林中斌 部落格 / Blog Chong-Pin Lin

Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Is a Black Box

TIME, NOV 9, 2016

http://time.com/4564673/president-donald-trump-foreign-policy/

美國重返東亞?

 2011/05/12 聯合報

accessed NOV 19, 2016

2011年5月12日我在聯合報寫道：

• 未來數年，美國經濟及軍事力量仍是世界第一。為了自身利益，北京也不會輕易改變與美合作為主「鬥而不破」的方針。但要增兵「重返」東亞，美國將有心而無力。台灣豈可不明辨前景而未雨綢繆？

2016年 11月21日，歐亞集團的總裁和創立人 (president and founder)和名政論家伊恩．布雷默在時代雜誌寫道："我們知道美國轉向亞洲(或重返東亞)的政策已死。"

林中斌 2016.11.19

Quotes from Ian Bremmer’s article, Time magazine November 21, 2016：

• We do know that the ‘pivot’ in Asia is dead, as is the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that went along with it.
• Overnight, China now looks much more stable and sane to its Asian neighbors than the U.S. does.
• Trump becomes the face of Western capitalism at a moment China is offering the world an alternative economic model.
• Donald Trump has helped to reveal just how many Americans care more about nation-building at home than in far-flung battle zones.

His supporters want the U.S. to pull back from the world

Donald Trump’s foreign policy? Still up in the air at this point. With Hillary Clinton, we would have known exactly what we were getting. That was her biggest selling point—and a big part of the problem. But Trump is the ultimate black box. Much of this was by design—making America great again was always about America itself, allies and enemies be damned. That makes for an effective political pitch, but it’s a wholly unrealistic governing philosophy for a person whose main responsibility is to navigate the country through choppy geopolitical waters.

And these days, the waters are heaving. The foreign policy challenges Trump will face on Jan. 20 are much more complex than those that Obama inherited from George W. Bush. Technological change, particularly in communications and in the workplace, creates risks and problems that are entirely new. Russia is looking to undermine U.S. power and influence whenever and wherever possible, and a Trump presidency could well embolden Vladimir Putin. Trump becomes the face of Western capitalism at a moment China is offering the world an alternative economic model. For fans of globalization as it has progressed for the past few decades, that’s cause for concern.

Let the questions begin. How best to respond to Russian aggression in cyberspace while minimizing the risk of a dangerous escalation? How best to balance all-important relations with China? How long before North Korea demands an urgent and forceful U.S. response? How best to repair damaged relations with Britain, European allies, Japan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia after a period of tension in which each of them has hedged bets on American staying power? There are no easy answers. There weren’t going to be any for a former secretary of state, and there certainly won’t be any for Donald Trump.

We do know that the “pivot” to Asia is dead, as is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal that went along with it. Asian allies had signed on to TPP to balance against China’s growing geostrategic weight. Overnight, China now looks much more stable and sane to its Asian neighbors than the U.S. does. America’s special relationship with Europe was already under strain; there’s no reason to think that will change with President Trump sitting in the Oval Office. Fires in the Middle East will continue to rage like they always have, and while American forays in the region have yielded few tangible results over the last decade-plus, they at least added some semblance of predictability to the proceedings. No longer.

But let’s be clear: “America First” is not an isolationist policy but a unilateral one. It does not have America retreat from the world, but impose its will firmly upon it. Trump views foreign policy as a businessman would—as purely transactional. That makes it incredibly difficult for the U.S. to continue in its capacity as the policeman of global security, the architect of global trade and the cheerleader of global values. That appeals to plenty of people in America who feel they’ve been left behind.

Donald Trump has helped to reveal just how many Americans care more about nation-building at home than in far-flung battle zones. It’s clear that millions of Americans want a more robust economic recovery, a surge in job creation, investment in infrastructure and a budget surplus—quite a combination. Americans are divided on how to improve healthcare, immigration and tax policies, and those divisions are reflected in a polarized Congress. But they’re not nearly so divided on the need to invest in the future of America’s economy rather than Iraq’s or Syria’s. They aren’t nearly as interested in U.S. foreign policy. That’s good news for Trump, who will have to figure it out as he goes along. That’s bad news for the rest of the world.

