Saturday, February 4, 2017

European Populations Hope for U.S. Help to End Euro Tyranny

 The Eurozone is close to collapse -- and the sooner the better. The following article from the current EIR looks at the disaster in Italy, while explaining the murderous policies of the EU which are driving its own demise.    Mike Billington
------------------------------------------------------------------------

European Populations Hope for U.S. Help
to End Euro Tyranny
             
               by Claudio Celani

Jan. 29--As Italian Member of the European
Parliament, Marco Zanni, told {EIR} in an
exclusive interview, the populations of Europe
are looking with hope to the new U.S.
Administration, as a potential ally in their
fight for freedom from the tyrannical Euro
system.

 
As Mr. Zanni explains, the Euro is going
to be finished, at the latest, after this
year's round of general elections in key
European countries--such as France, Germany,
and possibly Italy--which might bring an
anti-Euro majority to the European Council.
However, the Euro might implode even before
that--for instance, if the European Central
Bank (ECB) is forced to suspend its
Quantitative Easing (QE) policy, or the
so-called ``Italian banking crisis'' gets out
of control, or a major zombie bank goes
bust--or a combination of all three.

 
Although the ECB confirmed its monetary
expansion policy at its last board meeting in
January, growing inflation figures might make
it impossible for ECB chairman Mario Draghi to
continue keeping zombie banks afloat, and might
force him to ``taper'' away from zero interest
rates and ``Quantitative Easing'' (QE) asset
purchases on the open market. Pressure is
increasing from Germany for the ECB to stop its
QE program if inflation rises close to the 2%
``target.''

 
Not only has Draghi's zero interest-rate
policy almost destroyed traditional banking in
Germany--forcing depositors to choose between
losing money or investing in high-risk
assets--but half of the one trillion euro of
the ECB Assets Purchase Program (APP) has gone
to support the City of London, as Draghi
himself revealed in his letter to Zanni and
Vanni.

 
The APP works in such a way that the ECB
purchases a quota of sovereign, corporate, and
asset-backed securities from banks, in order to
provide those banks with liquidity. The ECB
does not purchase the bonds directly, but does
it through respective national central banks
(``The Eurosystem''). Banks are immediately
provided with liquidity by the ECB, and
balances among national central banks (NCBs)
are settled through the so-called ``TARGET2''
clearing system.

 
Draghi reported that ``almost 80% of [the]
bonds [were] purchased by national central
banks, and roughly half of the purchases were
from counterparties located outside the euro
area, most of which mainly access the TARGET2
payments system via the Deutsche Bundesbank.''
For further explanation, Draghi refers in
his letter to a March 2016 ECB monthly report,
which says: ``Credit institutions domiciled
outside the euro area participate in TARGET2
via a Eurosystem NCB (national central bank),
not least in the case of major international
banks operating in the City of London.''

 
So far, the ECB has provided European
banks with 1.4 trillion euro of liquidity
through the APP. The program will continue at
least throughout 2017, so that at the end of
the year the banks will have received almost 2
trillion euro, which means that the City of
London has received almost 1 trillion from the
ECB!

 
At the same time, the ECB, the EU
Commission and the German government have
entered into a confrontation with Italy on the
issue of the Italian banking crisis and on
austerity. The Italian government is refusing
to apply EU rules to ``bail in'' (confiscate)
depositors and bondholders, and has demanded
more budget flexibility in order to face two
emergencies: refugees, and earthquake aid and
reconstruction.

 
The ECB, the EU Commission, and the German
government insist on implementing EU bail-in
and budget rules. This became grotesque when,
in the middle of earlier earthquake and bad
weather damage in central Italy in mid-
January, the EU Commission rejected the Italian
budget plan and demanded a ``correction'' of
3.4 billion euro.

 
It has become more than evident that a
continued membership in the Euro system is an
obstacle to the life of the Italian population
and to Italy's survival as a functioning
nation.

