Latest news with #counter-China
Asia Times
01-05-2025
- Business
- Asia Times
US security policy in Asia shows some continuity in sea of change
The first 100 days of the second Donald Trump Administration produced upheaval in many quarters, but one policy remains steady: building a regional defense architecture to deter aggression by China. Further movement in this direction, however, is threatened by collateral damage from aspects of the new US government's approach to foreign policy that break with the pre-Trump era. Chief among these are the 'tariff war' and alliance skepticism. How did we get to where we are now? During the first Trump Administration (2017-2021), US policy toughened toward Beijing as Washington concluded that deep economic engagement with China was not working as planned. Increased wealth was supposed to liberalize and pacify China. Instead, the Chinese government under Xi Jinping was increasingly authoritarian at home and aggressive abroad. The pandemic drew attention to America's dependence on Chinese supplies of vital supplies. Trump's government characterized China as more of an adversary than a partner. The US imposed tariffs on some Chinese imports and began working to reroute global supply chains to reduce China's global economic centrality. At the same time, Trump expressed contempt for US alliances, arguing that allies benefited disproportionately while underpaying for US protection. At the same time, Trump departed from the mainstream of postwar US foreign policy in important ways. He rejected American exceptionalism, sidelined liberal values as a lodestar for US foreign relationships and expressed affinity for authoritarian state leaders such as Xi, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. Trump was highly critical of US global commitments, particularly the US alliances in both Europe and Asia. Instead of free trade, he touted tariffs as the solution to America's trade deficit. President Joe Biden (2021-2025) extended and increased some of Trump's tariffs on China. His administration also placed restrictions on Chinese access to advanced technology and pressured other governments to do the same. Biden, however, reversed Trump by returning to a more conventional view of alliances as force multipliers that produce a valuable if intangible strategic return on American investment. The foreign policy of Trump II is dominated by two familiar themes from his first term: enthusiasm for tariffs and disdain for alliances. What is surprising is the intensity with which he has implemented those predilections. The entire world is now under relatively high US tariffs (10%, compared with an average US rate of 2.5% in 2024) with the threat of much higher 'reciprocal tariffs' that would kick in as soon as May. And America has effectively abandoned NATO – by antagonizing Western Europe and Canada, by declaring that NATO members can no longer count on the US to defend them and by accommodating Russia despite Putin's aggression against Ukraine. The first three months of Trump II have seen Washington reaffirm its intention to strengthen a counter-China defensive military coalition. As he was dealing with the fallout of the Signal scandal, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made his first trip to Asia in March. He passed on South Korea, likely because its government was under an acting president while Yoon Suk-yeol was in impeachment proceedings. In Japan, Hegseth said the US plans to increase joint training and cooperation in developing new weapons technologies with Japan, and will also complete the upgrade of the US military headquarters in Japan from an administrative office to a military command post, a decision first announced by the Biden Administration. In the Philippines, Hegseth reiterated that the US-Philippine defense treaty covers attacks on Philippine government ships or aircraft anywhere in the South China Sea – an important commitment given Chinese harassment of Philippine navy and coast guard vessels in the Philippines' exclusive economic zone, over which Beijing claims sovereignty. Hegseth also announced that the US and the Philippines plan to co-produce some military systems and that the US will deploy advanced sea drones and NMESIS anti-ship missiles in Philippines territory. NMESIS indeed appeared in the Batanes Islands in the Luzon Strait south of Taiwan during a US-Philippines military exercise in April. These missiles could theoretically target Chinese warships attempting to encircle Taiwan. The AUKUS agreement, whereby the US and the UK will help provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, is still on track, albeit somewhat shakily. On January 29, Australia made a US$500 million down payment – part of a total commitment of US$3 billion to build up the US capacity to manufacture submarines. The shaky part includes uncertainty regarding how much Trump supports or even knows about AUKUS. On February 7, Hegseth said that 'the president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS' and that Hegseth himself had 'hope' that the US would