the NATO summit in Brussels in May.

Trump did send some un-presidential tweets of course. Making use of those extra 140 characters to bait North Korea's Kim Jong-Un with a schoolyard taunt, by pointing out he would NEVER call Kim "short and fat"? And bizarrely taking Putin's word over that of US intelligence when it came to Russian tampering in the Presidential election.

Now, the trouble with Trump's Asia trip isn't really Trump at all. Just as he identified an America in sharp decline during the 2016 election, the real trouble is that the world now seems to agree.

President Bush was a hero of the war that saved civilisation from Nazism and Japanese militarism, before grinding out a decades long defeat of communism.

President Trump used bone spurs to dodge the Vietnam Draft, a hedonist who erected offices, apartments and casinos bearing his name in gold letters.

He represents the excesses of Wall Street rather than the values on Main Street but sold the electoral equivalent of a get-rich scheme to unwitting voters.
The sad truth is Trump is what America has now become. And the world can see it.

Looking back through a nostalgic mist to 1992, all of the warning signs were there — when Billy Ray Cyrus topped the charts with Achy, Breaky Heart we should have known something was going horribly wrong.



US President Donald Trump boards Air Force One to depart for the Philippines.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-14/the-trouble-with-trumps-asia-trip/9147630

[ness31]

Why is everyone so obsessed with Trump? He’s a man of seniority who doesn’t follow a script. Those photos of politicians having to awkwardly link arms were unfortunate, but I don’t see how that means America is in decline.

Besides, we all know it’s about the First Ladies and Melania is rocking

[hartmut]

Why is everyone so obsessed with Trump? He’s a man of seniority who doesn’t follow a script...

A sound reason to do so probably is the absence of a "script". At least it should be estimated, that such is thought globally and this indicates no solid base for tricky negotiations.
And Trump is more focused on "attention economy" and less to other fields.
His political program is simply "me".

Are USA in a decline? If I look at the "script" of their "man of seniority", I am inclined to say yes.
(In relative terms, regarding the progress of other nations and areas, USA are clearly in decline.)
But future is born in every single moment and cannot been foreseen.
Let us hope common sense in that crazy and vital nation will regain strength.

[foxdemon]

Why is everyone so obsessed with Trump? He’s a man of seniority who doesn’t follow a script. Those photos of politicians having to awkwardly link arms were unfortunate, but I don’t see how that means America is in decline.

Besides, we all know it’s about the First Ladies and Melania is rocking

The press is pushing the line that Trump failed on his trip but I don’t think he did too badly.

The softly-softly approach works wonders in Asia. But he did scare everyone when he first gained office and also with his rhetoric toward N Korea. So they take him seriously. He has shown he had a big stick and he has shown he can talk business.

OK, so where’s the break through?

In the last week or so the Chinese media has been saying China is about win-win and not the zero sum game approach of the West. This is a turn around. They have been pursuing a zero sum game approach for the last decade while America has been trying to build a partnership. However, with the recent Chinese backdown before Indian resolve over Doklam and pressure being bought to bare on China over the confrontation be N Korea and the USA, Beijing seems to be revisiting their approach to foriegn policy. Trump has already done a lot better than Obama in getting the Chinese to take a less aggressive approach to foriegn policy.

And, what’s more, China has fallen in love with Trump’s granddaughter. The Chinese and Americans are seeing each other as human. That helps to move everyone away from the ‘war is inevitable’ mentality that has been hanging over the region in recent years. There is no way Hillary could ever have achieved anything like that.

But he didn’t do it alone. Modi and Abe have been defying Xi for some time. So Trump has some allies. In fact he is quite popular in India. Just because the Western media doesn’t like him, doesn’t mean the Asia media will dislike him also.

Finally, he hasn’t tipped over the apple cart in the Philippines over human rights, which Hillary would have. In Asia there is a time and place for respecting public face and there is a time and place for criticism. Had he criticised Duterte would have gone straight over to the Chinese camp.

So Trump has actually done quite well and shored up America’s place in Asia.


But, as the article points out, it isn’t Trump. America is still in decline and has been for some time. The fact Americans on POFO show little concern or awareness of Trump’s important trip to Asia proves it.

