What Trump's Election Means for China

Battlegrounds have been drawn this past week in the United States' historic election, and POTUS 2017 will, for the first time since Dwight Eisenhower, go to a man who has never before held public office as an elected official.

With pretty much all of heartland America and the South going to president-elect Donald Trump, only the West coast and Northeast really showed any favor towards a Clinton administration. Predicted to win in most polls prior to the election, most Liberals underestimated just how disenfranchised the working class of America had become with what they saw as a corrupt political and economic establishment that had sold them out over the past two decades.

With the election of Trump, Americans have made it clear that they want factories to stay in the US, a wall built to separate them from Mexico, a tougher government on Islamic extremism and immigration, and public works projects to rebuild their outdated infrastructure. Liberals and the American left have been protesting ever since Trump's declared victory, with California even threatening to“Calexit”. However, while these bleeding-heart liberals anchored by CNN continue to cry fowl, they should settle down and think about what the possibilities are now that the political establishment is undergoing a real watershed from someone truly outside politics. Indeed, a sea change has been demanded by people fed up with the Clinton and Bush oligarchies, and eight years of Obama not really delivering on the hope on which his presidency was founded. Now, while some of Trump's most provocative comments have come at the hands of Mexico and China over trade, that does not mean the leadership in China should be mimicking the histrionics of Hillary's voting base. Trump is well known for calling China out on a perceived trade imbalance and the contention that China manipulates its currency to create an off-level playing field with the United States. That being said, the leadership in China should be glad that Trump won—and not Hillary.

To begin, Trump‘’s comments are just that—comments. And it is pretty evident after his victory speech and recent demeanor that Trump the president will be a much cooler head than Trump the political candidate. The most probable outcome is that jobs and factories in China with American multinationals will stay in China. Trump, however, will make it very difficult for any new companies to jump ship and move their factories to China or Mexico during his administration.

Secondly, Trump is a businessman first and foremost and understands how interdependent both the USA and China are when it comes to international trade, and will not do anything drastic to change that. Any major hit to China's economy would be felt in America is well, and that could be a disaster for both countries. Ergo, slapping high tariffs on future incoming Chinese goods is improbable.

Third is the Russia card. Putin and Trump have already shown a willingness to work together (which never would have been on the table with Hillary), and as such, Putin will predictably have leverage with Trump over dealings with China. If Trump were to sour China, he would also seriously risk souring Russia, which is not a likely scenario given the current climate between the two leaders.

And last is the military. Most experts would agree that Hillary would have been much more Hawkish on China in regards to the South China Sea and any other geopolitical hot buttons that could have seen confrontation. Trump has talked tough when it comes to IS and the Middle East, but will most likely not want to exacerbate any current sabre rattling in East Asia. For that, China should be relieved they won't have to deal with Hillary.

Alas, the seemingly never-ending election is finally over, which is something I think should make everyone in America, and those who follow politics, relieved. And in the case of China, and all those who live here, we should be more at ease with Donald Trump as the future president of the United States.

Righting US wrongs ought to be Trump's Asia-Pacific policy

The world is still wondering what will be the impact of Donald Trump's election as US president on different countries and regions. But going by Trump's remarks during the presidential campaign, he may handle some of the world's key security issues differently from the Barack Obama administration. Under Trump, the United States may focus more on domestic issues and pay less attention to foreign policy.

If that were to happen, the US would have to make major adjustments to its global resource allocation, both on the economic and military fronts.

To honor his promise to improve domestic infrastructure, create 25 million jobs in the US and fight terrorism in a more radical way, Trump may choose to spend less on projecting US power in the Asia-Pacific region and use the funds and resources so saved to fight terrorism in the Middle East and address domestic woes. That will mean a major departure from the Obama administration that has painstakingly pushed its “pivot to Asia” strategy by focusing 60 percent of its military strength on the Asia-Pacific while phasing out its military presence in the Middle East.

For Asia-Pacific countries, especially Japan and the Republic of Korea, they still don't know what to expect from the next US administration as Trump has said during the presidential campaign that Washington's allies in the region must do more to defend themselves and contribute more to maintain US military presence in their territories.

Yet the US' strategic contraction globally will not be as bad as some fear. On the contrary, it could help right the wrongs the US has done in recent years in its “war on terror” and military maneuverings in the Asia-Pacific.

The Obama administration's reluctance to actively fight terrorists and extremists, especially the Islamic State terrorist group in the Middle East, has been widely criticized. And the US' interference policy in the region, coupled with the covert arming of rebel forces to orchestrate a regime change in countries like Libya and Syria, is largely to blame for the rise in terrorism and extremism in the region. Hence, the incoming Trump administration should adopt a harder line on terrorism and clean up the mess the US has helped create in the Middle East.

In the Asia-Pacific, Obama's “pivot to Asia” strategy, a move widely seen as intended to contain China's rise, has not only soured relations with China but also heightened tensions in the South China Sea, as Washington has used the maritime disputes between China and some Southeast Asian countries to beef up its military presence in the region.

The US is not a party to any of the South China Sea disputes, and its interference has harmed regional cooperation between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China and other regional partners.

Worse, countries in the region were forced to take sides in the disputes and thus be distracted from far more important issues of regional development and integration. Had the South China Sea and East China Sea remained peaceful, countries in the region could have devoted more energy into translating the regional development blueprint into action and thus contributing more to global economic recovery.

The tensions created by the Obama administration over the South China Sea disputes have served nobody's interests. And the developments of the past years show the “pivot to Asia” strategy has been counterproductive, even in serving US interests.

The Philippines, a close Washington ally and used by the US to provoke China over maritime disputes, has made a U-turn by choosing to improve ties with China and distancing itself from the US.

As China and the US both have high stakes in the peaceful development of the Asia-Pacific, they ought to cooperate with, rather than confront, each other to build peace and stability in the region. The incoming Trump administration should make the right choice.

Answer the following questions:

For what reasons did the voters support Trump?

Can you explain the word “orligarchies” (the italicized word in the third paragraph of the first passage) in your own words?

Do you agree with the opinion that “the leadership in China should be glad that Trump won—not Hillary”? Why or why not?

What has been widely criticized in Obama‟s administration?

One of the passages is written by an American journalist, and the other is written by a Chinese journalist. Which one do you think is written by the Chinese journalist? Why do you think so?