deliver the promised submarines on time. A few days later, asked during a press conference if he had discussed AUKUS with the visiting UK Prime Minister, Trump replied, 'What does that mean?' While the Trump White House ordered a three-month freeze of foreign aid programs upon taking office, Secretary of State Marco Rubio approved exceptions to the freeze that included US$870 million in military assistance for Taiwan and $336 million for the Philippines. US Navy warships transited the Taiwan Strait in February and April, indicating that Washington is still willing to annoy Beijing to demonstrate an interest in Taiwan's security. But while the Pentagon's agenda in the Asia-Pacific region has seen little interruption in the transition from the Biden to the Trump Administration, it is partly undercut by Washington's larger foreign policy shifts. Not surprisingly, rent-seeking and abandonment of friends in other parts of the world are adverse to nurturing alliances. The tariff issue is a double whammy for US allies Japan and South Korea. Trump is unhappy with both countries for two reasons. First, they have trade surpluses with the US. Second, Trump thinks they are defense free-riders. The governments of both Japan and South Korea have said they want to keep military issues separate from trade talks with the US. Unfortunately for them, Trump extolls the idea of 'one stop shopping,' which means 'bringing up other subjects that are not covered by Trade and Tariffs, and getting them negotiated also.' The tariff issue brings delegations from theoe two countries to Washington for urgent negotiations. The Japanese, who face a possible additional 24% tariff, came to town on April 16. The Koreans, hoping to avert a planned 25% reciprocal tariff, followed on April 24. Such meetings allow the Trump team to re-visit the contentious matters of how much these allies spend on defense and how much they contribute toward the cost of hosting US military bases. Both countries have already signed multi-year host nation support agreements with the Biden Administration. Under a deal good until 2027, Japan pays US$1.7 billion per year toward the US bases, plus an additional US$3 billion this year for other costs including construction for US Marines moving from Okinawa to Guam. South Korea pays the US a little over $1 billion annually in host nation support under an agreement valid until 2029. Trump, however, has recently complained that the Japanese 'don't pay anything' for US protection and that the South Koreans should pay $10 billion per year. The likely result is more stress on these alliances. Japan is especially undeserving of such treatment. Tokyo has made itself more useful to the US strategic agenda in recent years by working toward raising its defense spending from 1% to 2% of GDP, signing a deal to buy 400 US-made Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, accelerating plans to develop and deploy its own precision missiles that can hit ships and ground targets, establishing a Joint Operations Command to improve coordination among the different branches of the Japanese armed forces and strengthening its defenses in the Ryukyu Islands near Taiwan. In Australia, the new US government has seriously damaged confidence in US reliability as an ally. Prominent Australian policy thinkers are arguing that their country can no longer count on American help in times of danger. The Australian public feels the same. In the middle of last year, 61 percent of Australian respondents said they could 'rely on the United States for defense and national security.' Polled on that same question in April, 66 percent answered in the negative. The disillusionment down under stems from two distinctively Trump policies. The first is Washington's rough handling of supposed friends such as NATO member countries and Ukraine. The second antagonizing policy is the tariffs. While Washington characterized its tariffs as a means of addressing America's many bilateral trade deficits, the US has a trade surplus with Australia. Australians nevertheless got the same tariffs as most of the rest of the world: 10% on everything, plus an additional 25% on steel and aluminum products. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argued that 'a reciprocal tariff' in Australia's case 'would be zero.' Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong asked for an exemption from the steel and aluminum tariff, but Trump rebuffed the appeal. The damage is not yet fatal. In an opinion piece published in an Australian national newspaper, PRC Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian gracelessly invited Aussies to 'join hands' with China to 'stop the hegemonic and bullying behavior of the US.' Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles shot back, 'I don't think we'll be holding China's hand.' A US grand strategy that reconciles 'America First' with US leadership of an Asian security architecture is possible, but we have not seen it during Trump's first hundred days. Until that happens the two lines of effort will work against each other.