[Atlantis]

But, as the article points out, it isn’t Trump. America is still in decline and has been for some time.

It's true that many in Asia are less concerned about human rights and political correctness than in the West, but they are no fools either. They can see through Trump and understand that he is nothing but a bungling fool who's job back home hangs on a silken thread.

His macho performance with regard to NK didn't achieve a thing. Nobody in the Far East wants Trump to push Kim to the brink. The uncomfortable truth is that NK doesn't even need missiles or nukes, they can flatten the greater area of the South Korean capital with a huge arsenal of conventional artillery. The South Koreans are very aware of that and don't want the elephant Trump to trample all over their delicate relations.

Even if the Chinese make a token attempt of reigning in NK, nothing really changes. Trade between China and NK goes on as before even if it's a bit more secretively than before. By cancelling TPP and generally upsetting allies everywhere, Trump has handed the Asia-Pacific to the Chinese on a golden platter. They know they just have to flatter him, sign a few deals, and they can go on expanding their influence at the expense of the Pax-Americana.

But I guess down-under you don't have any problems with sucking Chinese dick. It seems that you have already started to silence criticism of China for fear of upsetting big brother Xi.

[foxdemon]

It's true that many in Asia are less concerned about human rights and political correctness than in the West, but they are no fools either. They can see through Trump and understand that he is nothing but a bungling fool who's job back home hangs on a silken thread.

His macho performance with regard to NK didn't achieve a thing. Nobody in the Far East wants Trump to push Kim to the brink. The uncomfortable truth is that NK doesn't even need missiles or nukes, they can flatten the greater area of the South Korean capital with a huge arsenal of conventional artillery. The South Koreans are very aware of that and don't want the elephant Trump to trample all over their delicate relations.

Even if the Chinese make a token attempt of reigning in NK, nothing really changes. Trade between China and NK goes on as before even if it's a bit more secretively than before. By cancelling TPP and generally upsetting allies everywhere, Trump has handed the Asia-Pacific to the Chinese on a golden platter. They know they just have to flatter him, sign a few deals, and they can go on expanding their influence at the expense of the Pax-Americana.

That’s the Western media line. But is it anything more than just a biased perspective?


There seems to be a lot of back peddling going on in Beijing. Trump has really thrown a spanner in the works and they have had to recalculate.


I mentioned that the Chinese media is saying China will pursue a win-win approach while blaming the West for engaging in zero sum game thinking. The opposite has been true. What this represents is the Chinese government repositioning Chinese public opinion to accept a new approach by displacing their previous policy on the West.


Honestly, I don’t care if they shift the blame to the West like that. A change to a more cooperative China can only be a good thing. Certainly it is better than a general war in Asia. And Trump has played a part in bringing Beijing in from the cold. Xi is now describing America as an indispensable partner. That gives future American policy makers something to work with.

But I guess down-under you don't have any problems with sucking Chinese dick. It seems that you have already started to silence criticism of China for fear of upsetting big brother Xi.

And your evidence would be...?

Regardless, I am Australian and you are, I believe, an autocratic Prussian. Where are the Americans? Don’t they care about the big issues affecting their nation? No wonder they are in decline.

[ThirdTerm]

Trump has just made an announcement about his Asian trip, which was largely about containing North Korea and forming a coalition of the willing to achieve this goal. The United States and its key Asian allies agreed to keep the maximum pressure on North Korea. Trade was a side issue but Trump managed to bring home the bacon literally by luring Asian investments to America.

Now, the trouble with Trump's Asia trip isn't really Trump at all. Just as he identified an America in sharp decline during the 2016 election, the real trouble is that the world now seems to agree.

President Bush was a hero of the war that saved civilisation from Nazism and Japanese militarism, before grinding out a decades long defeat of communism.

US President Donald Trump (L) and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (R) wave to reporters after they signed hats reading 'Donald and Shinzo, Make Alliance Even Greater' at the Kasumigaseki Country Club in Kawagoe, Japan on November 05, 2017.

President Bush was the first post-Cold War president who replaced Ronald Reagan but President Trump is another Cold War warrior comparable to President Reagan. Japan enthusiastically embraced Trump who can really do something about North Korea, including a military option. But tens of thousands of South Koreans protested against President Trump and they don't like the Americans. Trump can make America great again by putting up a good fight against the dangerous communist regime.

