The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2020,Vol 34,No. 01
【Abstract】 The Trump administration released the National Biodefense Strategy in September 2018, marking the official launching of the administration’s biosecurity policy. The strategic document is the embodiment of the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy in the field of biosecurity. It is the most systematic and comprehensive elaboration on biosecurity issues by successive US administrations. Compared with the Obama administration, the Trump administration’s biosecurity policy features centralized departmental coordination and integrated biological threat responses. The Trump administration’s biosecurity policy completely reflects its America First and unilateralism doctrines. The de-securitization in the arrangement of the implementing mechanism of the US biodefense strategy does not change the US objective for national security interests by implementing the biological security strategy. With its increasing investment in biotechnology, the Trump administration aims to achieve mutual empowerment in biotechnology innovation and biodefense systems, to promote health security, and to maintain the US hegemony in biotechnology innovation.
Strategic uncertainty in the background of adjustment of US Grand Strategy: Trump’s DPRK policy and evolution of Peninsular security
Northeast Asia Forum,2019,Vol 28,No. 01
【Abstract】 Since taking over the presidency, Donald Trump has replaced Mr. Obama’s DPRK Policy of “strategic patience” with “maximum pressure and engagement.” In the last two years, Trump Government has applied policies including military threats, economic sanctions, diplomatic persuasion and verbal aggression, which highly influenced the development of security situation of Korean Peninsula. Trump’s adjustment of DPRK policy, including the threat of war or the historical meeting with DPRK leader, originates from a simplified consideration by utilizing “strategic uncertainty.” Trump’s policy could be viewed as a part of the US Grand Strategy of dealing with competition of great powers, especially China. Trump’s policy could not decisively change the status quo of Korean Peninsula or even resolve the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the Peninsula’s security situation will go back to multilateral diplomatic wrangling. China should deeply analyze the logic and core of US policy to China, DPRK and the Peninsula and after that reset the priority of China’s strategic aims in related issues in order to stabilize the Peninsula security.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2019,Vol 33,No. 01
【Abstract】 The Trump administration’s Southeast Asia policy is an important part of its Asian policy. For the consideration of global strategic adjustment, at the beginning of Trump’s taking office, he adjusted the “comprehensive engagement” policy towards Southeast Asia during Obama’ era, lowered the strategic stratum of the region, changed the multilateral trade policy, but still regarded the South China Sea issue as an important strategic fulcrum, and constantly provoked disputes on soft issues such as religion, human rights and development. The launch of the “Indo-Pacific strategy” is an important measure for the Trump administration to enhance the strategic value of Southeast Asia. With the promotion of the strategy, the United States has strengthened cooperation with Southeast Asian countries in terms of politics, security, economy and trade, and tried to make Southeast Asia an exterior line of strategic competition between China and the U.S. However, as the Trump administration’s Southeast Asia policy is restricted by many aspects, it will be difficult for the U.S. to realize its continuous engagement in Southeast Asia, and the region’s position in the “Indo-Pacific strategy” of the U.S. is not stable. Only by seeking benign interaction and constructive coordination with China can the U.S. realize the order transformation and rule reconstruction in Southeast Asia and stabilize the trilateral relations among the U.S., China and ASEAN.
Analyzing the characteristics, effectiveness, and prospects of the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy towards the DPRK
Northeast Asia Forum,2019,Vol 28,No. 03
【Abstract】 In the study of the Northeast Asian politics and security, opinions differ as to whether the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy towards the DPRK is a decisive factor to force it to return to the path of denuclearization negotiations with the United States in 2018. As soon as he took office, Donald J. Trump ended “strategic patience” with the DPRK and put forward “maximum pressure” policy towards the DPRK. The policy of “maximum pressure” is wide-ranging, and it focuses on using the US super power and wide international influence, and puts deepen political, diplomatic, military, economic and financial pressure on the DPRK, in order to isolate, deter and punish it until the DPRK halts its nuclear program and stops all missile tests. In 2018, the situation on Korean Peninsula underwent positive changes, including Kim Jong-un’s New Year speech, the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics, the Panmunjom Declaration between South Korea and the DPRK and the Joint Declaration between the US and the DPRK. The strategic intention of the Trump administration’s policy is to impose maximum pressure on the DPRK to force it to submit to the pressure before contacting it. It resonates with the Kim Jong-un government’s strategic intention of establishing a credible nuclear fact and then forcing the US to peace talks. The result of the resonance of their strategic intentions brought peace to the Korean Peninsula. The United States has insisted that “maximum pressure” on the DPRK must remain in place until Pyongyang has achieved complete denuclearization, which resulted in the failure of the second summit meeting between the two countries. “Maximum pressure” policy will remain as a fundamental part of the US policy towards the DPRK for a long time in the future. In order to understand the change and trend of the situation on the Korean Peninsula, it is important to analyze the characteristics and the content of the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy.
US-EU trade dispute under Trump administration: characteristics, causes and prospects based on the empirical analysis of US-EU trade imbalance
Chinese Journal of European Studies,2019,Vol 37,No. 03
【Abstract】 Since US President Trump took office and adopted the “America First” policy, a series of frictions have taken place between the US and the EU in a variety of fields, especially in bilateral trade, the process of which is full of twists and turns and which has attracted wide-ranging attention. This paper analyzes the development of the trade dispute between the US and the EU under Trump’s administration. On the basis of an analysis on the status quo and characteristics of the bilateral trade between the US and the EU in recent years, this paper explores, with the help of methods including empirical attribution analysis, the reasons behind the transatlantic trade dispute, including economy and geopolitical politics, their disagreements in global governance ideas, external environments, and Trump’s personality. This paper as well takes steel and aluminum, aircraft, agricultural products, energy and medicine as typical cases to analyze the motivations for US sanctions against the EU, and discusses the possible trends of the trade disputes between the two sides.