- Italian Catastrophe -
 
A poll published by Eurispes Jan. 27, says
that the incomes of 43% of Italians don't last
to the end of the month. EU-imposed austerity
has forced Italian families to reduce
consumption, which the report highlights as
follows: 38% have reduced their medical
expenses; 70.9% meals at restaurants; 68.6%
travel and holidays; and 62% hairdresser. One
of every ten young persons or couples cannot
afford to rent housing, and go back to live
with their parents or their in-laws.

 
Italy's budget constraints under EU law
make it impossible to reverse an economic
stagnation that became a depression after 2011,
and is now making it impossible even to deal
with the earthquake emergency.

 
Since August 2016, the earthquakes never
stopped in central Italy. The last shocks
occurred Jan. 18--four shocks of over 5.0
within two hours. This latest quake occurred in
the midst of a snowstorm which had hit central
and southern Italy, creating serious problems
both for the quake-affected population and for
the nation in general. One of the shocks
unleashed a major avalanche which struck a
hotel under Mount Gran Sasso (2,914 m), killing
twenty-nine.

 
The the snowstorm collapsed electrical
lines in the Abruzzo region, initially leaving
300,000 persons without power. Electricity has
since been slowly restored, but not to all
villages. The snowstorm has isolated many
villages in the Apennines, and is especially
endangering cattle herds in the earthquake
areas, threatened both by the cold and the lack
of water.

 
In this situation, the EU insistance that
Italy cut its budget further--when it should
instead increase it in order to face the new
emergencies--has been extremely provocative,
and is feeding the already-overwhelming anti-EU
sentiment. Exemplary was the Jan. 18 op-ed by
Antonio Cangini, editor of {La Nazione} and {Il
Resto del Carlino}, a national daily read
especially in central Italy. Cangini wrote that
the post-Glass-Steagall era is over, but the EU
has failed to recognize it--and should be
buried.

 
With Brexit and the election of Donald
Trump in the U.S.A., ``a global historic phase
is being closed,'' Cangini continued:

    "A chaotic as well as dramatic phase,
    which has brought us two poisoned fruits: the
    economic crisis and the European crisis. For
    the former, we must thank the United States. In
    order to avoid a repetition of the 1929 crisis,
  President Roosevelt had the sacred
  Glass-Steagall Act enacted in 1933, separating
  investment banks from commercial banks. Bill
  Clinton repealed it in 1999, opening the way to
  globalization, and, less than a decade later,
  to the implosion of the U.S. financial system,
  full of toxic and non-performing assets....

 
  "To save the banks, attention was shifted
  to the sovereign debt of states, beginning the
  suffering of southern and Catholic European
  countries. No systemic correction has been
  implemented since, just palliative measures
  such as the Dodd-Frank bill in 2010. Whatever
  judgment one may have on Trump's victory, it
  represents a shift, a radical correction of
  route. Instead, no shift is on the horizon in
  old Europe, where the route is still the
  same."

The EU is dead and its ``corpse is
beginning to stink--and holding its funeral
might be the only way to start life again. The
only problem: there is no gravedigger around to
do it,'' Cangini wrote.

 
Cangini correctly focusses on the repeal
of Glass-Steagall in the U.S.A., but he forgets
that the repeal of similar banking separation
systems in Italy, and in all European
countries, was imposed by EU Treaties.

 
A Bank of Italy official did recall this,
however, in a hearing before the joint Finance
Committee of the Italian Chamber and the
Senate, on Jan. 17. Answering a question from
Deputy Alessio Villarosa (M5S), on whether the
old bank-separation system would have prevented
the current Italian banking crisis, the Bank of
Italy's head of supervision, Carmelo
Barbagallo, answered that the old system of
bank separation was ended by EU guidelines--but
he let it be understood that he favors the old
system. ``What Deputy Villarosa said on the
1936 Banking Act is very interesting,''
Barbagallo said. The old system ``was changed
in order to implement a European guideline.
Separation between banks and industries, long-
and short-term [credit], and banks of public
interest are not European concepts. Already in
the mid-'80s they were not European concepts.
If Italy is a member of the EU... one can have
a different personal view, but this is a
fact.''

