​Abstract

The article, Trump's 'America First' Is the Twilight of American Exceptionalism, by Max Boot, in Foreign Policy, November 22, 2016 compared Trump’s foreign policy with Obama’s and  expressed concern over result even though both supported quasi-isolationism and non-interventionism. This column begs for a different opinion based on an analysis of Obama’s and Trump’s personality and background. The world was surprised of Trump’s victory. Trump now holds the key of the moment of surprise as well as the element of surprise. If he can resist the establishment and its old way of doing things, Trump’s foreign policy may be more in sync with President Obama’s (non-interventionism and quasi-isolationism) but in a good way in terms of achieving real beneficial results.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Rationally speaking, the answer to the subject title must be no, comparing unknown in the future to deeds done in the past has to fall in the speculation category. However, if one takes a serious
  
analysis of President-elect's campaign speeches, one can certainly formulate some predictions. Max Boot, a Russian American writer, consultant, editorialist, lecturer, and military historian, has done just that and published an article; Trump's 'America First' Is the Twilight of American Exceptionalism, in Foreign Policy, November 22, 2016. In his article, Boot, based on Trump's campaign pronouncements, said that "Trump's foreign policy may be more in sync with President Obama’s than either man would care to admit. And not in a good way: Trump shares with Obama a desire to pull back from the world but lacks Obama’s calm, deliberative style and respect for international institutions." Boot, educated in UC Berkeley and Yale, currently a Jeane Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow at the Council for Foreign relations, has been an advocate of American values in foreign policy. (He once described his ideas as "American might to promote American ideals.) Boot thinks Trump’s execution of foreign policy may not be a good way but I disagree. I shall explain my view later.
 
After reading Boot's article, I have mixed reactions to his arguments. Boot is fairly accurate in recounting Obama's deeds but his effort to predict Trump's foreign policy based on his campaign remarks is commendable but not credible simply because Boot did not derive his conclusions with due consideration of the personality and background of the two gentlemen which are very different. A president’s personality and background shape his perception of the world and influence his decision making process in formulating and executing his foreign policy. Yes, both Obama and Trump want to pull out of Middle East and both do not see America has a mission of global intervention or world policing but their perception of the problems and their thought process of defining optimal solution differ. Hence, in the following we will offer a different analysis not so much as finding similarity between Obama's and Trump's foreign policy (Trump’s foreign policy may not be so predictable as admitted by Boot) but more on the way of seeking solutions by Obama (hindsight) and Trump (probable approach). 
 
Obama was the first black American President elected by an electoral vote of 365:173 (popular vote 69.5m : 60m, 52.9%:45.7%), an impressive victory over John McCain, a veteran war hero. Obama won the election with the 'change' slogan. Yet, in his two terms, Americans by and large were disappointed by his administration. As a great orator and idealist with liberal social ideology, it is understandable that he sees America as a flawed nation, not an exemplar of democracy rather as a nation needing to perfect herself. Hence his apologetic gesture to the world. Boot cited Obama as a Jeffersonian, a term attributed to Walter Russell Mead, to mean the U.S. should perfect her own democracy and not searching monsters in the world to destroy. However, Obama did not fulfill his 'change' mandate simply because he is a product of the establishment based on his education background and his short political career as a democrat. When he assumed the 44th US Presidency, he basically inherited the foreign policy and proceeded gingerly with his philosophy of 'pull back'. He may be a believer in international organizations and international laws, but his actions on foreign policy maintained the 'double talk' or 'double standard' practice that the U.S. had always adopted. He basically was not willing to challenge the establishment, the US Government-intelligence-military complex.
 
Although both Obama and Trump seem to support quasi-isolationism and non-interventionism, Trump's 'America first' and his American Exceptionalism (if he ever uttered the word) has to be interpreted from Trump's world perception and his unorthodox political background. Trump is a successful self-made wealthy business person with a different kind of ego and self confidence from Obama has. Being an outsider of the political establishment, a billionaire and a competitive winner with a strong personality, we need to understand his view of 'winning' and his definition of 'making America great again' in order to comprehend his foreign policy. In contrast with Obama, Trump has few strings attached to the establishment. His victory against the establishment surprised them but confirmed and endorsed his self-confidence which will lead him to act more independently and much more daring to upset the establishment in conducting foreign policies. Yes, he will pull out from Middle East but more likely to take an unexpected approach to produce quicker result and show a win for America. His definition of 'winning' is not for his personal gain for money (he is rich enough) nor for any imperialistic gain (not a hegemony believer) but more likely a gain for the U.S. Treasury or national budget interpreted  simply as a gain for the American people. Perhaps Mead's term, Jacksonian, "not seeking foreign quarrel but will clobber if provoked", is an appropriate description of Trump, but more than that, Trump is likely to abandon the 'double standard' foreign policy practice and adopt a shrewd business negotiation practice to deal with foreign affairs in security and trade.
 
Boot and most analysts have said that Trump's foreign policy is not predictable because he has been too outspoken making many outlandish statements (build walls, renege debt, reduce emission accord, kill TPP, apply punitive tariffs,  renegotiate NAFTA, reduce commitment to NATO…)  Yet in diplomatic speeches, he has kept himself vague or non-committal enough and he is far more transparent and honest than many typical American politician with their double talk – do as I say but not do as I do (talk civil liberty and do killings at the same time). The fact that some Syrian rebels said: “Today, we know that [the Americans] are really and practically not backing us, whereas before, we considered them our friend while they were implementing our opponents’ agenda.” Trump's transparency and frank diagnosis of international  problems may be a beneficial change to our conduct in foreign policy, we just hope that he and his new cabinet can live up to his claim to always make a good deal for American people, not for the establishment at the expense of the American people. The world was surprised of Trump’s victory. Trump now holds the key of the moment of surprise as well as the element of surprise (as he repeatedly said in his campaign speeches that the US government must not give away the element of surprise). If he can resist the establishment and its old way of doing things, Trump’s foreign policy may be more in sync with President Obama’s (non-interventionism and quasi-isolationism) but in a good way in terms of achieving real beneficial results.