Finance & Trade Economics,2019,Vol 40,No. 11
【Abstract】 With deepening labor division along global value chains (GVCs), the changes in a country’s economic policy will greatly affect the global economic structure. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to discuss the effect of Trump’s tax reform on reshaping Sino-US GVCs. Considering the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) cannot describe clearly the policy effects on GVCs, we made the linkage between GTAP model and the popular trade in value added decomposition model (KWW, 2014) for the first time and measured changes of trade value added of China and the USA. There are some interesting findings. (1) Relative to baseline scenario, although Trump’s tax reform will slightly restrain Chinese GDP growth rate (0.49%), the real export will increase (1.16%). (2) From GVC decomposition at the country level, Chinese domestic value added embodied in export to USA will grow up by USD 27.6 billion. (3) To analyze the effect on the industry level, we took textile, motor and parts, and electronics as examples. We found that the U.S. tax cut will promote trade value added on electronics mostly, domestic trade value added on textile grows weakly, and domestic trade value added on motor and parts increases most slightly. (4) From the perspective of different trade partners, we found in China domestic value added in textile industry will increase for all partners; however, the motor industry and electronics are totally different, whose domestic value added embodied in U.S. trade will increase while export to others will decrease.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2019,Vol 33,No. 02
【Abstract】 The US-Mexico border wall is currently the most controversial issue in the US. Although severely resisted and criticized by Democratic lawmakers and liberals, Trump still adopted a “double down” way and announced a national state of emergency through bypassing Congress to raise funds for the construction of walls, which challenged the constitutional system of the US. As the primary strategy for illegal immigration reform of the Trump administration, the border wall has been politicized greatly and beyond the scope of illegal immigrants’ governance. On the border security issue, the two parties are at loggerheads, and the border wall has become a symbolic political issue, which led the White House and Congress into a stalemate of “veto politics.” The political ecology of the US has moved from polarization to fragmentation and tribalization. The construction of the border wall as the core solution to illegal immigration governance still has a long way to go. The base voters of Trump, especially the middle and lower classes of white people in the south and the Rust Belt blue-collar workers, show different degrees of support for the construction of the border wall because of their different concerns. The effectiveness of Trump’s strategy of using the border wall and illegal immigration issues for election mobilization is steadily declining, and this is also a political venture for his 2020 presidential election.
“Wall” or “ladder”: value conflicts of the US globalization process and Trump administration’s policy options
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2019,Vol 33,No. 04
【Abstract】 The longest government shutdown in US history reflects not only political wrestling between the Republicans and Democrats but also value conflicts over globalization among the US public. The US is the dominant force and beneficiary of the second round of economic globalization. Its traditional globalization values emphasize liberalization and marketization and promote global economic liberalism on this basis. However, against the backdrop of a weakening global economic recovery and growing income inequality, anti-globalization sentiment is gaining momentum in the US. The anti-globalization trend is the main reason for value conflicts in the process of globalization in the US. The people who suffer from increasing income inequality due to globalization and the beneficiaries of globalization argue about and play games on the policies of economic globalization including immigration, trade, and financial policies. At the same time, the value conflicts promote the Trump administration to adopt an America First strategy. This policy choice is a manifestation of political populism, economic nativism, trade protectionism, and neo-isolationism in international relations. This is the result of the Trump administration’s choosing a less costly policy in the impossible trilemma of globalization.
Northeast Asia Forum,2018,Vol 27,No. 03
【Abstract】 Compared with the period of the Reagan administration, debt ceiling and economic downside which are faced by the Trump administration are both limited before and after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is released. As the largest creditor country of the United States and a major source of its trade deficits, China will face the pressure of capital outflows and downward asset prices in the short term. In the long term, China will have to bear the pressures from CNY’s exchange rate adjustments, rising asset prices and trade structure adjustments. Thus, China should make more efforts to create a favorable domestic business environment, accelerate the establishment of a virtuous circle mechanism between financial system and real economy, ensure CNY’s exchange rate fluctuates within a reasonable range, and moderately convert the holding form of US dollar claims; China should also establish a new pattern of open cooperation and put more emphases on service trade, and attract capital inflows with its economic growth potential, stable and highly efficient financial system, as well as lasting and strong domestic demand.
International Economic Review,2018,No. 03
【Abstract】 US President Donald Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) on Decembe22, 2017. The reform has been regarded as a tax reduction reform. What are the difference between Trump’s tax reform and Reagan’s tax reduction reform in the 1980s? The Reagan reform helped meet the target of economic growth, full employment and low inflation and the practices of broadening tax base, cutting tax rates and simplifying tax systems had guided the global tax reform at that time. Reagan’s tax reform is more oriented to domestic considerations. The Trump administration claimed that the reform targeted the domestic economy, but th slogan of “America First” obviously refers to international competition. The Trump administration’s overall tax reduction is steep and must not be neglected. Both the Reagan administration and the Trump administration pay special attention to coordination of reforms China should comprehensively deepen its reforms and properly implement tax reform and reduce tax rates across-the-board to promote the formation of a new international tax order that benefits China.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2018,Vol 32,No. 01
【Abstract】 The Trump administration in its first year amid controversies brought many changes to the United States and the world. In historical context, though the Trump administration’s first year was not entirely negative in its performance, in government’s internal relations, its relations with the GOP establishment, and its relationship with the public opinion. It differed from normal U.S. presidential politics, which reflects uncertainty within the Trump administration, its dominance within the Republican Party, and its status of maintaining stable minority political support. The characteristics of representing minorities and aggravating polarization of the Trump administration highlight the core issue of current American politics, that is, the realigning of American politics cannot effectively respond to the changing public opinion, especially in the age of social media. The trends and problems that the Trump administration has shown are bound to continue in 2018. The possible shift in majority control in both chambers of the U.S. Congress in the upcoming midterm elections could accelerate the reshaping and limiting of the Trump administration.
International Economic Review,2018,No. 03
【Abstract】 US President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into a law on December 22, 2017. Chinese academia was impressed by the US government’s determination in pushing through what the president called the largest tax cut in the history of the United States, and responded to the tax reform very positively. However, generally speaking, Chinese scholars’ knowledge of the US tax reform is rather sketchy and imprecise. This paper aimed to depict a more detailed and accurate picture of the US tax reform and explain the underlying causes for the reform measures. Because the 70, 000-page US tax code is extremely complicated, this paper has to be focused on the corporate tax reform, which contains three main elements. The first is a sweeping cut of corporate income tax from 35% to 21%, which is what Chinese economists are concerned most about. Unfortunately, many Chinese economists have taken the tax cuts as an equivalent to the US’ tax reform. The second is the switch from a worldwide taxation system to a territorial one, which is a key component of the tax reform. The third is to create some new types of taxes, in response to the new situation under the territorial system. Among them are global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) tax, foreign-derived intangible income (FDII), and base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT). This paper explained in details how those taxes are collected and what are their functions as well as their impacts on the US economy. Based on a better understanding of the functions of the US’ new taxation system, this paper concludes that although the tax cuts will boost US’ economic growth, its growth-boosting effect will be limited due to the fact that the US economy currently is growing at full capacity and the US’ public debt will increase materially as a result of the tax cuts. The impact of the tax reform on US international balance of payments is not clear-cut, and hence the US dollar can either rise or fall in the future. Although China should pay close attention to the impact of the US’ tax cuts both in the short and long run, it should avoid over-exaggerating the impact of the tax reform on both the US economy and the Chinese economy. China should implement its macroeconomic policies in accordance with domestic and international situation and carry out institutional reforms, including reform of its tax system, based on its own agenda.
