Figure 1.--Thee great challenge of the 20th century was authoritarian regimes influenced by socialism that cam very close to destriting liberal democracy and capitalism. The challenge of the 21st century is China which has adopted capitalism, but also seeks to destroy liberal democracy. Ironically one of the many domestic groups targeted by the Chinese Communist Government is idelistic young Marxists. One author writes, "Young people who belong to Marxist groups have recently become the unlikely targets of a state crackdown due to their zeal to help educate and mobilize China's working class to fight for their rights. The conflict has exposed a paradox between a party founded on Marxist principles and the very young people it has tasked with carrying those principles out." Here demonstrators hold banners in support of workers at the Jasic Technology factory in Shenzhen, in China's Guangdong province, on Aug. 6, 2018.
The Constitution gives the President greater authority in foreign relations than domestic policy and we thus see the President taking bold steps in foreign policy. He has unhinged the established and failed orthodoxy of President Obama and his predecesors which was basically appeasement of both adversaries and allies. President Obama when he met with President Trump pn election day warned him that the greatest challenge he faced was North Korea and its growing nuclear arsenal. The Mainstream media would soon be lambasying President Trump on North Korea. Never mentioned was it was President Obama and his predecessors that allowed North Korea to acquire nuclear weapos through a policy of appeasement. The Obama Administration did begin a pivot to Asia, belatedly seeing China the free world's challenge of the 21st century. President Obama adopted no effectivec policies, only ineffectuslly sailing a few U.S. Navy ships through the South China Sea. President Trump has in sharp contrast to the liberal establishment took on these and other foreign policy challenges Trump despite the liberal carping from the Liberal estanishment that he was a bafoon, understood that America wasnot usingv its fundamental strength--free market capitalism which coild be exertedcthrough the use of tariffs and other economic levers. The same people who had failed on all fronys for several decades insisted that he was launching trade wars and threatening an economic disaster. Now with new trade deals in place with most of our major trade oarners (Canada, China, Japan, Korea, and Mexico), the President has proved his critics wrong. The same peopple who insusted that his election would lead to economic disaster from which America would never recover.
North Korea
President Obama when he met with President Trump pn election day warned him that the greatest challenge he faced was North Korea and its growing nuclear arsenal. The Mainstream media would soon be lambasying President Trump on North Korea. Never mentioned was it was President Obama and his predecessors that allowed North Korea to acquire nuclear weapos through a policy of appeasement. President Trump broke with the appeasement orthodoxy. As Kim Jong Un tested new nuclear weapons and firing missles over Japan, President Trump launched a major diplomatic offensive led by Ambassador Niki Haley in the United Nations. Here the United States could not use its economic power very effectively brcause there were almost no direct trade with North Korea. But North Korea does have trade contacts with other countries, including China, Russia, and other countries. And American has other ihternatiional trade and financial levers. The result was the most severe sanctions ever placed on North Korea. And they are having a bite. Impacts on the population is not going to disuade Kim, but weakening the economy does affect his military and weapons development effort--not stop it, but imaoir it. More controversial was Trump's very undiplomatic langage when Kim threatened Guam, like :I have a bigger button on my desk." Npw that is not how we expect our President to speak, but itvis also true tgat the Presidents who spoke diplomtically allowed North Kora to acquire nuclear weapons tgat reach U.S. territory and the technologicak capability to improve thise weapons. And it is also true that they have had an impact on Kim's behavior. Thr nuclear tests had stopped and the missles fired over Japan have stopped. The President took another controversial step, a charm offensive aimed at Kim. It has not paid off. We dount if the Presidet though it would. But international prestige is important to Kim and thus it may have had some positive impact. And it has not worsened the situation. In the end, the solution to the situation lies with China. The United States has to convince the Chinese that the relationship with America is not a zero sum game and that China benefits from the econnomic health of its trading partners, including the United States.
China
The Obama Administration did begin a pivot to Asia, belatedly seeing China the free world's challenge of the 21st century. One author writes that before President Trump was elected, "The accepted bipartisan strategy eas tonaccokmodate, not oppose, China's growing power. The hope was that itsbnewfoundwealyh and globalminfluence would liberalize the ruling Communist goverment." [Hamson] Liberalmleads scarificed the well being of American workers on this vain hope. We now know that this has totally failed. We see China forcing Muslims into concentration/reeducationn camps, brutalize Hong Kongers, bully Taiwan, create a Orwellian citizenshio score, and now secrecy about the coronavirus have dashed anynillusiins the Liberal elites may have harbored. President Obama, like his predecesors, adopted no effective policies, only ineffectuslly sailing a few U.S. Navy ships through the South China Sea. Pressident Trump has also revered the appeasement poicy toward China pursed by America and the Europeans. America and Europe has allowed China to hollow out their manufacturing sectors and to steal intelectual property, and to impose high tariff and non-tariff barriers. Europe and previous administrations were unwilling to take on China. The Liberalmorthodoxy is that tariids are harmful, ignoring the impact of China on American workers. President Trump was not against feee trade, but thoughtbthatbitbalsonhad to be fair trade. Low tariffs forvChina while China maintained high tariffs and non-tariff barriers was neither free trade or fair tarde. The President was willing to deal with with the threat. Anf his baragining chip was America's ecomomic power strenhthened by his policies (reducing regulations, cutting taxes, and other policies). Especially Trump began using tariffs to brimg China to the table. Immediately the Liberal establishment quite foul. Charging that the Prresident was launching a trade war, ignoring the fact that China had been waging a unilateral trade war for 30 years. The business community, meaning companies that had not been wrecked by China alson criticised tariff. China struck back by raising their already substantial tariff and non tariff regime. American farmers were especially hard hit, but unlike many in busibess stuck by the President. FinallybChina blinked and signedva phase 1 trade deal (January 2020). Ot is not yet ckear to what extent that China will honor its commitments. The President thus has not yet removed the tariffs he raised. As part of the deal, however, hevhad not raised tariffs that were about to go into place. This whole trade dispute is not just about trade. The Chinese Comminists have a mind set that China could benefit from harming America. The experience with Trump has introduced the idea that China could be harmed by continuing unfair trade practices. Amd that a mutually beneficial trade relationship is good for both America and China. It is unclear just how deeply this has penrtrated the Chinese conciousness, nut it is the beginning of a crtitically impirtant process. And their are potentially important security issues, such as China's influnce on Nort Korea.