Fox News
13-03-2025
- Business
- Fox News
MORNING GLORY: Trump's key signals amidst the noise
President Trump's most important moves among the many important moves that he has made in his first two months in office are those that restored the hard line he had taken towards China in his first term, a very firm line that has quickly been put back in its place of defining priority for our foreign policy and national security. Trump began with his support at the Pentagon and in Congress for defense spending re-focused for the Indo-Pacific region and with tariffs on imports from the People's Republic of tariff arguments with Mexico, Canada and the European Union can be resolved over the negotiating table. But not so the competition between the superpowers. That competition will hopefully never become an armed conflict, but it would almost certainly have become one if American indifference to the ambitions of the PRC United States finally began to develop a strategy for containing China's global ambitions in the first Trump term. All of that effort was wasted by a disastrous four years of a leaderless country during the regency years of Joe Biden's infirmity. CHINA, REACTING TO TRUMP TARIFFS, PROMISES TO 'FIGHT TILL THE END' IN TRADE WAR 'OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF WAR'Now the second part of the first American counter-China strategy is rolling out and it begins with our massive investment in our sea services and our on-shoring of the critical production lines abandoned to our adversary over four decades. President Trump speaks very softly and respectfully about General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping. That is the correct tone for superpower diplomacy. But Trump's respect for the Chinese dictator's power is as certain as is his resolve to counter it. We all fell for the open secret that Deng Xiaoping proclaimed as China's key principle during his long run as the PRC's leader: "Hide your strength, bide your time." Quietly, consistently, China built its economic strength and then its military strength. America's China lobby helped the process of China's astonishing growth until Trump arrived on the documentary source has ever been found for the saying, often attributed to Vladimir Lenin, that "the Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them," but it served nicely as an explanation for the early decades of the Soviet Union's growth and it most certainly applies to America's China policy after the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. Not now. Never again for the foreseeable future in all likelihood. In early February Trump put a 10% tariff in place against goods from China and China quickly issued retaliatory tariffs. In early March, Trump upped the U.S.'s tariff on China by 25%. More retaliation from China expect this confrontation to be toned down or delayed. America has one peer competitor on the world stage across all domains and it is China, and China's hostility to us and our allies is open and ongoing. The espionage effort against us is vast and has gone mostly unchecked during the Biden years of fog and mumbling. The FBI under Trump raided and shut down the PRC's Houston consulate. The FBI under Biden raided Mar-a-Lago. Trump is back and new FBI Director Kash Patel will hopefully not disappoint when it comes to CCP is talk of summits between Trump and Xi. Fine. Richard Nixon met with both Leonid Brezhnev and Mao. Summits can keep the crises away, conflict below the kinetic level. Both China and Russia have vast nuclear arsenals and emerging new technologies, though not as large or as lethal as ours. It's good to keep everyone focused on that basic fact set and to not lose sight of our need to keep our guard up there. And Trump is not a chump of course. He'd rather the competition with China be contained and controlled but he won't be rolled and he won't be sold word salad at a summit or three. Trump leaves the table when there is no deal to be had and there is no significant deal to be had with the Chinese Communist Party, which has gone hard-line for the dozen years of Xi's increasingly iron-fisted rule. Trump has never not seen Xi clearly for who he is or how tough an adversary he has Mark Montgomery (USN, Ret.) talked at some length with me this week about the outline of the long-term strategy for dealing with China. Watch that discussion here. What the admiral pointed out to me is that I had seen, but not understood the significance of the visit of the president of Taiwan Semiconductor to the White House. When President Trump shook hands with C.C. Wei, chairman and CEO of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington on March 3, that was the signal through all the noise. Along with the China tariffs, along with Trump's emphasis on the Navy, Marine Corps and shipbuilding, here was a deft delivery of some diplomacy. The number one bestseller on the New York Times non-fiction list a week back was Senator Tom Cotton's new "Seven Things You Can't Say About China." The senator from Arkansas is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the third ranking member of the GOP conference. He doesn't speak for the president, of course, but Cotton does speak with Trump. They get along. That's a very good thing, for if even half of Trump's and Cotton's shared, clear-eyed understanding of China spreads throughout Team Trump, the country will be prepared for Trump's most important fight among many important fights, one that will have to be carried consistently forward for decades. Hugh Hewitt is host of "The Hugh Hewitt Show," heard weekday mornings 6am to 9am ET on the Salem Radio Network, and simulcast on Salem News Channel. Hugh wakes up America on over 400 affiliates nationwide, and on all the streaming platforms where SNC can be seen. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel's news roundtable hosted by Bret Baier weekdays at 6pm ET. A son of Ohio and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, Hewitt has been a Professor of Law at Chapman University's Fowler School of Law since 1996 where he teaches Constitutional Law. Hewitt launched his eponymous radio show from Los Angeles in 1990. Hewitt has frequently appeared on every major national news television network, hosted television shows for PBS and MSNBC, written for every major American paper, has authored a dozen books and moderated a score of Republican candidate debates, most recently the November 2023 Republican presidential debate in Miami and four Republican presidential debates in the 2015-16 cycle. Hewitt focuses his radio show and his column on the Constitution, national security, American politics and the Cleveland Browns and Guardians. Hewitt has interviewed tens of thousands of guests from Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump over his 40 years in broadcast, and this column previews the lead story that will drive his radio/ TV show today.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Political theater ruined Congress's opportunity to save USAID