Southeast Asian Affairs,2018,No. 03
【Abstract】 The Trump administration’ official position concerning the South China Sea conveys some specific content and logic, and has certain implications of action. In terms of the US rhetoric of South China Sea policy, Washington views China as negative “other” and pursues “order, freedom of navigation, militarization and peace.” The logic of this position reveals that the priority of the Trump administration is to maintain its power status in the South China Sea region. It also reveals that the negative image of China is constructed by the US abuse of international law, the right of freedom of navigation, and the stigmatization of China’s activities in the South China Sea. Finally, we can conclude that the Trump administration will take certain actions including long-lasting provocative actions, such as strengthening its relationships with its allies as well as intensifying legal operations and media publicity against China’s South China Sea policy.
Northeast Asia Forum,2018,Vol 27,No. 04
【Abstract】 This paper analyzed the US Donald Trump Administration’s policy towards the DPRK from the perspective of the literature review and interview. Despite big controversy at home, American people universally supported Trump Administration’s “maximum pressure” policy towards the DPRK. The basic consensus of all US walks of life on the policy towards the DPRK is to preferentially resolve the DPRK nuclear issue with denuclearization as the goal; firstly focus on exerting pressure on the DPRK and then consider substantive dialogue; and preferentially choose peaceful settlement with armed force option as the backup. On March 8, 2018, Trump agreed to hold a summit with the DPRK, and then Kim Jong-un repeatedly and clearly expressed his commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. With an easing trend, denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula also ushered in an important historical opportunity. It is urgent now that the US and the DPRK should go towards each other; the DPRK should promote substantive denuclearization; and the US should respond to the DPRK’s reasonable security concern and return to the multilateral cooperation track against the nuclear crisis of the DPRK.
Northeast Asia Forum,2018,Vol 27,No. 04
【Abstract】 Since Donald Trump came into power, the U.S. government has shirked its world leadership and abandoned the long-held diplomatic strategy of liberal internationalism, triggering a dramatic “diplomatic revolution.” Against the background of the relative decline of American hegemony, the adjusted strategy implies nationalism and isolationism. Its main purpose is to extricate the U.S. from the world leadership and avoid overdraft of national strength. The failure of liberal internationalism diplomacy, the domestic social division, and the absence of external enemy of liberalism ideology are the core causes. The strategic adjustment causes serious problems, such as the deficits of international leadership and international responsibility, which promotes further division and reorganization of international politics and security and poses greater challenges to global governance. The liberal international order is in deep crisis.
World Economics and Politics,2018,No. 05
【Abstract】 In the contemporary world, great powers have been increasingly preferring to maintain and promote their national interests by gray zone means, implementing some gray zone strategy. Given that Iran has been undermining U.S. interests in the Middle East by using some gray zone strategy, the Trump administration carried out a comprehensive strategic assessment on “the Iranian threat.” Based on the assessment, the Trump administration has launched and implemented a new strategy on Iran to resist and push back Iran’s challenges to the U.S.. In terms of strategic tools and their choices and utilization, the new strategy on Iran has embodied the characteristics of a gray zone strategy. Until now, the Trump administration has been using such non-kinetic means as targeted financial sanctions, diplomatic pressures, information warfare, political warfare, and proxy warfare. The choices and utilization of these strategic tools have reflected such principles as asymmetry, below war threshold, and integration, while taking full advantage of America’s superior power, avoiding triggering a large-scale conventional war with Iran, and maximizing the pressures exerted on Iran in order to force Tehran to change its external behavior. The Trump administration has resorted to a gray zone strategy to deal with “the Iranian challenge,” which is not a temporary phenomenon or coincidence and is supported by a strategic logic. That logic is that the U.S. now has the necessity and the capabilities to resort to some gray zone strategy to confront Iran in the Middle East and that the Trump administration has been confident in the effectiveness of resorting to a gray zone strategy. This paper examines the new strategy on Iran from the perspective of the gray zone strategy, which is of great value for us to observe the Trump administration’s strategies towards other regional great powers.
An analysis on the behavior pattern of the Establishment of American Republican Party in the Trump era ①
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2018,Vol 32,No. 05
【Abstract】 During and after the 2016 presidential election in the United States, the concept of “Establishment” is widely used as a target for populists. As a political-economic group of elites, the Establishment has existed in the U.S. for years as influential political groups; within the Establishment members, the Republican group has the potential to harness the extreme policies of President Trump. This paper argues that, due to the increasing interaction between political and business elites and the growing economic inequality throughout globalization, the sentiment against economic elites contributes to a strong public opposition against Washington politicians. Because of decreasing public support, members of the Republican Establishment have greater incentive to work together with President Trump and less incentive to oppose him directly as long as President Trump has high approval ratings.
Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies,2018,No. 03
【Abstract】 The 2017 National Security Strategy of the United States of America officially put forward the concept of the Indo-Pacific region and formulated the Indo-Pacific strategy targeting China. The balance of power and the advantage of power are essences of the Indo-Pacific strategy of the US. The Indo-Pacific strategy of Trump administration obeys the following logic. Due to China’s continuous rise, the imbalance of power, which goes against the US hegemonic system, takes place in the Indo-Pacific region and leads to the imbalance of security and even the imbalance of system. To reverse the imbalanced situation in this region, and to continuously maintain American role as an off-shore balancer in the Indo-Pacific region and its hegemonic status in the world, Trump administration attempts to resume the balance of power which favors America by implementing a series of priority actions, so as to realize the balance of security and the balance of system. The Indo-Pacific strategy of Trump administration fully demonstrates the trends of realism, protectionism, and pragmatism in the US. Additionally, it reflects the strategic ideas of American first and the overall advantage of the US which Trump pursues. Nevertheless, the Indo-Pacific strategy of Trump administration is unlikely to be effective, which will despair its designers’ visions. The strategy itself has apparent limitations and will even harbor massive strategic security risks. The strategic priority actions of Trump administration may indicate the transformation of Indo-Pacific system and world system in the next few years. The US is likely to lose the role of constructor in the Indo-Pacific system and the world system, and it becomes a saboteur in the system instead.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2018,Vol 32,No. 01
【Abstract】 The Trump administration released its first National Security Strategy of the United States of America in 2017, elaborating on the “Indo-Pacific strategy.” The vision is based on the principles of reciprocity, rule of law and freedom of navigation, with economic security at its heart. In terms of regional security, President Trump rejects nuclear blackmail and terrorism, and defines China as a “strategic competitor.” Backed by the U.S-Japan alliance, US-India ties and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, the Indo-Pacific strategy was designed to maintain a balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region. From a perspective of the broad Indo-Pacific region, Trump seeks to use regional allies to contain the developing China and offer an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative. However, much work still needs to be done as he aims to alter Obama’s Asia-Pacific policy.
