
Commentary: The Asian art of hedging in the time of Donald Trump
SINGAPORE: On May 31, delegates at the Shangri-La Dialogue 2025 in Singapore will hear what United States President Donald Trump wants to say to Asia, as delivered by his defence secretary Pete Hegseth.
In February at the Munich Security Conference, Mr Trump's vice president JD Vance shocked many by dismissing the risk of Russian political interference, instead directing scathing criticism at European leaders. At the same event, then Singapore defence minister Ng Eng Hen described America's image as having morphed 'from liberator to great disruptor to a landlord seeking rent' in Asia's eyes.
In its 100-plus days in office, the second Trump administration has sought to remake the world by upending the United States' traditional role as the guarantor of world order. But when Mr Hegseth made his first visit to Asia back in March, he sought to reassure Indo-Pacific allies and partners of US commitment to their security and to the region, amid lingering concerns over China's growing assertiveness.
As Mr Hegseth put it: 'America First does not mean America alone' – presumably because America still needs the cooperation of Asian friends if its China strategy were to succeed.
ENGAGING TRUMP'S AMERICA
But what precisely does America's reassurance, limited and conditional as it appears, entail for Asia?
Like everywhere else, Asia has been hit by US tariffs, with China's as high as 145 per cent, Vietnam's at 46 per cent and Singapore's at 10 per cent (despite the island's trade deficit and zero-tariff policy under a free trade agreement with the United States).
Mr Trump's levies are aimed at provoking Asian countries to renegotiate their extant trade deals with America, while using tariff concessions as pressure to curb their trade with China.
For the man who wrote The Art Of The Deal, Mr Trump's reassurances are somewhat disingenuous and are better understood as purely Shylockian deals with their requisite pounds of flesh.
Granted, America under Mr Trump's predecessor was also transactional, although Joe Biden's, as Singapore's former top diplomat Bilahari Kausikan has observed, was of the 'polite' variety in contrast to Mr Trump's 'in-your-face' version.
And anyone who fails to appreciate and accept this does so at their own peril.
Unsurprisingly, it is Asia's vaunted pragmatism that best furnishes a way forward. What Asia has done well, it must now do even better amid the challenging conditions set by Mr Trump. In this respect, three road-tested strategies come to mind.
QUID PRO QUO
The quid pro quo, or something given in exchange for something, is the foundation of transactional agreements and contracts.
During Mr Trump's first presidency, his long-held bugbears against Asians – their purported failure to fulfil their alliance commitments or to trade fairly with America – were seemingly assuaged when Asian countries reciprocated by buying more US products or providing goodwill services to the Americans.
For example, Singapore has systematically bought more from America than it has sold and actively facilitated the US military presence in the Indo-Pacific – a strategy that has hitherto worked for Asian countries that can afford to do so.
That the United States, in its dealings with China, requires the support of the region now more than ever underscores the need for America and Asia to cooperate to each other's mutual benefit. It is rather telling that other than China and India, none of the Asian countries responded with retaliatory levies against the United States.
Arguably, such goodwill gestures and incentives, if pursued quietly without grandstanding and pontificating, could elicit the requisite quid pro quos for Asia – much like how, during the Trump 1.0 years, America responded with its Asia Reassurance Initiative Act, which authorised US$1.5 billion annually in support of Mr Trump's Indo-Pacific strategy.
Granted, relying on the quid pro quo can be risky, so long as one side refuses to play by the rules.
Appeasing Trump may not work for Asia today as it did during Trump 1.0. Given the undue influence enjoyed today by Trump's MAGA (Make America Great Again) base in policymaking, some believe that America has gone beyond the pale.
But as the constant flipflopping of his tariff policy or his minerals agreement with Ukraine suggests, there might well be a method to Mr Trump's madness where a logic of reciprocity still applies.
True to his salesman instincts, he is still looking for the best deal in town – or at least the one he can sell as a win. This is where non-US alternatives could prove significant.
WALKING AMONG GIANTS
For a long time now, Asia has perfected the art of living dangerously through carefully treading between the rival behemoths, America and China.
Far from neutral, Asian countries effectively take positions on issues that either see them variously siding with Washington or Beijing – what behaviour academics call 'hedging' – but which realistically reflect what those countries deem as best for themselves.
Hedging is not for the fainthearted because it can provoke harsh reactions from big powers that feel slighted or betrayed. But it creates the necessary strategic space that smaller states otherwise would not have if they were to hew too closely to any one great power.
Asian countries would do well to de-risk themselves from America by engaging other powers. This refers not only to China but Australia, India, Japan and Europe (which has its own challenges with Mr Trump).
Indeed, dependence on China carries its own risks – as the Philippines discovered when former President Rodrigo Duterte's courting of Beijing failed to produce the desired economic and security outcomes for Manila.
BETWEEN POWER AND PRINCIPLE
It was not that long ago when pundits debated whether Asia would be better off with a US-led liberal order or a China-led authoritarian one. With its rejection of liberal values, globalism and even multilateralism, Mr Trump's America, in baldly privileging power over principle, has basically rendered that discussion moot.
