An American Bull in Asia’s China Shop

November 14, 2017

An American Bull in Asia’s China Shop

By: Asia Sentinel editors

Image result for An American Bull in Asia's China Shop

The Donald Trump wrecking ball has now completed its swath across Asia, from Saudi Arabia to Japan. It began on May 20 when he chose Riyadh, the capital of the medieval kingdom and ground zero of Muslim extremism, as his first overseas visit after taking office and has ended with his now-concluded 12 day swing and his embrace of the Philippines’ murderous president Rodrigo Duterte. He took time out to outrage the US’s intelligence community by his fawning embrace of former KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin, who, wide-eyed, told Trump he had nothing to do with sabotaging the US election that brought Trump to power.

Thus far the results have been more dangerous in West Asia, where the young Saudi de facto ruler Prince Mohamed bin Salman has since embarked on confrontations with Iran in Yemen and now Lebanon, actions which appear to please few other than Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s expansionist government.

In east Asia on the other hand, the reaction to Trump has been to gasp at his gaffes and empty rhetoric and try to carry on as though he did not exist. So far the only damage has been to the US itself as it sees the policies of 70 years which have so benefited trade and prosperity in the US itself as well as much of Asia viewed as contrary to US interests. For Trump it appears that the only free trade he wants is ability to plant Trump Towers everywhere from Riyadh to Bali to Manila via Moscow.

The record of the President‘s Asian tour was indeed remarkable, leaving a string of Asian leaders agog at his superficiality. Shinzo Abe was suitably flattering and took him golfing. But the highlight of the visit was a meal which proved that the Donald had little taste for his host nation’s acclaimed foods but needed a large cheeseburger of US-produced beef and cheese to keep him going while Abe looked on, bemused. On trade issues, which he says are so important, nothing significant transpired, with the President focusing on the art of the deal across Asia rather than the structural reforms that the trade regime needs.

China did even better in flattering him with a display of pomp which would give credit to an ancient empire, with Xi Jinping as emperor – an emperor whose growing power is sending tremors throughout the rest of Asia.  But again Trump came home empty-handed on trade.  Promises of US$250 billion of imports to China may well be built on sand. Commercial sales announced totalled US$65 million, many involving goods that Chinese companies buy routinely. Others were merely memorandums of understanding.

A Chinese decision to ease foreign access to financial markets appears to have had no direct connection to the visit. Trump even undercut his own cause by suggesting that China’s huge trade surplus with the US was the fault of the system, not China itself, saying “I don’t blame China. Who can blame a country for being able to take advantage of another country for the benefit of its citizens? I give China great credit.”

Instead, Trump blamed past American presidents. By definition this undermined demands of US businessmen for fairer treatment by China – treatment of the type which was the norm in most of its major trade partners. Legitimate US complaints could be ignored.

Image result for trump and south korean president

His South Korea visit demonstrated just how much his violent rhetoric against North Korea, not to mention his attacks on trade pacts, had already so damaged relations that Seoul succumbed to Chinese economic and diplomatic pressures and agreed to limiting deployment of THAAD missiles.

On to Vietnam and, the APEC meeting in Da Nang showed just how far Trump was out of step with the attempts of the other nations on either side of the Pacific to forge closer economic links and reduce trade barriers. Meanwhile the remaining nine members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, following withdrawal of the US, humiliated Trump while he was in Asia by announcing the revival of the plan, albeit under a slightly altered name.

Image result for Trump in Vietnam

If that wasn’t a huge slap in the face for the US from its major Asian allies, more derision was to follow.  Trump proclaimed himself a potential mediator in South China Sea disputes. Reactions ranged from open-mouthed amazement to guffaws of laughter. The only person who seemed to take it seriously was the Philippines’ neophyte foreign minister Alan Peter Cayetano who was quoted saying “We welcome that offer.”

Image result for Trump and ASEAN in Manila

But at least for Trump he was now headed for the one country in the world where, according to recent surveys, he enjoys more positive than negative views. That certainly fits well in a nation which still gives high marks to President Duterte despite, or because of, a campaign of extrajudicial killings of thousands of supposed, mostly poor, drug users – or, too often – people who weren’t drug users at all, but infants as young as 3 who were murdered mistakenly by police.

Trump remained silent on that topic but meanwhile was able to share with Duterte their mutual disdain for President Obama.  This was certainly no way to win friends and influence people in the rest of Asia which has relatively very fond memories of the thoughtful and dignified former president.