[Atlantis]

To think that Trump's visit was a success because he boasted about his own greatness is just hilarious. The Chinese are going to keep our dear and beloved leader in NK as a thorn in the flesh of the West, while expanding their economic influence in the region and worldwide. And Trump can't do anything about it. If the Americans think they can bully China like they have always bullied Japan, they are in for a rude awakening.

Trump’s trade boasts in Asia mask looming China problem

Simmering tensions are set to come to a head.
By DOUG PALMER 11/14/17, 10:31 PM CET Updated 11/15/17, 6:53 PM CET

President Donald Trump may be boasting that his Asia trip will multiply into more than a “trillion dollars’ worth of stuff,” but the real work on trade has been left undone.

All his braggadocio on business deals struck on his trip belie the simmering trade tensions between the U.S. and China that many analysts believe will now come to the fore.

“For me, we’re moving inexorably toward the edge of the cliff,” said Dan Ikenson, head of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies.

Despite Trump’s glee over $250 billion in corporate deals announced in Beijing, he personally had little hand in them and they collectively did nothing to address his main grievance over Chinese industrial policies that restrict American firms and contribute to the large trade deficit between the world’s two biggest economies.

Bloomberg did a detailed look at the deals announced during the stop in China and found many were non-binding commitments that could take years to materialize — if they do at all.

Trump may have “made it look like he was perfectly satisfied with that $250 billion haul, and the Chinese may think for a little while that they’ve bought some peace on the trade front. I don’t necessarily think that’s going to happen,” Ikenson said.

More telling, no Asian country agreed to launch bilateral trade negotiations with the United States, which Trump has said is his preferred form of trade pacts, noted Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

“Trade agreements have to be agreed to by both sides, and so if the United States is only country that wants to do bilateral deals, it’s going to have a hard time finding dance partners,” Bown said. “I just didn’t see any positive signals coming out of other partners.”

The United States’ increasing isolation in the region was highlighted by the decision of the 11 remaining TPP countries in Vietnam this past weekend to try to move on with the pact. Trump had pulled out of TPP in late January, a move that alienated crucial allies like Japan and South Korea.

“What looked like the waving of a hand at these issues and the signing of superficial trade deals will then be reinterpreted as something he needed to do to fill the space during the trip,” Kennedy said.

History may look back on Trump’s five-nation trip as a long lovefest before the crackdown on China’s industrial policies. Looming over the administration are the investigations and reports it has launched into various aspects of trade including steel, aluminium and intellectual property. Many of those reports and results have been delayed for months but Trump may feel renewed pressure from his base to act.

If Trump pulls the trigger in any of those investigations and imposes restrictions on Chinese exports or investment, Beijing is certain to retaliate either by filing complaints through WTO or by taking its own measures.

“My sense is he is going to very quickly turn to a tougher line, particularly on China,” said Simon Kennedy, director of Project on Chinese Business and Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s going to be a combination of targeting exports from the U.S., as well as [going after] American companies that have investments in China and making life much harder for them.”

In a speech last week in the Great Hall of the People, Trump was characteristically blunt about policies he blamed for the $350 billion goods trade deficit with China.

“We must immediately address the unfair trade practices that drive this deficit, along with barriers to market success,” Trump said. “We really have to look at access, forced technology transfer, and the theft of intellectual property, which just, by and of itself, is costing the United States and its companies at least $300 billion a year.”

Later in the trip, on Air Force One, he heightened expectations by invoking the work of his trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, and telling reporters “he’s going to town.”

Here in Washington on Tuesday, Sen. John Cornyn, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, praised Trump’s remarks and adopted an equally tough line in a speech on legislation he has crafted with other lawmakers to make it harder for China acquire U.S. technology through investments in American companies.

“It’s time to wake up to the mounting risks,” Cornyn said. “China, too often, requires technology transfer as a quid pro quo for U.S. companies to access it’s own market. This approach puts the Chinese Communist Party in the boardroom of nearly every U.S. multinational company in the high-tech sector.”