 
So re-introducing a Glass-Steagall-like
system separating commercial banks from
speculative banks, is incompatible with
membership in the Euro. Even defensive measures
such as the Italian government decision to
protect bondholders in the bail-out of Monte
dei Paschi di Siena bank, which goes against EU
rules, and to allocate a 20 billion fund to
prevent insolvency, won't work.

 
Worse, they are seen by the population as
a favor to bankers. The most widespread slogan
at a demonstration of earthquake victims Jan.
25, in front of the national Parliament, was:
``The government finds 20 billions for the
banks, but not for us!.'' Indeed, not only is
emergency housing not going up on schedule, but
very little has been done to protect the cattle
which are now dying in the cold wave.

 
Many in Italy compare the current failures
with the approach adopted after the L'Aquila
earthquake of 2009, when 5,600 quake-proof
apartments were built in 100 days, and families
were able to move in before winter struck. This
was done through a military-style mobilization
under a centralized Civil Protection Department
(CDD) with emergency powers.

 
The difference between then and now is
called former Prime Minister Mario Monti.
Monti, the EU butcher, cut the budget of the
CDD and deprived it of powers in 2011-12. Now,
the CDD head no longer has sufficient emergency
powers to bypass bureaucracy and get done
what's necessary in a short time.

 
The social and political climate is
explosive and will become more so as long as
Italy stays in the Euro, a climate ready to
fill the sails of the anti-Euro parties in the
next general elections, which might come as
early as next summer.

U.S. Debt Load To Increase 75% in Next 10 Years

U.S. Debt Load To Increase 75% in Next 10 Years

You read that right: U.S. debt will nearly double over the next 10 years.
In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office and their latest Budget and Economic Outlook, debt held by the public will catapult from this year’s $14.17 trillion to $24.9 trillion in 2027.
That’s $24.9 trillion with a T!
They say growth in spending — particularly Social Security, Medicare and net interest — will outstrip revenue growth. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
The culprit: Reckless fiscal policies that are now coming home to roost.
But the fact is this is just the latest installment in the sovereign debt crisis that I’ve been warning about. And things are going to get worse before they get better. Consider …
  • Rising interest rates that triple debt-service costs over the next 10 years — from this year’s estimate of $270 billion to $768 billion in 2027.
  • Anemic economic growth, with GDP running at an average annual rate of 1.9% in years 2022 to 2027.
  • An aging population and rising per capita healthcare costs.
  • Reduced lawmaker flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges.
  • Increased probability of a U.S. fiscal crisis, including greater risk that investors will become unwilling to finance the government’s borrowing.
But there’s more: Debt held by the public as a share of GDP is through the roof …
As you can see from this chart, debt held by the public goes from 77% of GDP in late-2017 to 89% by 2027 — levels not seen since 1947.
But here’s where it goes really off the rails: The study projects 10-year interest rates will top out at 3.6% in the later part of the projection period. That’s a 50% increase from current levels.
And I even think that’s conservative: The 10-year could easily reach 4%, 5%, even 6% as this crisis unfolds.
Is that a big deal? You bet! The CBO says a 1% increase in interest rates would add an extra $1.6 trillion in cumulative deficit AND raise U.S. Treasury borrowing by $264 billion.
And don’t forget: These projections don’t account for any fear premium associated with a debt-rating downgrade, a sudden spike in interest rates or a waning foreign appetite for U.S. debt. Plus, they don’t even touch President Trump’s campaign promises of…
  • $1 trillion in infrastructure spending over 10 years.
  • Increased military spending.
  • Funding the Mexico/U.S. border wall.
  • Tax cuts for individuals and corporations.
  • No change in entitlement spending.
What does this mean for you?
Simple: When the government fails to meet its obligations, it’s going to come after you — the taxpayer — for more money.
And it’ll do the same for businesses and companies of every stripe — you can mark my words.
This kind of reckless behavior will ruin governments … disrupt entire markets … and wipe out central banks and treasuries in the process.
Plus, it will devastate government pensions and government benefit programs of all kinds.
And it will push leaders toward more desperate measures, including confiscations and outright seizures.
So, hold on to your hats! And make sure you have sound investment advice, like my members enjoy.
Best wishes,
Larry