Northeast Asia Forum,2018,Vol 27,No. 05
【Abstract】 Quite different from the orientation of “green” nation in the Obama Era, the climate policy in US in the Trump Era presents the characteristic of “industrial renaissance.” The Trump administration issued a large number of “grey” climate laws, paying much attention to domestic economic development while ignoring the international cooperation of coping with climate change, and having announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. As a product of the policy of “America First,” those actions from Trump administration have not only led to the failure of the model of interest interaction of Sino-US climate diplomacy, which makes the existing cooperative achievements of Sino-US climate diplomacy in danger of being overturned, but also seriously hindered the realization of the significant expected goal of Sino-US climate diplomacy. In this regard, China should be cautious to seek outlets of Sino-US climate diplomacy. China should consider four aspects: firstly, to establish the guiding ideology of “community of shared future for mankind,” and hold fast to the basic principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities”; secondly, to adopt the climate diplomatic strategy of “cooperation and mutual progress,” improve China’s voice in climate governance, and bring forward a “China approach”; thirdly, to grab the opportunity of the “Belt and Road” Initiative, strengthen the exchanges and cooperation of sub-state actors and non-state actors between China and the US, and then force the cooperation at the state level; fourthly, to take Sino-US low-carbon economic cooperation as the main force, and use the cooperation in clean coal technology as an auxiliary, so as to leverage the climate cooperation and talks between China and the US.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2018,Vol 32,No. 04
【Abstract】 The U.S. has continuously been exploring the best strategy for dealing with a rising China since the end of the Cold War. Since Donald Trump became the U.S. President, he has made a series of adjustments in the U.S. foreign policy towards China. This paper argues that the Trump administration’s China strategy is a “critical” succession to the hedging strategy of the Obama administration, which could be considered as a new attempt in the gradual adjustment and evolution of the U.S. strategy towards China. However, because of the further narrowing relative strength gap between China and the U.S. and the sharp decline of Washington’s trust in Beijing, the type of U.S. hedging strategy under the Trump administration has changed to “weak coordination-strong confrontation,” which demonstrates a tendency of evolving to a confrontational strategy.
An analysis of EU’s climate policies against the background of Trump administration’s steps to “undo climate policies”
Chinese Journal of European Studies,2018,Vol 36,No. 05
【Abstract】 U.S. President Trump has taken a series of measures to “undo climate policies” since he was in power, including America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the abolition of the Clean Power Plan, which has brought serious impacts on global climate governance. Trump administration’s policies have aroused widespread criticism and discontent from the international community. The European Union (EU), which has been actively promoting global climate governance and playing a leading role in the long term, has responded firmly by emphasizing that the Paris Agreement is not allowed to be renegotiated. Both the European Commission and the Council of the EU have made strong statements on this issue, indicating that the EU will continue to fully implement its commitments and its emission reduction measures and climate policies in the areas of finance, energy, transport and industry. The EU’s active promotion of global climate governance in the context of the U.S. withdrawal is mainly out of its strategic consideration to guarantee its strategic advantage in the low-carbon economy based on the global trend of low-carbon transition, to lead and shape the Paris climate process of global climate governance, and actively respond to the concerns of the European public towards global climate change so that Europe could continue to push forward the integration under the complicated internal and external security situations. The actions of the Trump administration will undoubtedly have a negative impact on global climate governance, but due to the EU’s resolute response and actions, the trends of global climate governance and low-carbon transformation will not be reversed.
International Economic Review,2018,No. 03
【Abstract】 The tax reform of the Donald Trump administration is one of the most important tax reforms of the U.S. government since 1986. The core objective of the tax reform is to reduce corporate income tax and improve the international competitiveness of the U.S. companies. The U.S. tax reform aims to promote re-industrialization, ease political pressure and consolidate the foundation for sustainable economic recovery. It is implemented by carrying reform to simplify the tax system, lower corporate tax burden, and ensure household income. The corporate income tax rate is reduced from 35% to 21%, which is the largest policy dividend for large U.S. multinationals. The U.S. tax reform has a positive effect on economic growth. However, its overall impact on fiscal deficit and public debt is negative. In the future, the Trump administration will face significant pressures from fiscal budget and public debt ceiling. The tax cut, together with the Fed’s interest rate hikes and balance sheet contraction, will produce new spillover effect on the world economy. It may have a significant and complicated impact on China’s direct investment, capital flow, exchange rate stability, foreign exchange reserve security, financial stability and international competitiveness. It may be the optimal policy for China to rethink the intrinsic root causes of the relatively high tax burdens of its enterprises, review its tax revenue system that is supported by corporate taxes, build a modern fiscal system, and comprehensively deepen economic and financial system reforms to use market-oriented reforms to mitigate external shocks.
The Journal of International Studies,2018,Vol 39,No. 04
【Abstract】 Since Donald Trump took office, the traditional pattern in which the American government is playing hardball with American social media while dependent on the latter has broken down. The repeated tension between Mr. Trump and mainstream media is a reflection of the political polarization. Donald Trump represents the left and right populism while American mainstream media is a proxy of urban intellectual elites. The latter have always upheld the ideology and value of liberalism, but they put political stance and profits above truth against the backdrop of greater politicization, elitism, urbanization and commercialization. As a result, the supervisory role of social media and its public trust have been undermined. The heavy presence of fake news has also posed an unprecedented threat to American mainstream media. Due to the rapid development of information technology, American media has undergone major changes, and the media itself, the means of news transmission and public access to information have been diversified. The conventional mainstream media remains an important channel for the public to understand American politics, economy, culture and society, but digital media and social media have assumed an increasingly important role in the spreading of information. Therefore, it is very crucial to probe into the new changes and the challenges American media are facing now and pay special attention to the “silent majority” in “Rust Belt” in mid-west America. By doing so, we can comprehensively and accurately understand American politics and social ecology.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2018,Vol 32,No. 06
【Abstract】 “Deconstruction of the administrative state” is one of the three major policy goals of the Trump Administration. Trump has been trying to scale back federal regulations of the last decade and repeal some of the agencies that enforce them, to withdraw or revise those trade pacts that stymie American economic growth and infringe on American sovereignty. Therefore, the Trump administration has been taking a number of steps to control the federal independent regulatory agencies, which have been created over decades. “Deconstruction of the administrative state” is central to the domestic policies of the Trump administration and has been implemented since he took power. It is the key to understanding the Trump administration’s economic, environmental and trade policies. The Trump administration’s “deconstruction of the administrative state” policy has made some progress, but it still faces serious challenges.