In the past, groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S.-China Business Council have had a restraining effect on administrations and lawmakers tempted to lower the boom on Beijing. But Ikenson said he fears that’s no longer the case because American companies are increasingly frustrated with the Chinese.

“I see this as a high-tech trade war that’s about to go down,” Ikenson said. “The Chinese think they have a national security interest in achieving technological preeminence.”

One possibility is that they respond to a Trump move to restrict market access or investment by shutting American semiconductor companies out of the Chinese market, and handing it over to Japanese and South Korean firms on the condition they share their know-how, he said.

In addition, Trump’s potentially confrontational approach comes at a time when has alienated allies in the region.

Not only did he pull out of the TPP on his third day in office, but he has pressured South Korea into renegotiating a five-year-old trade that he believes is unfair and has harped on Japan to take steps to eliminate its $68.9 billion trade imbalance with the United States.

“My big concern is that we’re going to launch a bunch of trade actions but it’s going to be much more difficult to get the Chinese to bend, to relent, because of the U.S. standing there on its own,” Kennedy said.

[hartmut]

To think that Trump's visit was a success because he boasted about his own greatness is just hilarious. ...

As he is a populist he urgently needs two things:
A short time success (a long time one is typically not within reach by this approach),
and a very high level of public attention (by what means ever).
Such is the soil populists grow on.
If his Asian visit was a success, it was at best a limiting of the folly to throw away the best trump in the play-cards by Trump at the very beginning of his presidency.
And of course, he now boasts to have accomplished the greatest mission in this respect for a “quarter of a century”.
So great and wonderful and Duterte https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkzTDkLH0ak is so lovely to him. Great Success!
But whom do I tell this....?

[hartmut]

The best trump thrown away, by Trump, was this trump:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

[MistyTiger]

Why is everyone so obsessed with Trump? He’s a man of seniority who doesn’t follow a script. Those photos of politicians having to awkwardly link arms were unfortunate, but I don’t see how that means America is in decline.

Besides, we all know it’s about the First Ladies and Melania is rocking

Did you mean senility instead of seniority? I think Trump should retire in a fancy nursing home. He babbles like a lunatic or Rush Limbaugh.

[ness31]

Haha , there’s no getting around it, he is an elder.

I have more of a gripe with his sons at the moment and their partiality for hunting large majestic animals. Why anyone would take pride in shooting an elephant is beyond me☹️

[MistyTiger]

There should be a phaseout age for presidency, cannot be in office if at age 70 or older. Lol.

I think any hunting is awful. Those hunting trophies or taxidermy...gruesome! I never like seeing deer heads on walls or bear body rugs.

[foxdemon]

This article from the Diplomat is interesting.

Note it presents the issues rather than judging Trump.

So what is significant?

Firstly, it is the domestic arena that is undermining Trump. America is going down the gurgler and it is due to internal divisions in American society.

Secondly, Trump’s team are making profound changes to American foriegn policy. Out goes the normative ideological imperialism. In it’s place is a return to respect for Westphalian sovereignty. Hilary wouldn’t have done that.

So, Americans, is it the best course of action?


Another point is Trump pushing for sales of arms. Well, the trade principle of comparative advantage does favour America when it comes to weapons.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/the-policy-significance-of-trumps-asia-tour/

The Policy Significance of Trump’s Asia Tour
Unpacking Washington’s Asia-Pacific policy following the president’s trip


By Roncevert Ganan Almond
November 18, 2017



In 1793, Lord Macartney traveled to Beijing on behalf of the British Empire with the goal of opening Chinese trade. Famously, Emperor Qianlong of the Qing Dynasty denied the commercial requests made on behalf of King George III; instead, the Chinese leader, oblivious to the shifting geopolitical landscape, treated the world’s most important rising power as a tributary to the Celestial Court. The emperor could not foresee the forthcoming Western ascendancy and the resulting “Century of Humiliation.”

In contrast, U.S. President Donald Trump, leader of the world’s most dominant nation, may feel flattered with the “state visit-plus” reception he received in Beijing. Trump is the first foreign leader since the founding of modern China in 1949 to have an official dinner within the Forbidden City, the historic palace in Beijing that housed Chinese emperors for almost half a millennium. Following his consolidation of power during 19th Party Congress and with the rise of China on the world stage, President Xi Jingping exuded a notable confidence in extending this unprecedented reception to the U.S. president, quite unlike the experience of Trump’s predecessor.