Larry Edelson, one of the world’s foremost experts on gold and precious metals, is the editor of Real Wealth Report and Supercycle Trader. Larry has called the ups and downs in the gold market time and again. As a result, he is often called upon by the media for his investing views. Larry has been featured on Bloomberg, Reuters and CNBC as well as The New York Times and New York Sun.

Friday, February 3, 2017

City Killers - Electromagnetic Pulse Artillery Shells

City Killers - Electromagnetic Pulse Artillery Shells

News Image By PNW Staff February 02, 2017 Share this article:

The US Army is developing a compact electromagnetic pulse weapon (EMP) weapon capable of fitting inside a 155mm artillery shell capable of being fired near key enemy infrastructure. 

The artillery shell, with its non-explosive payload, would be used to disable the electronics and radio communications equipment of anything within a given radius around its flight path.

Such a weapon would disable the modern war-fighting capabilities of an enemy but, aimed at an enemy town or city, it would act as a siege weapon that would disable all communications and electronic infrastructure in the vicinity. 

Similar in concept to the nuclear-based neutron bombs that the Soviet Union developed to kill through intense radiation while leaving equipment unaffected, the EMP rounds would disable sensitive equipment while leaving biological life unharmed.
The line of research is outlined in an Army research document that describes the EMP artillery attack vector and its uses:

Extensive use of wireless RF (radio frequency) networking for critical infrastructure and communications systems provides an alternative attack vector for neutralization of an adversary's underlying industrial, civil, and communications infrastructure without the destruction of the hardware associated with those systems. 

Advances in munitions-based microelectronics and power technologies make possible the implementation of non-kinetic cyber and electromagnetic or electronic warfare (EW) attacks that could be delivered via artillery launched munitions. 

The precision delivery of the non-kinetic effects (NKE) electronics payload close to the target allows low power operation which limits the geographical extent of impacted systems and reduces the overall impact on the electromagnetic spectrum.

The eventual goal, as implied in the research proposal, is to shrink the devices to the extent that multiple EMP bombs can fit inside a single shell, but at this point the Army is still working to miniaturize and is open to the possibility of employing larger bore guns if needed. 

The Army already possesses much larger directed EMP weapons, both ground based and those mounted on drones that can disable all equipment they overfly.

A reported 2012 test of a weaponized drone dubbed CHAMP (Counter-electronics High-powered microwave Advanced Missile Project) took out the electronics on seven targets it flew over on a Utah test range. 

Using directed EM Pulses, the system uses ultra-powerful microwave generators to overload the electronics found in military or civilian equipment.

Whether this weapon would use traditional microwave generators as the drone does or some other yet-unrevealed method to generate the sizable EMPs needed is unclear, but the Army is researching several EMP-generation systems. 

Mounting the system on a truck or in a downward facing orientation on a drone is relatively easy but any ground-based vehicles require some degree of line-of-sight whereas a drone can be shot down. 

If the Army is successful in miniaturizing the EMP bomb so that it fits into artillery ordnance, it will be far more difficult for an enemy to stop its attack.
Nuclear weapons generate enormously powerful EMPs but the accompanying heat, deadly radiation and kinetic energy makes them impractical for tactical use on the battlefield. 