China-U.S. strategic competition, the U.S. status anxiety, and Donald J. Trump Administration’s strategic adjustment toward China
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2018,Vol 32,No. 04
【Abstract】 Since the beginning of this century, with the ongoing power transfer between China and the United States, the two countries have been engaged in the ever-growing strategic competition in the areas of economy, security, and institutions. The U.S. has been increasingly worried that its economic influence in Asia, its scientific and technological superiority, its maritime hegemony in the Western Pacific and its institutional prestige are on the decrease as a result of China’s increasing power and heated status competition in those areas. The Trump Administration challenges the premise and rational of decades-long U.S. engagement policy toward China, defines China as the top strategic competitor of the United States of America, and takes a series of economic, political and security measures to balance China.
On the adjustment of the US national security strategy in the post-9/11 era: based on the analysis of the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy of the United States of America
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2018,Vol 32,No. 03
【Abstract】 Since the 9/11 attacks, the US government has issued five National Security Strategy (NSS) reports, which to some extent reflect the adjustment trend of the US national security strategy as time went by. On December 18, 2017, the first National Security Strategy of the Trump administration was released, reflecting the Trump administration’s judgment on America’s recent national security environment. This report proposes four pillars of America’s national security as well as six regional strategies. Compared with those of the George W. Bush administration and the Obama administration, the National Security Strategy issued by the Trump administration changes significantly in its overall philosophy, regional strategy, strategy towards China, and the degree of emphasis on emerging strategic areas. Specifically, the overall principle shifts to an emphasis of “America First” and great power competition. In terms of regional strategy, it pays special attention to the Indo-Pacific region. As to strategy towards China, this report regards China as a “strategic competitor.” In emerging strategic areas, this report places more importance on cybersecurity, space security and artificial intelligence. In general, the adjustment of the NSS by the Trump administration may bring certain challenges to China in the economic, political, military and cultural domains.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2018,Vol 32,No. 05
【Abstract】 Guided by the “America First” principle, the Trump administration has brought profound changes to America’s domestic and foreign policies. Under Trump’s presidency, the U.S. takes “repressive retrenchment” as its grand strategy, which not only exerts a far-reaching impact on the liberal international order, but also further complicates U.S.-China relations. The Trump administration repositions China as a “strategic competitor,” and promotes more negative perceptions of China among American strategists. The U.S.-China relations have become more competitive and contentious in economic, geopolitical, ideological, and other realms. The Trump administration increases pressures on China through the trade war, the Indo-Pacific strategy, and the “Taiwan card” among other measures, which reflects America’s burgeoning post-engagement policy toward China. China and the U.S. should be more adaptive to such competitiveness in their bilateral ties, and aware of the danger of the possible “New Cold War.” They need conduct high-quality strategic communications and prudently manage their interactions to reshape U.S.-China relations in positive manner.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2018,Vol 32,No. 06
【Abstract】 This paper argues that cultural conflict is the main dynamic of the Trump phenomenon. To be concrete, this paper addresses two questions: how has the cultural conflict emerged in the US? And why has the cultural conflict exploded in the contemporary era? As to the first question, this paper argues that the rights revolution, much more on the left than on the right, has widened the cultural gap in recent decades. The source of the cultural gap lies more in accelerating progressivism than in the power of conservatism. As to the second question, this paper argues that the right, in response to the dramatic change in values of the left, resorts to intensifying emotional appeals. Such intensification heightened in the 2010s due to the accumulated effects of policy changes, the liberal tilt of the mainstream cultural industry, and anticipated future value shifts reflecting demographic changes.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2018,Vol 32,No. 06
【Abstract】 In the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, while the Republican Party expanded its majority in the Senate, the Democratic Party regained control of the House of Representatives, and nearly gained parity in gubernatorial seats. Basically following the historical law of “pendulum effect,” the midterm elections focused on issues of values rather than economic ones. The elections showed the deep dissatisfaction of some American voters on the direction of the state in the past two years of the Trump administration, and that the Democrats consolidated a voting base including young people, ethnic minorities and other groups, and successfully expanded support among female voters. The “divided government” formed by the midterm elections will bring greater obstacles to the Trump administration’s domestic policies, but the two parties still have room for compromise and cooperation on issues such as building infrastructure. In the face of domestic pressure, the Trump administration may be eager to satisfy the public in the area of foreign policy although it will still be subject potentially to restrictions by Congressional Democrats. In China policy, a Republican-led White House and a Democratic-led House are likely to complicate current issues and bring greater risks and uncertainties to Sino-American relations.
World Economics and Politics,2018,No. 03
【Abstract】 The author builds a dual-logic analytic framework by introducing geopolitics and domestic politics to discuss the evolution of the US strategy towards China as well as its change under the Trump administration. In this framework, the US strategy towards China has two dimensions—security and economy, reflecting the logic of geopolitics and domestic politics, respectively. Therefore, it is the dual logic and their interactions that determine the evolution of the US strategy towards China. In terms of the security dimension, strategic balancing and strategic restraint are the two basic forms. And when it comes to the economic dimension, liberalism and nationalism are two main options. Therefore, we can outline the evolution of the US strategy towards China as follows: geopolitics-dominated containment (strategic balancing and economic nationalism, 1949–1971); geopolitics-dominated engagement (strategic restraint and economic liberalism, 1972–1991); engagement of geopolitics-dominated and domestic politics-dominated (strategic restraint and economic liberalism, 1972–2008); and hedging with dual-logic (strategic balancing and economic liberalism, 2009–2016). Since the Trump administration took office, the US strategy towards China has changed into a domestic politics-dominated linkage, which features strategic restraint and economic nationalism. In the meantime, adopting a tougher strategy towards China based on geopolitics is becoming a consensus among the US establishment elites. Therefore, the future of the US strategy towards China will depend on the interactions of the dual logic of geopolitics-domestic politics.
