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.
Foreign Affairs Review,2017,Vol 34,No. 02
【Abstract】 The foreign policy of the Trump administration has obvious certainty and uncertainty. The current domestic and international environment faced by the United States determines that the foreign policy of the Trump administration focuses on economy and employment. Business thinking, military complex, anti-establishment tendency and long learning period and so on can determine Trump’s personal characteristics, preferences and limitations, which create an adequate space for the complex internal ecology and uncertainty of his core decision-making clique. Facing the interaction between certainty and uncertainty from the foreign policy of the Trump administration, on the one hand, it is not necessary to prematurely make necessity judgment for specific policy path; on the other hand, there also must be bottom-line thinking to make full preparation for all possible situations.
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.
Foreign Affairs Review,2017,Vol 34,No. 04
【Abstract】 Since the Trump administration came to power, the United States has continued to adjust its foreign policy based on “America First,” indicating several orientations such as “economic nationalism” and “peace through strength.” The overall strategic situation has retrenched, and profit-oriented policy measures have been taken. These characteristics are also reflected in the adjustment of US Asia-Pacific policies. The Trump administration tends to “see the Asia-Pacific region from the perspective of China” and seeks to promote a “results-oriented” policy toward China based on the principle of “reciprocity.” In dealing with relations with its Asia-Pacific allies, Trump government adopts a “transactionalist” mentality and tactics. It considers security commitments more as “commodities,” and puts less emphasis on the common values shared with its allies. “Military First” has become the prominent characteristic of the Trump administration’s adjustment of the Asia-Pacific policy. Facing with the DPRK nuclear issue and other regional security challenges, the United States tends to strengthen its strategic deterrence. The Asia-Pacific policy of the Trump administration is still unfinished, and its future development will be influenced by multiple factors including domestic governing conditions, hot issues and interactions with Asia-Pacific countries.
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.
Foreign Affairs Review,2018,Vol 35,No. 03
【Abstract】 Since the Trump administration was in office for more than a year, under the guidance of the concept of “fair trade,” the US foreign economic policy has undergone a major shift. The pursuit of absolute fairness, absolute reciprocity and relative benefits has highlighted the protectionist nature of the US fair trade. Specifically, the Trump administration’s foreign trade policy shows the characteristics of raising economic security to the level of national security, strengthening trade law enforcement to maintain fair trade, re-negotiating free trade agreements to seek favorable clauses, and changing the multilateral trading system. Against this background, the Trump administration has adjusted its economic and trade policies towards China, and implemented protectionist measures such as trade remedy, restraining industrial upgrading in China and hindering Chinese enterprises from investing in the US. Therefore, Sino-US economic and trade relations have experienced many twists and turns, and the risk of “trade war” has continuously increased. Along with the mismatches of China and the US in ideas on trade, demands for each other, and cognition of bilateral relations, the Sino-US economic and trade game has shown an upward trend, and Sino-US “trade war” may continue. In this regard, China still needs to judge rationally, control differences and promote the healthy and stable development of Sino-US economic and trade relations.
Relocating embassy to Jerusalem: domestic politics and Trump administration’s foreign policy agenda setting
Foreign Affairs Review,2018,Vol 35,No. 04
【Abstract】 Recognizing Jerusalem as capital of the Israel and relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem could be said as another foreign policy with a distinctive style since the Trump administration took office, which caused concern from all over the world. This “embassy relocation decision” was a full implementation of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, and it not only reflected the inevitable choice of the Trump administration in adjusting Middle East policies, but also showed the motive of strengthening the support from key voters within the US. Besides, it was a political action utilizing the circumstance when “the government and Congress were dominated by the same party.” Based on the analysis of this action from historical and realistic perspectives, it can be seen that fully taking advantage of the domestic political framework and political ecology, forcing related sides to make compromise by regarding the modification or denial to current status as a threat, strengthening the initiative with the “sunset provision,” and making linked deals among synchronized and parallel issues have constituted an overall trend of the current Trump administration’s foreign policy agenda setting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.