Posted on 03/08/2019 10:07:14 PM PST by Steve Schulin
[p.A2 highlight] Set aside the absurd tweets. On big issues such as the United States-China rivalry and North Korea’s nuclear arms programme, US President Donald Trump offers a more realistic view of the world than America’s foreign policy establishment, says Professor Hugh White of the Australian National University.
[p.A38] US President Donald Trump is the bane of America’s bipartisan foreign policy establishment.
He consistently trashes the most fundamental principles and objectives that have guided America’s approach to the world, under both Republicans and Democrats, since the end of the Cold War almost 30 years ago. Washington’s policy experts in the media, think-tanks, academia and even his own administration decry this as a demonstration of his ignorance and folly.
But perhaps, behind the absurd tweets and erratic gestures, Mr Trump’s policies reflect a more realistic understanding of America’s place in the world and the limits of its power than many of his critics. We can see why this might be so when we look at the big issues now on the boil in Asia.
Start with North Korea. The world is still reeling from the strange denouement of the Hanoi summit. One could read Mr Trump’s willingness to walk away from the table as a welcome sign of strength and resolve. When they met last June in Singapore, he seemed to get nothing concrete from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in return for an avalanche of warmth and goodwill, and the suspension of US-South Korean military exercises.
There were real fears that in Hanoi, he would give Mr Kim even more – lifting many of the sanctions and declaring a formal end to the Korean War – in return for modest steps from Pyongyang which did little to reduce North Korea’s nuclear capability.
Things seemed to pan out differently. Mr Trump reportedly offered Mr Kim a grand bargain, under which all the sanctions would be removed and aid would flow in return for immediate and complete disarmament.
Inevitably, Mr Kim rejected this, and countered by offering to dismantle the main nuclear facility at Yongbyon in return for easing of the most economically damaging sanctions, which would have left other North Korean facilities and its existing weapons and missile forces intact.
Mr Trump walked away rather than agreed to Mr Kim’s proposal, but at the same time he made it clear that the North Korean’s rejection of the Grand Bargain was not a deal-breaker. Instead, he appeared upbeat about prospects for an eventual agreement.
This suggests that the US side has in effect conceded the key point – that it will agree to sanctions relief in return for partial rather than complete dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear facilities and forces. Further negotiations will simply be about the details of such a deal.
So the key result of the Hanoi summit was to confirm that Mr Trump is willing to see North Korea retain its nuclear and missile forces, thus effectively acknowledging and accepting its status as a nuclear-armed power.
Washington’s foreign policy establishment regards this possibility with horror, but the reality, which Mr Trump himself may dimly discern, is that America really has no choice.
It has been trying and failing to force Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear programme since 1994. Its capacity to pressure or threaten Pyongyang has dwindled rather than grown as the decades have passed. The new sanctions imposed in 2017 have not brought North Korea’s economy to its knees.
And the country most directly involved, South Korea, seems keener on building relations with the North than on denuclearising it.
Mr Kim’s determination to preserve major elements of his capability is confirmed by new reports since the summit that
North Korea has been rebuilding a previously dismantled missile facility. This shows both how unrealistic Mr Trump has been about the effectiveness of his personal diplomacy, and how unrealistic many of his critics are about how effective a different, tougher approach would be.
It may well be that the deal Mr Trump is moving towards against the advice of all the experts is, realistically, the best that can be done, and better than nothing.
TRADE WAR WITH CHINA
The second big issue for America in Asia today is the trade war with China. Over the past few years, partly inspired by Mr Trump himself, America’s foreign policy establishment has become seized with the need to force Beijing fundamentally to change the way China’s economy is managed and the plans for its future, in order to protect America from what is seen as unfair competition.
But now, it seems, Mr Trump is preparing to call off the trade war in return for much more modest outcomes.
He has extended the deadline for ramping up tariffs on imports from China to allow time for a deal to be finalised in which, reportedly, China would agree only to buy more US farm products, open more opportunities for US investment in China and offer vague and hard-to-enforce undertakings on some legal and regulatory issues.
Many in Washington are dismayed by this potential outcome. They hope and expect to see Beijing forced to limit the role of the state in the economy, and step back from plans to make China a leader in key high-tech industries in the years ahead.