Southeast Asian Studies,2017,No. 01
【Abstract】 The paper analyzes the US Southeast Asia Policy under the Trump administration, including the legacies it inherited, especially those from the Obama administration, and predicts the future development. The author argues: (1) the evolution of US Southeast Asia policy has the characteristics of “20-years period” since the World War II; (2) the US Southeast Asia policy is the highlight of Obama administration, which also is the important legacy of the Trump administration; (3) the Trump administration will continue the security policies of former government, pays less attention to the political issues such as human rights, rather than takes more active and strong measures in the trade relations with ASEAN countries; and (4) we should take a closer look at the trend of the fourth “20-years period,” that is whether the Trump administration will strengthen the coalition with Southeast Asian allies against China just like that it against the Soviet Union by Reagan administration in the 1980s.
Northeast Asia Forum,2017,Vol 26,No. 02
【Abstract】 How Trump regime will change America’s Asia-Pacific rebalancing strategy has become the touchstone of American grand strategy. From the “Trump phenomenon,” the American isolationist trend indicates that America’s hegemonic thinking is changing. However, changes do not mean America’s strategic contraction. From the “Trump shock,” some new understanding and changes can be illustrated from the thinking pattern, consideration of strategic priority and approach of regional order in America’s Asia-Pacific policy. These new understanding and changes objectively determine that Trump will shift and remodel the Asia-Pacific rebalancing strategy. Overall, Trump regime’s adjustment is not just a simple revolution of the management pattern of Asia-Pacific area, but also a transition or diversion of America’s hegemonic logic and strategic conception.
Northeast Asia Forum,2017,Vol 26,No. 03
【Abstract】 The world’s biggest “black swan” event in 2016 was that Donald Trump was elected the president of the United States. Especially, the fact that President Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal will have an important impact on bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements in East Asia which have been or are being negotiated. Since the development of regional economic cooperation in East Asia has been the concern of all countries, it will be inevitably influenced by President Trump’s policy. Therefore, we need to seriously analyze the prospects of Trump’s policy, in order to seize the opportunities and take measures to deal with the potential challenges.
World Economics and Politics,2017,No. 05
【Abstract】 It is widely believed that Trump’s presidency brings uncertainties to the U.S. strategy toward China. It is true that President Trump’s words and deeds regarding China have a strong “unconventional” color. But if we investigate the history since the end of the Cold War, we may find that as the Sino-U.S. relative position in international system changed from the pattern of “internal/external–strong/weak” to that of the “two powers in the system,” the U.S. strategy toward China also evolved along an axis with the consistent internal logic, and its core idea developed from “engagement” to “engagement + precaution” and then “engagement + regulation.” Generally speaking, the proportion of negative elements in the overall U.S. strategy toward China expanded gradually; meanwhile, the increasingly developing endogenous factors of the bilateral relations provided the U.S. strategy toward China with the supporting force. So far, Trump’s words and deeds regarding China have been consistent with the axis of long-term strategic evolution, and is the latest effort of the U.S. to adjust and develop its strategy toward China. The Trump administration’s adjustment of its policy toward China might take “reciprocity” defined by the U.S. as the goal with a strong transactional characteristic favored by Trump. The factional fights inside his administration may decide whether the strategy will focus on “American First,”, or shift to a more traditional Republican view of major-power games. At the same time, the interaction between China and the U.S. may decide whether the strategy will move toward a cooperative or confrontational direction.
World Economics and Politics,2017,No. 05
【Abstract】 The US is facing the dilemma of power problem now like other empires in history. As the hegemon, its power is eroded by both emerging countries and marginal powers, which definitely leads to its heavy defense burden. That means the US will always face the risk of over-expansion and the ever-lasting strategic dilemma of imbalance. Obama’s strategy in the Asia-Pacific was active strategic rectification, which aimed to relieve its strategic dilemma. Therefore, the US put forward the rebalance strategy and wanted to build the principled security network in the Asia-Pacific. However, Obama’s strategic framework could not resolve its strategic dilemma. Since Trump took power, the US has adjusted its strategic approach, which aims to clean up Obama’s strategic legacy and comprehensively transform the US foreign policy. Hence, Trump insists on the principle of America first. His administration intends to define threats by interest and prefers negotiation and linkage policy, with the aim of building a principled Asia-Pacific security network. For the time being, we can find three pillars of the Trump administration’s Asia-Pacific policy, namely, reassuring its Asia-pacific allies, defense expenditure sharing, and the combination of balancing China and seeking concert of powers. On specific issues, the probability of emergencies in the region will rise. Meanwhile, Taiwan question, the DPRK nuclear issue, the US-Russia relations, maritime security, and cyber security will be the hot topics in the Asia-Pacific region in the future.
Northeast Asia Forum,2017,Vol 26,No. 05
【Abstract】 “America First Energy Plan” is the general program of U.S. national energy policy of the Trump administration. It not only inherits the energy policy of Obama administration on increasing domestic energy development, shale oil & gas exploration, clean coal technology R&D, as well as the coordinative development of energy industry and environmental protection, but also puts forward a plan to cancel Climate Action Plan of the Obama administration, and takes the positive energy relations with Gulf allies as geopolitical tools to serve the anti-terrorism strategy of U.S. An America First Energy Plan of the Trump administration will bring various impacts on world energy development, and global climate change mitigation. An America First Energy Plan will also bring uncertainty to Sino-U.S. energy relations. On the one hand, it may promote bilateral cooperation in environmental protection and clean coal technology, and expand crude oil import channels of China; on the other hand, it will significantly impede Sino-U.S. cooperation in addressing climate change, retard Sino-U.S. clean energy cooperation, and complicate the geopolitical energy situation of energy trade of China.
