Daily Times

Now that Trump’s world wind Asia tour is over, many are asking the same question: where was the grand strategy? The sad truth is that there didn’t seem to be one; not as the US president moved from country to country over the scheduled 12-day period.

North Korea has taken up much of Trump’s time and attention since he took over the White House. And he can’t quite believe that despite all this threats to annihilate the ‘Little Rocket Man’, his regime and his country — Kim Jong-un remains unbowed. The US has even gone as far as sending three aircraft carriers perilously close to North Korean waters to conduct naval exercises, in a move that Kim could well view as an existential threat.

And then there was Trump’s no-holds barred direct approach to talking tough, where he delivered the following message: “The weapons you are acquiring are not making you safer, they are putting your regime in grave danger. Every step you take down this dark path increases the peril you face.” Thus did the most powerful man in the world think that this would suffice to get Kim to the table to ‘make a deal’.

Yet what sort of deal are we talking about? For short of Pyongyang renouncing nuclear weapons — there appears no way forward. Not when Trump has already laid all his cards on the table, which he readily did when he made this pledge: “We will offer a path to a much better future. It begins with an end of the aggression of your regime, a stop to the development of your ballistic missiles and complete, verifiable and total denuclearisation.”

However, there is no indication that Kim is ready to play ball. Even Russia’s Putin is said to have remarked that the North Koreans would rather eat grass than give up their nukes; a sentiment with which Pakistanis are somewhat familiar.

Trump was almost cavalier as he absolved China of currency manipulation as well as its trade deficit with the US. He pledged that the two sides could put this right. And so it was that he walked away with inked trade memorandums worth some $250 billion

And now Trump appears to have turned towards China to get him out of this nuclear mess. Meaning that he is urging Beijing to cut off all economic ties with Pyongyang; thereby leaving the latter with no money for weapons of mass destruction or, indeed, much else. All of which may lead to one of two outcomes. Firstly, the Kim Jong-un regime will collapse, thus precipitating chaos as floods of refugees cross over into China. Or secondly, a state of non-governance will, over time, give rise to the prospect of unification with South Korea; thereby creating legitimate conditions for a US military presence near China’s border by virtue of Seoul’s security alliance with Washington.

To put it bluntly, Beijing isn’t prepared to go that far. Although it has recently got tougher regarding sanctions against North Korea in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions. Unfortunately, this has encouraged Trump to try and woo China using both flattery and careful reminders of the significance of the bilateral relationship in order to get it to do the American bidding. In short, he wants President Xi to go the extra mile and convey to Kim in no uncertain terms that he has run out of options and that his nuclear threat — though catastrophic if it were to ever materialise — will also be wholly self-destructive.

Indeed, this explains the Trump charm offensive that was very much on display during the presidential visit to China. Describing talks with Xi as ‘excellent’, he went on to say that that the two sides were sure that the North Korea nuclear standoff could be resolved. He just didn’t give any hint of just how that might come to pass. Though he was sure to thank Beijing for having cut all banking ties with the rogue regime.

When viewed in the grand scheme of things, it seems that the US president is offering China a piece of the American pie when it comes to managing world affairs. And before the Trump White House — this was just not something that Washington had ever been prepared to do. Beijing was, at best, grudgingly recognised as a regional player and, even then, its role was not unfettered. Back then, the US was insisting on freedom of navigation through the South China Sea. Whereas today, Trump is happy to talk about how his ‘great chemistry’ with Xi would lead the two men to solving ‘world problems of great danger’; without little or no exception.

To show goodwill on his part, Trump was almost cavalier in his absolving China of any blame for lingering accusations of currency manipulation as well as its trade deficit with the US. He graciously acknowledged that it was doing what any nation would do: that is, maximising its advantage, which had, after all, been made possible by the incompetence of previous American administrations. Trump thus pledged that, with both he and Xi at the helm, this wrong would be put right. And it was, with the US side walking away with inked trade memorandums worth some $250 billion; and while these do not translate into actual contracts — it shows that the Chinese will is there.

This may have been sufficient to keep Trump quiet on the issue of the disputed South China Sea islands. Beijing claims sovereignty over these and has put in place military structures towards this end. And even those nations that contest ownership of the islands have, lately, softened their stance; choosing accommodation over confrontation given China’s growing economic, military and political might, which comes as the US hegemony is in decline. Thus for the Chinese, Donald Trump couldn’t have assumed the American presidency at a better time.

Nevertheless, aside from the ‘great chemistry’ with Xi — nothing much has been done to take the bilateral relationship forward in any concrete shape or form. All that we have are good intentions and we know where roads lead when they are only paved with these. The fear for the Americans is, as Antony J Blinken, a former deputy secretary of state during the Obama administration, has said, in a piece for The New York Times: “. . . if the Trump-led retreat into nationalism, protectionism, unilateralism and xenophobia continues, China’s model could carry the day”.

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia

Published in Daily Times, November 18^th 2017.