Of course, the efficacy of international diplomacy is not measured in the length of the red carpet. Beyond the pomp and protocol, Trump’s Asian tour was aimed at meeting three concrete foreign policy goals: (1) strengthening U.S.-led efforts to deter and isolate North Korea and its growing nuclear threat; (2) laying the foundation for new bilateral trade relationships that reduce the U.S. trade deficit; and (3) rolling out the administration’s vision for a “free and open Indo-Pacific region.” Given record low approval ratings, discord with Congressional Republicans, and ongoing Russia-related investigations, the foreign trip also provided an opportunity for the president to temporarily escape domestic challenges and establish a fresh political narrative.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
Assessing the president’s progress on each of these fronts will take time. However, it is not too early to unpack key U.S. policy initiatives following Trump’s marathon trip through Asia.

Stranger Things with North Korea

The most critical national security task of Trump’s trip was strengthening U.S.-led efforts to stop Pyongyang’s ballistic missile program and, ultimately, denuclearize North Korea.

Trump sought to deliver a clear message to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. In his remarks before South Korea’s National Assembly, the president underscored the threat of military force: “History is filled with discarded regimes that have foolishly tested America’s resolve.” He noted that the U.S. had stationed three aircraft carriers nearby “loaded to the maximum with magnificent F-35 and F-18 fighter jets” in addition to appropriately positioned nuclear submarines. Subsequently, to buttress Trump’s warning, the battle carrier groups of the USS Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt and Nimitz carried out joint naval exercises adjacent to the Korean peninsula. Each carrier strike group holds strike fighter squadrons and a complement of maritime support, including a cruiser, guided missile destroyers, and a nuclear attack submarine. U.S. B-1 bombers also made an appearance. It was an extraordinary display of force. Perhaps Trump was cognizant of the most consequential act in U.S. relations with the Asia-Pacific: Commodore Matthew Perry’s conspicuously display of American warfighting capacity in Tokyo harbor in 1853.

The president also sought to strengthen multilateral diplomacy to isolate Pyongyang. For example, the aforementioned military maneuvers advanced trilateral cooperation among Japan, U.S., and South Korea, which Trump reaffirmed with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during his time in Tokyo. During his trip, Trump also consistently called upon all “responsible” nations to fully implement U.N. Security Council resolutions, downgrade diplomatic relations with the regime, and sever all ties of trade and technology. Whether his targeted audience – namely Russia and China – will follow through is a separate question.

There is already tension on this issue.

As I noted during an interview with CGTN America, Security Council Resolution 2375 and Resolution 2371, which targeted North Korea’s access to energy resources, were not as extensive as Washington desired due to the veto threats from Moscow and Beijing. China and Russia have expressed opposition to any U.S. policy that results in a regime change, regime collapse, accelerated reunification or military deployment north of the thirty-eighth parallel (the so-called “four nos”). No doubt this position and the perseverance of Kim Jong-un have frustrated Trump–a frustration that is often expressed in bellicose terms, like his well-known “Rocket Man” outburst at the United Nations General Assembly.

Indeed, an odd consistency of sorts has developed in Trump’s approach to Kim: an exchange of playground taunts that would otherwise be amusing but for the threat of nuclear war. In the most recent iteration, responding to Kim’s latest salvo, Trump tweeted from Vietnam: “Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me ‘old,’ when I would NEVER call him ‘short and fat?’ Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend – and maybe someday that will happen!” Perhaps only a dotard could forget the president’s verbal assaults of his Republican challengers during the 2016 primary elections, some of whom are now supporting his agenda in Washington. Can Trump and Kim similarly establish a working relationship based on reciprocal insults? As the president acknowledged, with the North Korean leader, stranger things can happen.