Middle East
The Middle East since WorldcWar II has been a flash point dor violence. Ans since the rise of Islamic fundan=mentakism as cear=ted tg=he added threat ofcterrorvattack culminatingbin thev9-11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York (Seotember 2001). The reason that the Middkle East was so important wasso importnt for supplyingvthe world's thirst for oil. This has changed im more recent years as a result of the American oil renaisance. The United States no longer needs Middle Eastern oil, although our European NATO allies do. And over the long term, electrical vehicles will reduce the demand for oil. This may well impact attitudes in the region over the long term, but for now the region is still important for the world economy. Abd the Obama Administration's answer as with North Korea, Chiana nd Europe was appeasement. President Obama distancing from Israel and benign policies toward Iran and Palestinian suthorities, including substantial money payments. A Boeing jet stacked to the rafters with $100 bills was sent to Iran. Payments to the Palestinian Authority (PA) funded the paymentbof boinuses to terrirusts who murder Jews. The cresults were minimal. Neither Iran or the Palestinians have moderated their behavior or reduced their support of terror. Presifent Trump has fundamentally changed this. One author writes, "Mr. Trump courted moderate Arab nations innforming an anti-Iranian coalition opposed tomIram's terrorist and nuclear agendas. His policies utterly reversed the Obama administration's estrangement from Israel and outreach to Tehran." [Hanson] He has made Israel a major ally, destroyed ISIS recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital andcthe Golan Heights as Israeli territory. Hevquickly destroyed ISIS which President Obana allowed to ruse in Iraq. He has stopped finding the PA, and canceled the flawed Iranian Nuclear deal. He has introduced crippling sanctions on the Iranian economy and most prominently killing Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a terror king pin (January 2020). Iran's economic problems means it has less funds available for arms and terror. The sanction have crippled the Iranian economy, reducing its caoability tomsupport terror. There was global outrage. The Europeans prefer to pay tribute to the Iranians and ignore the brutalities the Mullahs inflict on the Iranian people. President Trump umlike President Obama is unwillin to ignore Iranian britality to buy their favor. A complication here is 1,400 year old Sunni/Shi'a split. Many Sunni are increagingly willing to ally with America to deal with the Iranian led Shi'ia expansion. The most recent development is a new Middle Eastern peace plan (January 2020). The Palestinians have rejected it as they have every other prace plan. And unlike he view a few years ago, it is increasingly the Palitunians and Iranian mulahas that are veing seen as the obstackes to peace.
Europe
For nearly three decades, Europe has been domonated by the European Union (EU). Ihis is the anthisis of democracy. The EU is ru nby unelected officials who like the coastal elites in America look down on ordinarynpeople and the very idea of democracy. Europeans today are rising up against the Brussels bureaucracy. An observer writes, "For the last 29 years, much of the Americannoryhodoxy has agreed with Europe that the increasingly anti-democratic , pan-continental and borderless EuropeannUnion was the remedy to all mof Europe's past 29th century catastrophes. As a result, American presidents did not do much when EU nations racked up large reade surplus with the US, often as a result pf asymmetrical fees, tariffs and fines." [Hanson] The EU undemocratic character and ruke by elte was at the heart of Brexit and Britain is unlikeky to be the only country to kleave the EU. Anti-EU parties are growing in the EU, includung the three major countries left (France, Germany, and Italy). Given these developments and the stangnat European economies, it is fascinating that Americannen elites and much of the Democratic Party see the EU as someting America should aspire to emulate. Especially as America actually subsidises the EU, primarily through its military, but also its health care system. The EU like China has constructed a substantial wall of tariff and non-tariff barriers resukting in a substanial in ballance in trade. Now fines on large American tech comoaniesvadd to the trade inbalances. Few European countries meet their NATO obligatiins preferring to let the Americann tax payer finnce their defense. President Trump haas taken on the NATO funding issue. And now that as a result of the President's exhortations, more Europeans are increasing their NATO payments. Now that the President has sucessfully negotiated new trade ageements with Canada, China, Japan, Kora, and Mexico, he is likely to address Europe next.
Latin America
Trade
President Trump has in sharp contrast to the liberal establishment took on these and other foreign policy challenges Trump despite the liberal carping from the Liberal estanishment that he was a bafoon, understood that America wasnot usingv its fundamental strength--free market capitalism which coild be exertedcthrough the use of tariffs and other economic levers. The same people who had failed on all fronys for several decades insisted that he was launching trade wars and threatening an economic disaster. Now with new trade deals in place with most of our major trade oarners (Canada, China, Japan, Korea, and Mexico), the President has proved his critics wrong. The same peopple who insusted that his election would lead to economic disaster from which America would never recover.
Sources
Hanson, Victor David. "Is Trump's unorthodoxy becoming orthodox?" The Washington Times (February 6, 2020), p. B1.
Schmitz, Rob. "In China, The Communist Party's latest, unlikely target: Young Marxists", All thongs Considered (National Public Radio, November 21, 2018).