Does Asia's pragmatism automatically denote a default vote for power rather than principle? Not necessarily so, for a pragmatic course implies taking the middle path between the two.
But why should Asia – a region unlikely ever to be accused of being liberal – adopt the via media rather than just embracing the new normal of unbridled power politics, perpetrated by the former paragon of principle, and fatalistically accepting its consequences?
Bluntly put, with America having cast aside its global leadership role, Asia must do all it can to preserve the rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific – without which the dire prospect of Asia becoming like the Ukraine of today (as the Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba recently warned) would only increase.
How Asia responds to Mr Trump's America will shape the security, stability and prosperity of our region. There is no greater urgency than the present where Asia must exercise its agency with all the prudence, discretion and creativity that Asians can muster. The onus for the future of this region is ours to bear.
Tan See Seng is the president and chief executive of International Students Inc in the United States, and concurrently research adviser for the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies and senior associate at the Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences at Nanyang Technological University.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNA
25 minutes ago
- CNA
Japan to consider buying back some super-long government bonds, sources say
TOKYO :Japan's government is considering buying back some super-long bonds it issued at low interest rates, two sources with direct knowledge of the plan said on Monday. The move would come on top of an expected government plan to trim issuance of super-long bonds in the wake of sharp rises in yields.


Independent Singapore
an hour ago
- Independent Singapore
Singapore subsidiary of Chinese state-owned company lays off 300 staff amid US sanctions
Photo: Freepik/ijeab (for illustration purposes only) SINGAPORE: The local arm of China Certification & Inspection Group (CCIC), a Chinese state-owned enterprise, has laid off approximately 300 employees and is undergoing liquidation following its addition to the U.S. sanctions list last month. The Singapore-based subsidiary, which is part of a wider group headquartered in Beijing, was sanctioned on May 15 alongside 14 other companies. The U.S. Treasury Department accused CCIC of aiding in the concealment of Iranian oil origins during cargo inspections, enabling shipments to China despite sanctions on Iran. Three employees who spoke anonymously to CNA confirmed that layoff notices were distributed on May 30, with the dismissals taking effect the following day. Two sources estimated that the group employs over 400 workers across Singapore and Malaysia, with more than 300 stationed in Singapore alone. Staff expressed frustration as they spoke to CNA about the delayed payment of May salaries and criticized the severance packages, particularly since many relied heavily on overtime pay and allowances to supplement their basic income. Several employees also expressed concerns about management's lack of transparency and accountability, claiming that senior executives had declined requests for meetings to address staff concerns. See also S'pore only Asian economy to contract? CNA reports that the company does not have union representation in Singapore. Despite this, some affected employees have since sought assistance from the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Tripartite Dispute Mediation Alliance.


Independent Singapore
an hour ago
- Independent Singapore
Trump's controversial travel ban targeting 12 nations slams into action Monday morning
Screengrab from WASHINGTON, U.S.A.: A contentious presidential directive from U.S. President Donald Trump has formally gone into effect, forbidding citizens from 12 nations to enter the U.S. as of 12:01 a.m. ET on Monday. The Trump government maintains that the move is intended to protect the country from 'foreign terrorists.' Affected countries include Myanmar, Afghanistan, Chad, Sudan, the Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and Somalia. According to the latest GMA Network report, restrictions will also apply to tourists from Cuba, Burundi, Laos, Togo, Sierra Leone, Venezuela, and Turkmenistan. Trump said that the most seriously impacted countries were chosen based on apprehensions over extremism, poor collaboration with U.S. visa security procedures, and untrustworthy identity authentication systems. Terrorism cited, but critics call the move discriminatory Trump cited the latest episode in Boulder, Colorado, where an Egyptian citizen allegedly threw a gasoline bomb into a mob of pro-Israel demonstrators, as an explanation for the prolonged travel limitations. Nevertheless, Egypt itself is not covered by the prohibition, prompting additional condemnation that the regulation is inconsistent and politically instigated. See also WHO warns virus may be here to stay as toll nears 300,000 The recent guideline mirrors a similar border closure carried out during Trump's first term, which besieged numerous Muslim-majority nations and spurred legal skirmishes, extensive objections, and disputes. Civil rights activists and Democratic policymakers have already voiced out, dubbing the move 'draconian' and a defilement of civil liberties. 'People have a right to seek asylum,' U.S. Representative Ro Khanna said in a social media post. Global reaction: Anger, retaliation, and fear The reaction from impacted countries has been quick and sharp. Chad's President Mahamat Idriss Deby Itno criticized the order and declared a punitive break to U.S. visa issuance. 'Chad has neither planes to offer nor billions of dollars to give, but Chad has its dignity and its pride,' Deby stated, alluding to prominent donations and investments made to the U.S. by more affluent countries like Qatar. In Afghanistan, many are obsessed with fear, especially those who worked with the U.S. government and are now confronted with the risk of expatriation and likely Taliban punishments. 'I risked my life for American values,' said one Afghan outworker. 'Now, I may be sent back to die.' As the new regulation gains traction, its lawful, political, and humanitarian repercussions are likely to reveal fast—and not without fierce debate.