IT is always best to make nice-nice to an incoming US president regardless of who it is or what the new administration’s future policies might be. It is like greeting an uncle you do not know well but who just won the big lotto prize. Maybe he will include you in his will when he dies.
It always is and should be about the money.
If you read the domestic newspapers around Asean, for example, you get “Biden win forecast to benefit Thailand.” And of course “benefit” means “mo’money” one way or another. Here are others. “Joe Biden will further the momentum in cooperation with Vietnam.” “Biden is preferred over Trump for Indonesia’s economy growth.” “Biden may boost Malaysia-US ties.”
The reality, though, is that Trump was effectively a “third-party candidate” who happened to run under the Republican Party. He won the nomination while beating the most traditional core of Republican Party politicians; Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, as well as Governors John Kasich, Jeb Bush, George Pataki, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Perry.
What no one really wants to talk about is that for the past three or four decades, US foreign policy has been predictable. Both the Republican and Democratic parties have consistently and continuously involved the US in combat operations but for different purposes.
Simply put, Republicans go to war for profit. Dwight Eisenhower said this in his final speech as president. “Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
Simply put, Democrats go to war for domestic image. When George W. Bush was president, he was a “warmonger.” When Barrack Obama went to war—and the US was engaged in active combat every single day of his two terms—he was stopping “dictators.” Anti-war protests virtually disappeared when Obama was elected because he was supporting and defending “freedom fighters.”
Henry Kissinger made the US foreign policy crystal clear: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” Combine that with the Republican “nation building” and the Democrats “supporting freedom” and what could be better for the world?
Obama was lauded for his “Pivot to Asia.” But note that this came after the catastrophe of the Arab Spring, which ended in mid-2012. By then North Africa was completely destabilized and the Islamic State filled that gap and by 2014, controlled a large swath from Syria to the Iranian border with Iraq. In January 2012, since all the problems of the Middle East have been solved, Obama pivots to Asia. “The key areas of action are strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights.”
That focus on Asia was an “amazing success”. From December 2013 to October 2015, China built artificial islands with a total area of close to 3,000 acres on seven coral reefs.
When it comes to great future trade deals with the US, that was just cut off at the knees with the final signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or RCEP, led by China. 2021 is guaranteed to be even more interesting than 2020.
E-mail me at mangun@gmail.com. Visit my web site at www.mangunonmarkets.com. Follow me on Twitter @mangunonmarkets. PSE stock-market information and technical analysis tools provided by the COL Financial Group Inc.