林中斌：美國重返東亞？

聯合報 2011.05.12 03:02 am

林中斌

五月一日美軍轟斃賓拉丹，舉國歡騰。移除頭號宿敵後，美國七月從阿富汗撤軍將更順利。多出兵力正好用於美國重返東亞。

這想法聽來很邏輯，其實不然：不符過去事實，也誤判未來趨勢。

首先，美國從未離開東亞。去年十月，美國防部長蓋茲在河內說：「美國活躍於亞洲逾一百五十年，從未自亞洲退縮。」

其次，美國債務如山，仍在繼續累積，自身尚且難保，如何增加軍力主導東亞？

四月十八日，權威的Standard & Poor 評鑑公司公開懷疑美國國債償還能力。這是七十年來首次。之前數周，國際貨幣基金（ＩＭＦ）責怪美國「缺乏可信的戰略來穩定它的債務」。這種訓話的口氣之前是ＩＭＦ保留對無賴窮國說的。

今年三月底，美國的公債已達美元十四點三兆，是去年國內生產總值（ＧＤＰ）的百分之九十七。這還不算聯邦政府欠地方政府的三兆，也不算地方政府養老金短缺的一兆。

美國債務的龐大還不是它最嚴重的問題。因為日本國債是它ＧＤＰ百分之兩百，比美國更嚴重。可是日本的債主是它慣於存錢的國民。而美國人民只花不存。美國最大的債主是它主要的對手—中國，而東亞正是兩國較勁的場地。

美國國家債券中，中國持有美元一點二兆，佔全部的百分之十四。如果再加上股票和現金，美國欠中國美元兩兆！

所以，去年底，美國參謀首長聯席會議主席穆倫上將說：「我們國家安全唯一最大的威脅是我們的債務。」顯然，穆倫已在憂慮將來北京只用經濟力量就可以扳倒美國。這種「武器」比飛彈、魚雷、駭客還要好用，因為它不只無傷北京國際形象，尚且完全合法！

其實，美國打阿富汗和伊拉克兩戰，是靠借貸撐下來的。主要債主正是中國。

十年前，發動阿富汗戰爭時，美國生產值是全球三分之一，它的軍事花費也是全球三分之一。今天，美國生產值是全球四分之一，它的軍事花費卻是全球二分之一。這種情勢能維持多久？

美國削減經費勢在必行。歐巴馬總統最近提出凍結許多項目五年的預算計畫。即使計畫順利執行，國家債務仍將會上升到ＧＤＰ的百分之一百零五，而且停滯不降。

許多軍事項目已不得不裁撤：例如美元一百一十四億的遠征戰鬥車研發計畫。ＤＤ（Ｘ）驅逐艦由本來的廿四艘減為五艘。解散六千人的「聯合部隊司令部」。航空母艦由十一艘減為十艘等等。如果財政仍然不穩，將來必裁撤更多。

美國陸軍自殺率從○四年開始攀升，○八年已增加一倍，去年達到歷史新高。

Edward Olson教授本來主張美國前進全球，負起世界警察的任務，在○二年竟然出版《大退場戰略》。美國調整自己以適應中國崛起的意見於是開始萌芽，現在已逐漸成形。美國外交的指標期刊Foreign Affaris裡，去年一月Bruce Gilley教授建議「美國對台灣軍售將必須顯著的減少」；五月Robert Kaplan建議美國退守關島；今年三月Charles Glaser教授建議「美國應考慮從對台灣（安全）承諾上後退」。

美國官員公開仍說「絕不放棄台灣」。但是問到台灣何時可購Ｆ16Ｃ＆Ｄ時，便支吾其詞。

未來數年，美國經濟及軍事力量仍是世界第一。為了自身利益，北京也不會輕易改變與美合作為主「鬥而不破」的方針。但要增兵「重返」東亞，美國將有心而無力。台灣豈可不明辨前景而未雨綢繆？

（作者獲ＵＣＬＡ企管碩士後曾任美國Manville公司兼任財務分析師，現為淡江大學國際事務與戰略研究所教授）