Zeroing in on the U.S. Trade Deficit

Consistent with his campaign promise, on his first day in office, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the “next generation” regional free trade agreement that was the cornerstone of the Obama administration’s Asia policy. As I noted in these pages, the risk with Trump’s veto of the TPP was that there was no ready U.S. policy substitute. During his tour, Trump provided his answer: the establishment of new bilateral trade relationships in Asia that reduce the U.S. trade deficit. As the president explained at the APEC CEO Summit in Da Nang, Vietnam:

“I will make bilateral trade agreements with any Indo-Pacific nation that wants to be our partner and that will abide by the principles of fair and reciprocal trade. What we will no longer do is enter into large agreements that tie our hands, surrender our sovereignty, and make meaningful enforcement practically impossible.”

Additionally, he vowed to enforce World Trade Organization (WTO) principles on protecting intellectual property and ensuring fair and equal market access. This includes responding to countries that engage in product dumping, subsidized goods, currency manipulation, and predatory industrial policies.

To demonstrate the need for change, at each stop, the president highlighted America’s trade deficit with the respective host country. With China, for example, the U.S. goods and services trade deficit was $309.6 billion in 2016. For this imbalance, Trump laid the blame at the feet of his presidential predecessors, as opposed to the foreign states, which, in his view, were effectively pursuing their self-interest. At the same time, the president attacked countries, such as China, that he said engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of world trade rules. The Trump administration has launched investigations – such as so-called “Section 232” investigations by the U.S. Department of Commerce – targeting Chinese exports. If the U.S. were to impose countervailing duties on Chinese products, some observers fear a trade war.

Given the opportunity for reciprocal action, it is not evident that Trump’s rhetoric and bilateral approach will resolve structural issues regarding U.S. trade. As U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson noted, in the grand scheme of America’s large trade deficits in Asia with countries like China, “the things that have been achieved thus far are pretty small.” As a tacit admission to the limitations of this approach, in Seoul, by omission, the Trump administration effectively walked backed prior threats to nullify the South Korea- U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS).

The Trump administration may also find that a piecemeal approach to trade with Asia provides no greater leverage for U.S. exports or strategic benefit for broader U.S. interests. Indeed, one of the characteristics and advantages of being a superpower is the ability to forge a multilateral consensus – to converge competing international demands – in a framework that furthers the national interest. Chinese-led initiatives such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which accounts for 40 percent of global trade and covers three billion people across the region, and the Belts and Roads Initiative, which has a similar international footprint, demonstrates this type of ambition for global influence.

Additionally, achieving an absolute balance in trade with each of America’s trading partners presents a false measurement of progress. As Adam Smith and David Ricardo observed, international trade creates mutual benefit by leveraging advantages, differentiation, and specialization among trading partners. By focusing on a zero trade deficit, the Trump administration may lose sight of the broader benefits of trade and the global nature of modern supply chains. A more effective course would entail strengthening the advantages of the United States, such as its skilled workforce, innovative technology, and creative energy.

In one sense, during his trip to Asia, Trump followed this track by pushing large U.S. arms deals. For instance, in Japan, Trump promoted the sale of ballistic missile defense technology; in South Korea, he touted the acquisition of advanced military equipment, from fighter aircraft to reconnaissance systems; in Vietnam, he reportedly asked Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc why his country was not buying more American military equipment. This pattern follows a precedent established during Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia in May when his administration announced $110 billion worth of purchases from U.S. defense companies. In search of commercial deliverables, the president has turned to the United States’ unparalleled technological advantage in waging war.

Old and New Dreams in the Indo-Pacific Region

Beyond the specifics of North Korea and trade policy, Trump introduced a new American vision on a “free and open Indo-Pacific region” – otherwise described by the president as an “Indo-Pacific dream.” As unveiled during his tour of Asia, this regional concept contains both old and new elements in U.S. foreign policy.

In terms of carryover from the Obama administration, for example, Trump reaffirmed the strategic importance to the international community of “free and open access” to the South China Sea, the importance of “unimpeded” lawful commerce, the need to respect freedom of navigation and over-flight, and other lawful uses of the sea. Similarly, Trump confirmed U.S. treaty commitments to Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, and re-affirmed the relatively new partnership with Vietnam. He also continued Washington’s high-level dialogue with Beijing on a range of pressing global challenges from cybersecurity to nuclear proliferation. Specific policies like U.S. support for Japan’s permanent seat on the Security Council went unchanged. He also largely continued standard U.S. pronouncements on principles such as upholding the rule of law.