The Army's focus on medium powered EMP able precisely to target a specific area with such an effective delivery system implies that the  Pentagon is concerned with collateral damage. 

Frying the electronics of a government ministry or weapons cache while keeping a hospital and water treatment plant outside its range remains a possibility.

In a world where battles are fought with drones, advanced communications, smart munitions and highly mobile troops, bringing your enemy back to the pre-digital age and shutting down all communications equipment is an enormous tactical and strategic advantage. 

The concept has been proven at larger sizes but now the challenge is set to shrink the system into a package small enough to be fired in an artillery shell.  

It may only be a matter of time until we see even smaller applications which present an ever-increasing danger to our digital societies.

Putin, Trump seek to give fresh start to ailing Russian-U.S. ties – experts


Putin, Trump seek to give fresh start to ailing Russian-U.S. ties – experts

January 29, 2017 TASS
In their 45-minutes talk, presidents have discussed a range of issues from tackling terrorism and Middle East developments, to strategic stability and business ties between Russia and the U.S. 
Quiz Trump or Putin
Collage: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Source: Reuters; RBTH. 
Moscow and Washington spoke positively about the first conversationbetween Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, who was sworn in as the U.S. president slightly more than a week ago. The leaders discussed a wide range of global and international issues in a "positive and business-like atmosphere" and agreed to keep in touch, the Kremlin press service said.
"The positive call was a significant start to improving the relationship between the United States and Russia that is in need of repair," the White House said in a statement, commenting on the results of the conversation.

Partners in the struggle against terror

The two leaders discussed in detail "pressing international problems," including the developments in the Middle East, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the strategic stability and non-proliferation, the situation around Iran’s nuclear program and the Korean Peninsula, the Kremlin said in a statement. "The key aspects of the Ukrainian crisis have been touched upon as well. It has been agreed to establish partner-type cooperation in those and other areas," the statement reads.
Putin and Trump placed a special emphasis on the fight against terrorism. "The presidents spoke in favor of creating real coordination of Russian and American actions with a purpose to defeat the ISIL (the former name of the Islamic State) and other terrorist groups in Syria," the Kremlin statement reads.
Alexei Pushkov, a member of the Defense and Security Committee of the Federation Council, wrote in his Twitter account that discussing coordination in anti-terrorism efforts "represents a qualitative change" in bilateral ties, while the first deputy chairman of this committee, Frants Klintsevich said the Islamic State will literally see its last days if Moscow and Washington join forces.
The head of the State Duma International Affairs Committee said the declared intention to coordinate anti-terrorism effort was the most important result of the talk. "The main result of the first talk between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump was an agreement to coordinate efforts to defeat the IS. This is what the entire clear-headed world is expecting from the Russian-U.S. relations," Leonid Slutsky said.
Lawmaker Nikolai Kovalev, who formerly headed Russia’s security service FSB, named "coordination of efforts in Syria, joining forces, exchange of information" and an end to U.S. weapon supplies to the Syrian opposition as the first practical steps that the U.S. may make in the declared joint Russian-U.S. antiterrorism struggle. He said Washington previously refused to cooperate with Moscow on the issue, but "this situation may now change drastically."

Business ties

Putin and Trump also discussed restoring trade and economic ties, that could "further stimulate consecutive and sustainable development of bilateral relations."
Kirill Dmitriev, who heads the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), said the results of the first official contact between the presidents of Russia and the United States send a positive signal to investors. "Placing the emphasis on restoring trade and economic cooperation is very important," he said.
The RDIF CEO added that the fund has designed ten Russian-U.S. priority investment projects and will present them to the U.S. partners for a preliminary discussion soon.
The head of the State Duma’s committee on science and education, Vyacheslav Nikonov, also pointed at the economic part of the discussion. He said that the declared readiness to restore trade and economic ties "may envisage a partial cancellation of sanctions."
"Of course, the word ‘sanctions’ was left out, but restoring trade and economic ties stipulates that this issue has to be approached as well," said the lawmaker, who is also a prominent Russian expert on foreign affairs.