In a hearing held earlier this month titled 'USAID's Betrayal,' Republican members on the House Foreign Affairs Committee squandered a strategic opportunity. They missed the chance to highlight the Trump administration's legacy of successful USAID initiatives while maintaining ground on Congress's role in overseeing necessary reforms to the agency in response to the president's foreign assistance executive orders. Instead, they fixated on sensational and inappropriate rhetoric, diminishing the credibility of their oversight efforts. And the moment was lost. On Wednesday, the Trump administration announced it would end 90 percent of USAID's contracts and cut $60 billion in global aid. The excessive and crude references to 'condoms' and 'circumcision' by members of both parties were embarrassing and beneath the dignity of Congress. Chairman Brian Mast's (R-Fla.) remark, 'we will write $10 million off foreskin out of the budget,' was just one among an endless stream of cringy exchanges by Republicans on the panel. The tone was unserious; the discussion detracted from a substantive debate on USAID's mission and impact. Former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios provided a key insight during the hearing: 'USAID staff do what political appointees tell them to do.' As a former political appointee at USAID during the first Trump administration, I found this statement largely accurate. Under President Trump, USAID prioritized, allocated funds and implemented programs to advance international religious freedom as well as sent USAID staff to Greenland. In February 2019, USAID along with Ivanka Trump launched the W-GDP Fund, the first U.S. whole-of-government approach to global women's economic empowerment to reach 50 million women worldwide. An April 2019 visit to Côte d'Ivoire by Ivanka Trump is one example of this global initiative, where she announced a $2 million USAID-World Cocoa Foundation partnership to support 300 new savings associations, enabling women farmers to access capital and training programs to support their families. USAID also played a critical role in countering China's influence in the developing world. Max Primorac, one of the witnesses in the hearing, highlighted how a strong counter-China infrastructure developed under USAID was dismantled by the subsequent administration. Despite these successes, Republican committee members failed to emphasize them as a contrast to the Biden administration's policy shift to the American people. Instead of reinforcing Congress's oversight role, their focus was on vilifying USAID for implementing White House directives under President Biden. The hearing failed to offer any thoughtful plan to eliminate wasteful spending and reorient USAID toward advancing American interests as well as protecting our tax dollars. A more serious, sober inquiry would have probed the impact of shutting down USAID on American farmers and implementing partners, including faith-based organizations. Instead, the seriousness came from the Democrat side of the aisle. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) underscored the urgent need for USAID to resume humanitarian food assistance in Haiti, noting that '23 farms are impacted in the state of Florida.' Unfortunately, American farms in other states such as Kansas, Louisiana, Iowa Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, Montana and Arkansas have also been impacted since they supplied USAID with rice, wheat and soybean for USAID's food and relief programs. The hearing should have been an opportunity to assess USAID's effectiveness and propose meaningful reforms. Instead, it devolved into an unprofessional spectacle that did a disservice to the American people and USAID's beneficiaries worldwide. A serious review would have addressed: The financial impact on American farmers and agricultural exports resulting from USAID funding suspensions. The national security implications of shuttering USAID, particularly its role in stabilizing conflict zones. USAID's long history of surging into dangerous, conflict environments, like their heroic embedding with the U.S. military during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, managing humanitarian assistance and restoring essential services. The need for greater transparency (for example keeping USAID's website available so that the American people can see for themselves USAID's successes, failures, and areas for improvement). President Trump's executive orders directing a review of USAID programs are necessary, and I want his efforts to reduce waste and refocus the agency to succeed. But Congress has a duty to ensure that those carrying out the president's vision do so in a way that preserves America's strength and maintains an effective foreign assistance apparatus. Rather than fueling a fire that could burn down a system that helped win the Cold War, combat terrorism, prevent famine, expand American business into emerging markets and keep America safe, Congress should engage in serious oversight. USAID needs reform, but dismantling it entirely would be a reckless mistake. The American people, and those who rely on USAID's work, deserve better. USAID's work — including its support for religious liberty, working with American farmers, partnering with faith-based organizations and democracy promotion — deserves more than meaningless theatrics. America's national security and the American people deserve better. Samah Alrayyes Norquist is former chief adviser for International Religious Freedom to the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
28-02-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Political theater ruined Congress's opportunity to save USAID