The novel character of Trump’s foreign policy towards Asia is found in his rhetoric, specifically concerning sovereignty, nationalism, and “high-standard” rules of governance. For example, at the APEC CEO Summit, the president embraced a “world of strong, sovereign, and independent nations, thriving in peace and commerce with others,” – an Indo-Pacific region consisting of “a beautiful constellation of nations, each its own bright star, satellites to none.” The unspoken message may be that the United States will support individual Asian states against the increasingly gravitational pull of China, a tacit rejection of any tribute system orbiting Beijing.

At the same time, in respecting the sovereignty and independence of Asian states, the president rejected previous prescriptive normative approach from Washington. Trump made a similar commitment at his speech in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where he promised that “America will not seek to impose our way of life on others.” There is a fear that Trump’s attitude could be interpreted by authoritarian and autocratic regimes as a green light to ignore democratic norms and violate human rights. In other words, “America first” may mean that the United States is no longer first in upholding the liberal world order.

Still riding the wave of nationalism that swept him into the White House, at each stop, Trump celebrated a future of “patriotism, prosperity, and pride.” For instance, the president was careful to frame the respective achievements of each host country as matters of national wonder, achievements born from freedom, or at least the free market with regard to China. He did so most dramatically in Seoul, when he distinguished the “miracle” of South Korean freedom against the “tyranny” of North Korea, the thirty-eight parallel representing the “thin line of civilization.”

Trump also began to articulate a concept of “high-standard” or “high-quality” U.S.-sponsored rules or programs, perhaps providing a contrast against presumably “lower” Chinese-led efforts. In Tokyo, for instance, the president expressed support for “high-standard rules of governance” and “high-quality United States-Japanese infrastructure investment alternatives” in the Indo-Pacific region. Later, in Vietnam, he called on the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to direct their efforts toward “high-quality infrastructure investment” that promotes economic growth. Are these remarks a subtle dig at “white elephant” projects under the Belts and Roads Initiative and the RCEP, which does not include stronger protections for labor, intellectual property, or foreign investment? These remarks were likely intended for multiple audiences.

One target audience during Trump’s overseas trip was U.S. voters and his political base in particular. The president’s Indo-Pacific vision echoed traditional conservative domestic themes like private sector-led initiatives, self-reliance, and individual enterprise. Almost without fail, at each visit Trump announced his claimed list of accomplishments in year one: a 3.2 percent growth rate, record unemployment, an all-time high stock market, and the defeat of the Islamic State (ISIS). In fact, Trump should receive credit for remaining consistent to his campaign promise to revisit U.S. trade relations and directly confront the challenge of North Korea’s nuclear program, even if his style and approach are subject to scrutiny.

Trump has proven himself an adroit if unorthodox communicator. However, the president’s message in Asia may have had difficulty spanning the Pacific, as Trump continued to suffer political setbacks on the domestic front, most evidently with Democratic electoral victories in Virginia and New Jersey on Election Day, November 7. The “off-year” gubernatorial races traditionally foretell the midterm Congressional elections scheduled in 2018. If the Republicans lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year, then we can expect a fresh round of Congressional investigations and hearings to supplement the ongoing Russia-related probes by special prosecutor Robert Mueller and others. Following the election results, House Democrats have already introduced articles of impeachment against the president.

As such, Trump’s five-nation tour likely provided a much-needed reprieve from the “Swamp” in Washington, D.C. He could leave certain baggage at home. Whether he can advance his objectives vis-à-vis North Korea, U.S. trade deficits, and a new vision for the Indo-Pacific region remains to be seen. Following the president’s visit, we can at least unpack and begin to measure his foreign policy in Asia.

Roncevert Ganan Almond is a Partner and Vice-President at The Wicks Group, based in Washington, D.C. He has counseled government authorities in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America on issues of international law. He served as an aide to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, but is not currently affiliated with any campaign. The views expressed here are strictly his own.

[David51]

The press is annoyed that there is actually a President that isn’t seeking their favor. We see so much fake news that I have gotten to the point if I can’t see a video of the person saying whatever the press claim, I just take it with a grain of salt