First step

Russian politicians were overly positive about the results of the first Putin-Trump talk after the transition of power in the United States.
"Naturally, a phone conversation between the two presidents is not enough to solve all problems in the Russian-U.S. relations, which had been accumulating for years. But the first step has undoubtedly been made," senator Klintsevich said, adding that Trump appeared to be taking cooperation with Russia seriously. However, he warned against jumping into optimistic conclusions before the US makes its first practical steps.
Konstantin Kosachev, who heads the International Affairs Committee of the Russian parliament’s upper house, said the phone conversation apparently "returned sense and reason" into the Russian-U.S. dialogue. "Hopefully, behind the laconic mention of the matters discussed, there is determination - bilateral determination, not only on our behalf - to introduce the new format of relationship, the relations of partnership instead of rivalry," he said.
Vyacheslav Nikonov also described the phone talk as "a very good start." "They set the bar very high at the talks," he said. "The fact that they managed to discuss this (wide range of issues) in 45 minutes means that there were no major disagreements."

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Beijing’s second aircraft carrier set to be based in South China Sea – Chinese media

Beijing’s second aircraft carrier set to be based in South China Sea – Chinese media

Beijing’s second aircraft carrier set to be based in South China Sea – Chinese media
China’s upcoming aircraft carrier, the ‘Shandong’, is to be based near the South China Sea – the area at the center of Beijing’s confrontation with the US and regional neighbors, according to Chinese media.
The rationale behind the decision to place China’s first home-made carrier in disputed waters is to increase the country’s military capabilities and readiness to respond to any “complicated situations,” as the South China Morning Post put it, citing Xiake Dao, a social media account affiliated with the oversees edition of the state-owned People’s Daily.
READ MORE: Trump administration threatens response to Beijing’s South China Sea territory grab
The report is “based on existing available information,” and the precise future base of ‘Shandong’ – named after an eastern province – is yet to be revealed. Also under consideration are other possible names for the ship, but ‘Shandong’ is the working title, unless the newly formed Joint Staff Department of the Central Military Commission elects to change it, the Morning Post reports.
The carrier will join China’s only other one – the ‘Liaoning’, which is based in Qingdao, northern China, looking at Japan and South Korea. The ship was brought over from Ukraine in 1998.
China's rivals in the South China Sea are growing increasingly wary of what they deem to be Beijing’s territory-grabbing in the area. Washington has voiced its anger with Chinese activity in the South China Sea, the region China says has historically been in its orbit.
READ MORE: No ‘word bombs,’ pressure from outside can stop drills in S. China Sea – Chinese state media
US Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson even threatened that Beijing will face consequences if it doesn’t stop its construction in the area immediately. Tillerson went as far as to prohibit the islands’ use by Beijing, but did not elaborate what potential US steps might be taken in retaliation.
According to observers, the new carrier is also a signal to Taiwan – which China sees as its integral part – but whose independence has been gaining new traction following the Trump administration’s statements questioning the ‘One China’ policy.
Popular In the Community

General Petraeus Warns ‘New World Order’ Is Collapsing

General Petraeus Warns ‘New World Order’ Is Collapsing

Posted on February 2, 2017 by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in News, US // 10 Comments
General Petraeus says the New World Order is collapsing

Former CIA director General David Petraeus has warned that the “New World Order” is under threat of total collapse.

In a speech to lawmakers on Wednesday, General Petraeus said that a World War 3 scenario between the West and Russia/China will occur soon that will end up destroying the New World Order.

“Americans should not take the current international order for granted.

It did not will itself into existence. We created it. Likewise, it is not naturally self-sustaining. We have sustained it. If we stop doing so, it will fray and, eventually, collapse.”