But that seems plainly unrealistic. US tariffs are clearly hurting China’s economy, and the higher tariffs that have been threatened would hurt it more, but not enough to force Beijing to abandon its most cherished ambitions, and repudiate goals declared by Chinese President Xi Jinping. It is hard to imagine that any degree of US pressure would be enough to do that.
Mr Trump’s estimate of what can realistically be achieved, modest though it is, therefore looks much closer to the mark.
PRIMACY IN ASIA
Finally, and most importantly, there is the question of America’s strategic contest with China.
The US foreign policy establishment has always taken it for granted that America must and will do whatever it takes to preserve America’s position as the leading power in Asia. For a long time, it downplayed the idea that China would ever seriously challenge that position, but in the last year or so, that has changed.
The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy identified China, along with Russia, as a key strategic rival. Across the administration and throughout the wider US policy community, it has become widely accepted that China is seeking to supplant America in East Asia, and that America must push back.
This is now routinely described as America’s No. 1 strategic priority, and many people refer to it as the “new Cold War”. US Vice-President Mike Pence himself led the charge with a blistering speech to the Hudson Institute last year.
But one voice is absent from this chorus – Mr Trump’s.
He has not used major occasions, such as his State of the Union address, where major shifts in US policy are most notably announced and explained, to speak in these terms.
Instead he talks of China only as a trade competitor. When Congress passed the “Asia Reassurance Initiative Act” by a big bipartisan majority to signal its support for efforts to push back strategically against China, Mr Trump signed it without making any statement at all.
The message is clear. While the rest of Washington is winding itself up for a major strategic contest with China, Mr Trump is hanging back.
He has never subscribed to the idea that America’s interests require it to shoulder the burden of strategic leadership in places far from home, and he remains reluctant to pay the costs of rivalry with China to perpetuate US leadership in Asia.
Perhaps more realistically than his critics, Mr Trump may in his own strange way understand the limits to America’s power, and how high those costs might consequently be.
If so, his reluctance to launch a new Cold War with China may serve his country better than the bellicose boldness of Washington’s foreign policy establishment.
Keep tilting at windmills Steve.
Yeah, we get it. You think the president is an idiot.
This guy has taken the same things I have pondered and has come away with the worst possible interpretation of each.
I’m not convinced Trump will allow North Korea to have nukes.
I am not convinced Trump has abandoned getting China’s trade relations with us under control.
I also think that China is pushing is’t luck in the southwestern Pacific, and is going to go one step too far one of these days.
The current dust-up with Vietnam is just nutty.
China is claiming a lot of ownership in the region, and nobody else is buying in.
It will get away with only so much of this before it gets it’s nose bent over on it’s face.
Trump and the Limits to Which His Enemies Will Go to Slander Him
>>>Does any prospective D or R candidate in 2020 meet your minimum standard for support?<<<
You actually believe that anyone who Posts on FR would consider, for even a millisecond, supporting a Rat for POTUS in 2020? Thanks for the laugh.
The only person who has the interest of the American People, their God Given Freedoms and the future of our Republic is already serving as POTUS.
You had better Pray that he is Reelected in 2020 or America as we know it is doomed.
Trump has exceeded my low expectations. Without God’s protection, even a George Washington couldn’t help us. With God’s protection, even a Barack Obama couldn’t destroy us.
I for one, share the concern that we seem FAR too ready to compromise on the huge mess wuth China trade, which both parties’ presidents have been completely sold out on, for the entire last generation.
We do not need to “freeze”, we seriously need to rebuild our manufacturing sector.
Trump, that is why you won.
“with” China trade,
(sorry)
Yo - Stevie....you ask us a few questions but you never tell us what you really think...how about telling us who we need to try to get on a ticket and then to elect.....we already have the best President in our lifetimes, but go ahead and give us your (cough cough) “Rand Paul” type perfect candidate....
Looks like Steve has stumbled on the fact that the President is more savvy and experienced than the flunkies at the State Department.
While grudgingly implying this fact; Steve is unable to overcome his inherent left wing bias to admit this fact; even to himself.
Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least a few posters here voted for Hillary in 2016, so what is it you’re laughing at? But my post wasn’t just for those who post, but for those who read here, regardless of how they’ve identified themselves. As to your apparent claim that Trump is the ONLY PERSON who has the interest of the American people, our God Given Freedoms and the future of our Republic at heart, well, I know you’re wrong about the “only person” part. And if I was in the House, I’d have sponsored an impeachment bill when Trump announced support for bump stock ban, because it seems like a clear infringement on the right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Second Amendment. If Trump doesn’t measure up in 2020, I’ll do my best to help raise up someone who does. Rather than pray for his reelection, I pray he does much better in remainder of current term. We face many challenges. That we don’t have control of who enters our borders more than two years into his term seems a testament to Trump’s performance so far. I saw a statement in Congressional Record a week or two ago that said the approximately fifty murders a day committed by people here illegally shows that the lack of secure borders IS appropriately described as an emergency. It reminded me that on a typical day here in the US, some 2,500 babies are surgically aborted, and many more are chemically aborted by abortifacient drugs available under color of law. Trump talks about abortion a good bit, but he doesn’t stand up for what the Declaration of Independence called the unalienable right to life, and what the Constitution forbids: depriving a person of their life without due process. Many pro-life folks thought it was great that Trump talked about abortion during recent State of the Union speech. But Trump didn’t support the Constitution on this. Rather, he spoke favorably of the so-called fetal heartbeat bills. Any law that says its ok to kill some babies without due process is woefully inadequate. I’d support Trump if he issued a proclamation saying that we’re all persons from the earliest stage of our biological development, and that he expected every executive branch official to act accordingly. Eisenhower sent troops to Alabama to ensure the doors of a university weren’t closed to black persons. If Trump believes that children in the womb are persons, he should use his lawful authority to support the Constitution’s guarantee that no person shall be deprived of their life without due process.
Interesting take.
I blame Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell for the lack of a Border Wall. Trump is POTUS, not the King, not the Dictator and not Emperor.
I’m out and about on my Phone so I’ll look at your comment later to see if I have any other thoughts.
Wall has advantages, BUT we could secure the border without another inch of wall.
So, you’re a fringe guy who works to help folks who haven’t a chance in Hell of winning because it feels good.....I saw some of your folks standing in small parking lots singing “Kumbaya” and waving Ron Paul signs. Funny how some folks, who wouldn’t be satisfied if Jesus was on the ticket, will idolize their candidate-—while telling us w/o God’s Grace we are doomed and with His Grace we are saved (politically).
I remember when Mitt was running against Obama and folks here were pushing Virgil Goode - as solid as an ex/reformed-Dem could be but, once again, no chance of winning.
If Trump isn’t reelected, we may as well batten down the hatches and wait for the end.
Thank Mr.Gerald Nadler for the disruption in the negotiations. He appears to be saying “just hang in there, Kim, we will get rid of President Trump for you.”
That fat SOB is, if not totally, then partially, responsible for what has happened recently.
But what can we do about it? That remains to be seen.
There’s been many personally uplifting experiences that have resulted from my change in how I evaluate candidates, but that’s not why I urge my fellow Americans to decide for themselves what their own minimum standard is for supporting candidates, and if none of the candidates meet that standard, please do what you can to raise up one who does meet your standard. You mention Goode and Romney in 2012. Neither one of them met my minimum standard for support. The candidate I did support that year competed for the nomination of a party that had ballot line in California. That party hosted debates between Goode and Hoefling and ended up nominating FReeper Tom Hoefling for President. You also mention Rand Paul. I recall the Kentucky GOP primary debate for Senate where one of the candidates had participated in several of our town hall calls, and did a good job in contrasting his (and my) “personhood pro-life” perspective with Rand Paul’s “pro-choice for states” perspective. You also mention Romney as if supporting him had some significant redeeming value.
This or almost any article does not adequately portray real American power.
the real power is un seen.
America and American ways and products permeate society throughout the world. World citizens see Americans and wear clothing and buy products that make them like Americans. Some FReepers rant and rave about the perils of globalism, but international trade is transforming the world to look like America
In the case of Romney, I voted for him as “the lesser of two evils”....sometimes it’s all there is.
I would love to support the candidate that met all my expectations but there never is one so I go with the one I deem “best and electable”...nothing is perfect, especially in politics.
For now, President Trump is the best thing that happened for us since Reagan and I believe he beats The Gipper...if the person we elect isn’t willing to fight for us, then the person may as well be a hand puppet.
If the person we vote for isn’t electable, then we just threw the Dems a big, meaty bone.
Going by pure ideals in a world of myriad shades of gray is a losing prospect - one can feel good about himself but it the end it’s just another way of throwing in the towel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.