Nor did Trump’s pals-act with Duterte make any dent in Duterte’s preference for Chinese money over asserting the rights in the sea accorded by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Image result for Trump and Modi in Manila

The one plus, at least in some quarters, of the visit was Trump’s reference to the Indo-Pacific rather than Asia Pacific, bringing India into the regional equation. This was not in fact new. The phrase had been used by Obama and it accords with history in so far as Indian cultural and trade influence was long bigger than China’s in much of Southeast Asia.


But that for now is a sideshow as apparent battle lines are drawn between an east Asian focus on open trade and a Trumpian desire to tear up multilateral pacts in favor of bilateral deals. That would spell the death of US influence in the region. Most likely it will not happen because US business, military and bureaucracy are all more concerned with building US influence to counter China than retreating behind tariff walls. But meanwhile China is tempted to gloat and smaller Asian countries are reluctantly trimming their policies in response to US trade threats and general incoherence.

10 thoughts on “An American Bull in Asia’s China Shop

  1. I think the more people are “hentaming” the Donald the better for him…He can do a lot more work hidden behind the scene… Suddenly, the fishes are in the net. No?

  2. I believe every one in this blog knows how I feel about Donald Trump. But I’m glad that he’s torn up TPP. I’m not against multilateral trade pact, but from an American standpoint I’m against TPP. Discarding TPP is the wish of the majority of the American people. Bernie Sanders was against TPP. Even Hillary Clinton said during her presidential campaign that she would not support TPP. How sincere she was there’s no way to find out. She lost.

    I’ve spent some time studying the TPP pact. It’s my firm belief that TPP masqueraded as a “free-trade” agreement when in reality it was designed to make it even easier for colossal corporations to ship American jobs overseas by dismantling organized labor, undercutting workers’ rights and shirking environmental regulations. It’s not just jobs and trade deficits, however. The TPP also threatens Internet freedoms and civil liberties, collective bargaining rights, public and environmental health, food safety, financial stability, and American democracy. The closed-door nature of the negotiation process had positioned Congress and the American people as passive recipients of public policy, rather than agents of it – and left us out of decision-making processes that would have broad and deep implications in our everyday lives. Meanwhile, 500-plus corporations have been seated at the TPP negotiation table from the start.

    I’ve no time to go into every single detail. TPP has been labeled an international “free trade” deal, but it’s my conclusion that it’s less to do with free trade than it does with giving more power and wealth to the government and its corporate cronies. For once, I would say, Donald Trump was doing the right thing for the American people.

    • The TPP is a China Containment Pact. In order to cajole gullible countries to join its pact, the US would necessarily dole out the requisite candies, paid for by American taxpayers.

      The murky details (aka “candies”) would of course not be made public.

      Win-win is better than zero-sum.

  3. This crap seems to be written by a liberal who support the Dems made up of pedophiles, murderers, etc. Shame on you for even posting this.
    I treat this as a fake comment. Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble to pen your view. –Din Merican

    • Real one would have used “Sad” and not “Shame on you”.
      Also, would be grammatically screwed up 🙂

  4. The alt media in us are singing the song that HRC campaign manager and his brother have been indicted already. Anyone caught on to this? But what is public knowledge is that the Podesta Group is closing shop soon, yes/no?

    And HC is next in the line?

  5. Superficiality of the article by Asia Sentinel Editors is appalling. Well, we can take the lemon and make a glass of lemonade by contrasting the article with this WSJ article on Trump’s impact to world stability:

    “…Think back 10 months to Inauguration Day. North Korea was regularly testing and improving its missiles and nuclear weapons, well on its way to threatening the American mainland. China was intensifying its multifaceted challenge to the Asian status quo. Iran’s expansionism threatened to plunge the Middle East into chaos, and the regime had outmaneuvered an Obama administration that was desperate for a nuclear deal. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support for breakaway forces in eastern Ukraine presented legal and geopolitical challenges to the post-Cold War order. Venezuela’s progressive degradation threatened to destabilize Latin America, a region of direct interest to the U.S.”

    What President Trump has done so far seems to be working. I think the difference between opposition and supporters of Trump’s actions is that the opposition perceives the international stage as well-regulated place with rule of law as that in the domestic situation while the supporters perceive the international stage as gangster land with competing gangster groups with some convention. Whether Obama’s solution or Trump’s solution works better than other is depending on which perception of the world is closer to the reality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.