Thehill.com reports:

Many of Petraeus’s remarks hinted at pushing back against statements and policies from President Trump, who had considered Petraeus as a candidate for his secretary of State.In speaking about the threat from extremists, Petraeus stressed that the majority of Muslims who reject extremism are the “most important ally” in fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al Qaeda.

His comments come amid continued backlash at Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, suspending all refugees for four months and halting Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Critics have called the order a Muslim ban and said it plays into extremists’ narrative that the West is at war with Islam.

“We must also remember that Islamic extremists want to portray this fight as a clash of civilizations, with America at war against Islam,” Petraeus said Wednesday. “We must not let them do that; indeed, we must be very sensitive to actions that might give them ammunition to use in such an effort.”

Petraeus also warned that adversaries such as Russian President Vladimir Putin are seeking to encourage American ambivalence about its defense and institutions such as NATO.

“President Putin, for instance, understands that, while conventional aggression may occasionally enable Russia to grab a bit of land on its periphery, the real center of gravity is the political will of the major democratic powers to defend Euro-Atlantic institutions like NATO and the EU,” Petraeus said. “That is why Russia is tenaciously working to sow doubt about the legitimacy of these institutions and our entire democratic way of life.”

Trump has said he wants to improve relations with Russia and has called NATO obsolete.

Former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, who spoke at Wednesday’s hearing alongside Petraeus, also warned about the difficulty in dealing with Russia.

“There is nothing at all wrong with aiming for an improved relationship with Russia, but the U.S. must be aware that Russia calculates its interests in a cold-eyed clinical way and Washington will have to be equally dispassionate in dealing with Putin,” he said. “Historically, when Russia encounters weakness or hesitation, it demands more, then blames the opponent for escalation when the opponent resists — then calls for discussions, which it uses to consolidate its gains. Deals don’t come easily.”

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Sino-US relations and Trump’s Asia policy


Sino-US relations and Trump’s Asia policy

Sporadic tensions and volatility are not new in Sino-American relations. Both major powers diverge on a wide range of geopolitical and strategic issues such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system deployment in South Korea and the management of the North Korean nuclear issue.
In the run-up to Donald Trump’s inauguration as 45th President of the United States, China and the United States have seen premature confrontation on two other sensitive issues that may continue to endure under a Trump presidency: the Taiwan issue and the South China Sea (SCS) disputes. Trump’s controversial phone conversation with Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen upended the status quo in cross-strait relations and put into question the United States’ commitment to the One China policy, which China deems a nonnegotiable core interest.
In responding to China’s evocation of the long-standing concordat, Trump resorted to “Twitter diplomacy” in stepping up invectives against China’s currency manipulation and construction of a “massive military complex” in the SCS. He also criticized China for taxing hefty fines on American goods, which has contributed to the large American trade deficit.
Noticeably, not long after the unprecedented phone call, China was quick to demonstrate its resolve in averting a possible Taiwan Strait Crisis 3.0 and in responding to Trump’s provocations: nuclear-capable bombers (轰/H-6K) were flown near Taiwan; an unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) of the US Navy was seized; the aircraft carrier group Liaoning (辽宁舰/CV-16) conducted its first live-fire exercise in the Bohai Sea; and weapons in the artificial islands in the SCS were installed. Trump’s unsettling remarks are not alone and have been accompanied by that of his cabinet appointees. For instance, Trump’s Secretary of Defense, James “Mad Dog” Mattis, commented that China is “shredding trust along its periphery” in responding to Beijing’s securitization of the SCS, while Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, proposed that China should be barred access to its artificial islands in the SCS.