In a hearing held earlier this month titled ' USAID's Betrayal, ' Republican members on the House Foreign Affairs Committee squandered a strategic opportunity. They missed the chance to highlight the Trump administration's legacy of successful USAID initiatives while maintaining ground on Congress's role in overseeing necessary reforms to the agency in response to the president's foreign assistance executive orders. Instead, they fixated on sensational and inappropriate rhetoric, diminishing the credibility of their oversight efforts. And the moment was lost. On Wednesday, the Trump administration announced it would end 90 percent of USAID's contracts and cut $60 billion in global aid. The excessive and crude references to ' condoms ' and ' circumcision ' by members of both parties were embarrassing and beneath the dignity of Congress. Chairman Brian Mast's (R-Fla.) remark, 'we will write $10 million off foreskin out of the budget,' was just one among an endless stream of cringy exchanges by Republicans on the panel. The tone was unserious; the discussion detracted from a substantive debate on USAID's mission and impact. Former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios provided a key insight during the hearing: 'USAID staff do what political appointees tell them to do.' As a former political appointee at USAID during the first Trump administration, I found this statement largely accurate. Under President Trump, USAID prioritized, allocated funds and implemented programs to advance international religious freedom as well as sent USAID staff to Greenland. In February 2019, USAID along with Ivanka Trump launched the W-GDP Fund, the first U.S. whole-of-government approach to global women's economic empowerment to reach 50 million women worldwide. An April 2019 visit to Côte d'Ivoire by Ivanka Trump is one example of this global initiative, where she announced a $2 million USAID-World Cocoa Foundation partnership to support 300 new savings associations, enabling women farmers to access capital and training programs to support their families. USAID also played a critical role in countering China's influence in the developing world. Max Primorac, one of the witnesses in the hearing, highlighted how a strong counter-China infrastructure developed under USAID was dismantled by the subsequent administration. Despite these successes, Republican committee members failed to emphasize them as a contrast to the Biden administration's policy shift to the American people. Instead of reinforcing Congress's oversight role, their focus was on vilifying USAID for implementing White House directives under President Biden. The hearing failed to offer any thoughtful plan to eliminate wasteful spending and reorient USAID toward advancing American interests as well as protecting our tax dollars. A more serious, sober inquiry would have probed the impact of shutting down USAID on American farmers and implementing partners, including faith-based organizations. Instead, the seriousness came from the Democrat side of the aisle. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) underscored the urgent need for USAID to resume humanitarian food assistance in Haiti, noting that '23 farms are impacted in the state of Florida.' Unfortunately, American farms in other states such as Kansas, Louisiana, Iowa Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, Montana and Arkansas have also been impacted since they supplied USAID with rice, wheat and soybean for USAID's food and relief programs. The hearing should have been an opportunity to assess USAID's effectiveness and propose meaningful reforms. Instead, it devolved into an unprofessional spectacle that did a disservice to the American people and USAID's beneficiaries worldwide. A serious review would have addressed: The financial impact on American farmers and agricultural exports resulting from USAID funding suspensions. The national security implications of shuttering USAID, particularly its role in stabilizing conflict zones. USAID's long history of surging into dangerous, conflict environments, like their heroic embedding with the U.S. military during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, managing humanitarian assistance and restoring essential services. The need for greater transparency (for example keeping USAID's website available so that the American people can see for themselves USAID's successes, failures, and areas for improvement). President Trump's executive orders directing a review of USAID programs are necessary, and I want his efforts to reduce waste and refocus the agency to succeed. But Congress has a duty to ensure that those carrying out the president's vision do so in a way that preserves America's strength and maintains an effective foreign assistance apparatus. Rather than fueling a fire that could burn down a system that helped win the Cold War, combat terrorism, prevent famine, expand American business into emerging markets and keep America safe, Congress should engage in serious oversight. USAID needs reform, but dismantling it entirely would be a reckless mistake. The American people, and those who rely on USAID's work, deserve better. USAID's work — including its support for religious liberty, working with American farmers, partnering with faith-based organizations and democracy promotion — deserves more than meaningless theatrics. America's national security and the American people deserve better.
See - Sada Elbalad
22-02-2025
- Politics
- See - Sada Elbalad
Trump Fires US Joint Chiefs Chairman
President Donald Trump has dismissed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Q. Brown, and appointed Air Force General Dan Kane as his successor. Trump announced the decision via Truth Social, thanking Brown for his 40 years of service and highlighting Kane's expertise in national security, aviation, and special operations. The move is part of a broader effort to reshape military leadership, as Trump consolidates authority in his second term. According to the Associated Press, the appointment of Kane signals a strategic shift in military focus from Middle Eastern conflicts to potential confrontations with China. Brown had been unanimously confirmed by the Senate (98-0) and was widely regarded as a key figure in modernizing US military strategy. The shake-up comes as the Pentagon prepares for an 8% budget cut over the next five years, amounting to $50 billion annually. These funds will be redirected to support Trump's defense priorities, including expanded drone programs, submarine development, and counter-China initiatives. Reports from CNN indicate that the cuts could result in thousands of job losses at the Pentagon and the elimination of existing weapons programs. Defense officials have been directed to compile a list of affected personnel and initiatives as part of a government-wide efficiency drive led by Elon Musk's Commission on Government Efficiency, a task force appointed by Trump to streamline federal operations.