World Economics and Politics,2017,No. 06
【Abstract】 since the end of the Cold War, the US DPRK policy has the basic characteristics of coercive diplomacy because of the deterioration of the DPRK’s nuclear proliferation. The Obama administration’s “strategic patience” policy is a typical coercive diplomacy. The Trump government has taken office for several months, during which time he stressed the US’ major adjustment to the DPRK policy and declared that the “strategic patience” had come to an end. The obvious changes in the US nuclear policy include: first, the Korean nuclear issue would be the priority of its Asia-Pacific diplomacy and its security policy; second, the pressure on and the deterrence against the DPRK and the efforts on the international mobilization have been significantly enhanced. Trump’s shift on the DPRK policy also coincides with the international community’s rising knowledge of the threat from the DPRK’s progress on its weapons of mass destruction program. At their first meeting at Mar-a-Lago, China and the US heads began to rebuild the progress of powers’ cooperation in the Korean nuclear issue in East Asian. The two heads’ consensus played an important role in breaking the Korean nuclear deadlock. From the angle of proposing and developing the theory of coercive diplomacy, the author introduces and analyzes the academic and policy propositions of coercive diplomacy in solving the nuclear nonproliferation, and compares and discusses specific changes and adjustments in the DPRK nuclear policy between the Trump government and the Obama administration. The author argues that the Trump government’s coercive diplomacy does not include military strikes as a realistic option in the short term, and his DPRK approach is closer to the connotation of “strategic coercion,” aiming to seek a comprehensive containment of the DPRK’s nuclear weapons and missile development capabilities.
Russian,East European & Central Asian Studies,2017,No. 04
【Abstract】 During his campaign, Donald trump’s position on U.S.-Russia relations was widely questioned. Since taking office, Trump’s policy toward Russia has become clear and American policies on the issues such as Ukraine, Syria and NATO gradually returned to the traditional line. Now the relations between the United States and Russia are determined by four dimensions, namely, the political views of the president and his team, the political structure and public opinion of the United States, Russia’s behaviors, and the role of China. Among them, the first dimension, namely, the political views of the president and his team, is the short term factor, while the second dimension, namely, American interests and popular sentiments, is the long term factor. Besides these factors, Russia’s diplomatic behaviors and America’s judgment on China will also play a role in the U.S.-Russia relations.
Why was it possible for Donald Trump to win the election? A historical reflection on the 2016 U.S. presidential election
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2017,Vol 31,No. 03
【Abstract】 The 2016 U.S. presidential election was regarded as the most fiercely fought, emotionally charged and divisive contest for power in recent years. Donald J. Trump, a political “outsider” who was least favored by the media and pre-election opinion polls, won a surprise victory. What made it possible for Trump to win the presidency? How did he manage to win the election? Was his election an accidental success or was it the result of the instigation of more in-depth forces as embedded in the electoral system and the electoral culture? This article takes a historical perspective to examine the election of Trump by looking at some of the more profound causes, including the professional- and elite-operated electoral process, the increasingly polarized party politics and frequent legislative deadlocks in recent decades, the confrontations of divided American core values in the age of globalization, and the subsequent realignment of voters as derived from the reconfiguration of political power and the reconstitution of rights for modern citizenship. The author argues that each of these factors has played a role in shaping the outcomes of the presidential election and has posed challenges to American democracy in the 21st century.
The Trump administration’s policy towards the DPRK nuclear issue: an analysis from the perspective of two-level game theory ①
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2017,Vol 31,No. 06
【Abstract】 Two-level game theory assumes that government leaders have always been taking actions on both domestic and international stages. They try their best to realize their objectives on the two stages. At the same time, they face with the pressure and restrictions from the two different stages. U.S. policy towards the DPRK nuclear issue is the results of the game-playing by U.S. decision-makers at both domestic and international levels, and of the interaction of the two levels. The major characteristics of the Trump administration’s policy towards the DPRK nuclear issue include imposing maximum pressure on the DPRK, putting all options on the table, trying to have contacts with the DPRK, playing the China card on the DPRK, and so on. Although President Trump makes the final decision on the administration’s policy towards the DPRK nuclear issue, his major advisers can play some role in rectifying a decision and trying to dissuade him not to make wrong decision during crisis.
Taiwan Studies,2017,No. 02
【Abstract】 The U.S. has been a very important external factor influencing the Taiwan question. After Donald Trump took office as the U.S. president, the U.S. policy for both external and internal issues has been changing dramatically. The China-U.S. relationship, especially the Taiwan question has been greatly affected. From the “Trump-Tsai call” to the “Xi-Trump meeting,” the Trump administration originally challenged the “one China policy” but finally chose to honor it. However, there are still lots of uncertainties in the future.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2017,Vol 31,No. 06
【Abstract】 Since Donald Trump’s presidency, he has taken a series of new domestic and foreign measures, which have drawn wide attention. The new measures have brought new variables and impacts on the international environment in several aspects. Politically, the Trump administration has strengthened the US hegemonic relational power and weakened its hegemonic structural power, which changes the direction of hegemonic powers after World War II in building hegemonic power. Economically, the Trump administration has pursued an “American First” foreign policy for employment and economic growth in the US and therefore brings new challenges and opportunities to economic globalization and regional integration. For regional affairs, the Trump administration has focused on solving key international issues and therefore has significantly affected China-US relations and the situation in the Asia-Pacific region. Knowing the above influence and its trend is conducive to grasping the changes and trend of American diplomacy and, China-US relations and the global situation.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2017,Vol 31,No. 04
【Abstract】 The rise of the alt-right, during the 2016 election, especially after Donald Trump’s nomination as the Republican presidential candidate, is a new feature in American political and social ideologies. The core of the alt-right’s belief is that by employing political correctness and social justice, multiculturalism has attacked and thus weakened the white identity and its civilization. Characterized by the huge use of social media and online memes, the alt-right has abandoned establishment conservatism and embraced white ethno-nationalism as a fundamental value. There are many specific causes for the rise of the alt-right. As a movement and a variant of extreme right conservatism, the alt-right has tremendous influence on the policy-making of the Trump administration in its first 100 days. However, as a fringe conservative movement and a minor ideology, the alt-right’s influence will have a short-term effect, and it will not replace mainstream conservative movement and become a dominant ideology both in American society and in the Republican Party.