Trump’s Foreign Policy

With Trump formally US President, signs are much clearer that he is being true to his campaign promises. In his inaugural speech, he unsurprisingly reaffirmed his consistent campaign battle cry of “Make America Great Again.”
Trump’s foreign policy orientation may be examined by looking into his electoral promises and recent policy directions.
First, Trump’s resonant mantra suggests that he is not satisfied with the current order of things and is conscious of revitalizing US economic standing; and accordingly, of US economic power and dominance. For Trump, to make America great again is by putting “America First” on all issues, especially in the economic realm. This means lesser consideration for strategic commitments abroad and the avoidance of entanglements that strain American resources and divert issues from domestic priorities.
Second, Trump is patently clear on his economic, ideological, and strategic agenda.
Economically, Trump redefines US economic and trade strategy through protectionism and what he calls “smart trade.” The former is by slapping heavy fines on companies that do not employ American labor or reinstate jobs on American soil. The latter is through indifference to mega-free trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA), and opting instead for bilateral trade agreements. Furthermore, by Trump treating Taiwan as a “bargaining chip” to draw economic concessions from China, economics apparently precedes politics. Hence, politics is a means to economic ends, that is, the achievement of American economic interests. One should thus not be surprised if this also holds true in the case of the SCS.
Ideologically, Trump’s discourse is a sharp departure from previous US foreign policy rhetoric. Trump has shifted the terms of discussion from the US preaching as the leader of the free world and principal advocate of liberal internationalism, to matters that support American economic and trade interests.
In his inaugural address, Trump also reiterated that the United States would not impose its values — such as human rights and democracy — on other countries. This apparently heralds a “post-liberal” era or a less interventionist (selective isolationism) role for the US in the domestic affairs of other states. In other words, Trump is disinterested in maintaining a liberal international order founded on liberal democratic values. This augurs well for Southeast Asian countries such as Cambodia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Vietnam, whom were all denounced by the Obama administration to have violated certain democratic principles. The reduction of values emphasis, however, may come at the long-term strategic cost of American soft power and ideological alignment with key allies.
Strategically, Trump did not mince words in wanting to have a “great rebuilding” of the US Armed Forces, which includes an upsized Navy and an enhanced nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. Specifically, Trump wants to engage in the largest defense investment since the 1990s and expand the US Navy’s current number of 308 ships to 350 ships. This complements the 2016 Naval Force Structure Assessment (SFA) to have a 355-ship fleet including 12 carriers, 104 large surface combatants, 52 small surface combatants, 38 amphibious ships, and 66 submarines.
Therefore, the plan of the Obama administration to transfer 60 percent of American naval assets from the Atlantic to the Pacific by 2020, as part of the Rebalance to Asia, may yet be far from over.

American Exceptionalism and Pax Sinica

The United States has always prided itself as a country that is a “City on a Hill,” beacon of democracy, and the provider of public goods and global leadership. By repeatedly making statements such as “Make America Great Again” and “America First,” Trump is still treading along traditional US foreign policy lines of being the “greatest” and most “powerful” country in the world. This is also indicative that Trump wants to arrest the so-called “American decline” and maintain American pre-eminence and supremacy.
The way he wants this to be achieved is not through the expansion of democratic zones around the world, but to keep hold of an international order where America continues to enjoy superpower status. This, essentially, makes the renunciation of American spheres of influence remote, especially when taking into account national strategic goods and valuable bases of power.
Trump’s exercise of leadership will be a crucial factor in terms of directing the future of Sino-US relations, particularly the continued American interaction toward a rising China. For example, it remains to be seen how the Trump administration will be receptive to China’s “New Model of Major Country Relations” (新型大国关系), which has two major goals: maintain a cooperative agenda while constructively managing differences with the US and to disprove the “Thucydides Trap” and the “Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” which both forewarn disastrous conflict for transitioning great powers.
With respect to policies toward Asia, continued US preference for networked alliances and military force posturing would, in one way or another, have to square against China’s regional security vision of comprehensive security (综合安全), cooperative security (合作安全), common security (共同安全), and sustainable security (可持续安全) as stated in the Chinese White Paper China’s Policies on Asia-Pacific Security Cooperation (中国的亚太安全合作政策), which all emphasize nonintervention from extra-regional powers and a non-alliance-based regional architecture.