International Economic Review,2017,No. 04
【Abstract】 The effect of Trump’s economic policies has been a hot topic in the US. The mainstream economists generally criticize Trump of making policies that are out of line with basic logic of economics and go against the trend of economic globalization. Moreover, they argue that Trump’s policies are not feasible and undermine the superpower status of the US, ultimately preventing it from achieving the goal of “make America great again.” Those who praise Trump’s economic policies are mainly non-mainstream economists and analysts. In our view, Trump’s economic policies capture the core issues facing the US economy. They are logically consistent and feasible in practice and may work in reviving the US economy. At the same time, however, they have strong negative externalities and may bring major shocks to the existing international economic system.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2017,Vol 31,No. 02
【Abstract】 During the US Presidential Election of 2016, Trump received widespread criticism for his improper attitude toward military honor. Compared with Republican presidential candidates since at least 2004, Trump had a significantly fairly low support rate from the military community. But he still secured support from the majority of the US military. Demographic and generational transition as well as increasingly strong tendency toward liberalism have led to a general decline of religion in American society. This decline, in turn, has given rise to collective anxiety among the religious conservatives, especially the conservative protestants. In the US Armed Forces, this has also created a strong base for the creation of “God’s army.” The US military has failed to institutionally address the spiritual conflicts among service members with and without religious faiths. These conflicts are becoming increasingly detrimental to the internal coherence, management, and morale of the US military. The spiritual conflicts between the religious conservatives and others created mighty political force, and in part led to Trump’s victory.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2017,Vol 31,No. 02
【Abstract】 Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome have shaped American creed in a both paradoxical and complementary way, which can be functioned as a unique perspective for understanding the Trump phenomenon. Since the 1970s, American administrations have not well balanced equality of outcome while pursuing equality of opportunity, and the middle class and low-income class became victims of economic declination. The Obama administration adopted a series of policies, but these policies heightened social tensions, and also led to the crisis of white identity. Driven by such overlapping factors, anti-elite and anti-globalization thoughts and populism are growing. Reading negative sentiments among whites, Donald J. Trump promised that he would “Make America Great Again,” in which there was a sense of the eagerness of rebuilding white supremacy. As for the white, the attractiveness of the promise was irresistible and he successfully won over these white voters who helped him go to the White House.
Chinese Journal of European Studies,2017,Vol 35,No. 01
【Abstract】 The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States has a major impact on the US-European relations. Trump’s radical political ideas have raised concerns in Europe about the possibility of increasing uncertainty in the transatlantic relations. Under the principle of “America first,” Trump will put greater pressures on Europe and take a “transactional” approach in its bargaining with Europe in a number of areas, in order to seek self-interested solutions. With the potential of rising differences and frictions, the future relationship between the United States and Europe may become more intense, which will nevertheless be contained within a certain limit acceptable to both parties. Given that the core interests of the United States in Europe remain unchanged, it is impossible for the US to withdraw completely from Europe and NATO and stability will still be the main tone of the transatlantic security and defense relations. In addition, Trump’s European policy will still be subject to certain constraints from domestic factors, which will keep the transatlantic relationship on the normal track.
Japanese Studies,2017,No. 02
【Abstract】 Japan has experienced “the Trump bump,” which is parallel with the “Nixon Shock” that Japan experienced in the 20th century, since the new U. S. President Trump took office. Japan has great concerns for changes of global economic and political order, Asia-Pacific geopolitics and disputes of Sino-Japanese relations that may have negative impact on Japan. All the concerns are because the Abe administration is dogged by China in the new context. In response to the “Trump bump”, Japan has taken active steps in stabilizing the Japan-U. S. alliance, keeping the current international order, extending diplomatic space and accelerating military buildup, which reflects Japan’ s growing anxiety. The “Trump bump” serves as a stimulus and has different impacts on Japan and Japan-U.S. relations. In the short term, both will inevitably suffer from factors such as “responsibility, power and interest.” In the medium and long term, it will help Japan accelerate its march to a political and military power and help deepen the alliance, especially the military security relationship. Affected by the shock, there may be some indirect positive factors in China-Japan economic and trade relations, but it should be more obvious that the surrounding environment of China will show more Japanese influences and a complex situation where the Japan-U.S. alliance strengthens and Japan advances at the same time. In this regard, China should combine advantages and shortages, conduct multi-directional operations, carry out comprehensive policy and make corresponding research, judgment and preparation as early as possible.
Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies,2017,No. 04
【Abstract】 Since the Trump administration took office, China and the U.S. have seen a smooth transition in their relations. At the occasion of the closely watched Mar-a-Lago Summit, the two sides established a new high-level dialogue platform as a basis to develop cooperation to address critical trade issues as well as the DPRK nuclear issue, and to promote the beginning of a new chapter in China-U.S. relations. It is not difficult to see that the Trump Administration’s diplomacy towards China is based especially on “trade-offs,” and is problem-oriented and based on nonideological strategic thinking. On the one hand, this allows the two countries to be more practical in terms of responding to challenges in their bilateral relations; on the other hand, many concerns have also been generated, and in particular some analysts argue that the Trump Administration’s policy towards China is both uncertain and risky. It is argued here that the Trump Administration’s policy towards China is actually the representation of a school of thought within American foreign policy and historical experience referred to as policy of linkage. Central to this approach is engaging in comprehensive coordination and cooperation with key strategic competitors on strategic issues that relate to core American interests, and to create overall linkages between cooperation across various issue areas thereby enabling the U.S. to constrain the other party’s behavior while safeguarding American interests. This policy follows in the tradition of Hamilton’s realism, placing national interests rather than ideology as the centerpiece of foreign policy. Historically, such a policy tends to emerge as a preferred policy choice vis-à-vis key strategic competitors when the U.S. is in a position of dual weakness—that is a position of weakness both with respect to international strategy, as well as with respect to the president’s domestic political position. Conducting research on the policy of linkage both in terms of theory and historical application can provide numerous practical insights into our understanding of America’s current strategy with respect to China, and can further offer a reliable logic that may be applied in determining China policy response.
International Economic Review,2016,No. 03
【Abstract】 The Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders phenomena have attracted broad attention during the U.S. presidential primary. The sharp rise of Trump in the Republican Party and the rapid rise of Sanders in the Democratic Party have reflected the anger of the white blue-collar class against the Republican establishment on the current situation in the United States and the dissatisfaction with the Democratic establishment by the American youth and white lower-middle class respectively. Although Trump belongs to the right wing, while Sanders represents the left wing of American politics, both their campaigns bear strong populist color, and their electoral bases of American politics, campaign tactics and policy stances have quite a few similarities. There are some common causes behind “the Trump phenomenon” and “the Sanders phenomena,” including the deterioration of American middle class and the white blue collar class, the exacerbation of economic inequality, the quagmire of democratic institutions, and changes in the American international status.
The Chinese Journal of American Studies,2016,Vol 30,No. 06
【Abstract】 The incoming Trump administration’s strategy toward China can be predicted with both certainty and uncertainty. The certainty mainly comes from the United States strategic environment in which the policy will be implemented, Trump’s view of China’s strategic position, and the goal Trump hopes to achieve, as well as approaches he will adopt; while the uncertainty and unpredictability mainly lie in changes in the U.S. political dynamics and evolvement as Trump turns his personal ideas into concrete strategy and policies of the United States government. The interaction of the elements of both certainty and uncertainty will decide the Trump administration’s future strategy toward China at least in the short run.