​Singapore is a small city gaining her nation status only in 1965. Singapore was a British colony. Like many territories in Asia, Singapore was captured by the Imperial Japanese army during WW II. The British military surrendered to the Japanese on 2/15/1942, a Chinese New Year day. The Japanese rule was brief but brutal killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. After Japan surrendered to the allied forces in 1945, all former British colonies including Malaya, Singapore, Borneo and Sarawak were returned to the British Empire in 1946. Post WW II, nationalism emerged and promoted self-governance movement in South East Asia which led to Malaya's independence in 1957 and Singapore's self-governance in 1959. Singapore declared independence in August 1963. Out of economic considerations, Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore joined to form the Federation of Malaysia in September, 1963. However, the Malay centric policies caused friction between the Chinese populated Singapore and the Muslim dominated Malaysia Federation. In 1965, Malaysia parliament voted 126:0 to expel Singapore. Singapore then declared to be an independent nation that year. China and India helped Singapore to become a member of the United Nations.
 
Lee Kuan Yew (aka LKY) was the founding Prime Minister of Singapore and the leader of the People's Action Party which is the dominating party in Singapore. LKY held the Prime Minister position from 1959 to 1990 for three decades, then maintained a senior minister position during Goh Chok Tong's tenure as Prime Minister from 1990 - 2004 and as a Minister Mentor from 2004 - 2011 when his son Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) became the Prime Minister. LKY died on March 23, 2015 at age of 91; his funeral received over a million mourners and hundreds of international dignitaries. So no doubt Singapore owed her success as a developed nation to LKY for his six decades of government service. 
 
Since Singapore's independence, LKY focused on economic development; he brought Singapore from a poor nation having an unemployment rate over twenty percent, per capita GDP $428 (1960) to a prosperous country of per capita GDP of $3880 in 1979 (nine fold increase over his prime minister tenure) and $53120 in 2011 (14 fold rise at his retirement). Presently, Singapore is ranked 3rd in the world with per capita GDP over $58000. Of course, Singapore also owed her prosperity to her geopolitical position at the Malacca Strait, a conduit of 50% of world trade and over 12.5% of world's oil transport per day (15.2 M barrels per day). 
 
Singapore is situated between Indonesia and Malaysia, two Muslim countries. From LKY through LHL, Singapore maintained a delicate foreign relation with her neighbors on the one hand and sought after the U.S. military presence in South East Asia on the other hand. Hence, it is no surprise that Singapore welcomes the US 'Pivot to Asia' policy and supports earnestly the Trans-Pacific Partner (TPP) program. However, there is a new changing factor that LKY recognized but did not live long enough to alter Singapore's foreign policy. This changing factor is China. Over the past three to four decades she has risen from a war-torn poor country to a fast developing nation not only surprised many of her neighboring countries but also alarmed the U.S. feeling insecure about her leadership position in Asia. 
 
China's rise is predominantly in her economy, now being the second largest in the world. China has a long history being at the center of the world (The Middle Kingdom). But the two centuries of modern time gave China a humiliating status as a weak nation, militarily unable to defend herself from the Western invaders thus suffered from numerous unequal treaties.  Worst of all, she was invaded by her smaller neighbor, Japan, with ambition to conquer the entire China using unspeakable atrocious killings to achieve it. Of course, this part of history should be in the hearts of the Singaporeans since Singapore was also Japan’s victim. During China’s plight; many Chinese fled from China and emigrated to many parts of South East Asia including Singapore, Indo-China, Malaysia and Indonesia. This history gives bondage among many oversea Chinese immigrants all over the world, including some Singaporeans, who are glad to see the rise of China.
 
China works hard and is rising fast despite of severe challenges to a poor and populous nation. Bearing the dual entity of a glorious ancient Chinese history and treacherous modern eras of humiliation, China is reviving with a clear mandate - focusing on the welfare of her people to fulfill a Chinese dream - prosperity for her citizens. This Chinese Dream is the reason why China repeatedly insisting that she will rise peacefully. However, the dreadful war memories also taught China an unforgettable lesson - she can never be weak again. This firm belief creates an auxiliary mandate to the Chinese Dream. The Chinese people and most Chinese immigrants worldwide do understand this. 
 
China's twin mandates are coupled. China is trying to chart an economic development path to be inclusive and beneficial to the world as well as to herself. This noble goal is contained in her grand vision of building One Belt and One Road connecting Asia to Europe and beyond. China’s military development is by and large defensive in nature; she achieved her nuclear and space capabilities despite of being excluded by the Western military alliances and international space development community. Understanding this background and China's history, one can easily appreciate that China's rise is not a threat to her neighbors or to the world except when someone is purposely trying to thwart her economic development and threatening her national security, she must defend and take counter action.
 
Singapore had adopted a pro-US foreign policy when China was weak having no economic competitiveness in the world. Now China is a very different nation, Singapore should have seen that coming. From a small country point of view (especially Singapore with a population predominantly Chinese), it is more meaningful to talk heritage binding than talk nation alliance. LKY's foreign policies towards neighbors and the U.S, were smart but now it is time to reassess the reality and review the above mentioned history. Singapore must understand the true meaning of hegemony and national independence from a point of view of large country (such as China and the U.S.) versus a small nation (such as Singapore). 
 
Singapore certainly has options in adopting her foreign policy but the choice must be made with careful analysis focusing on reality not following a legacy. What made it successful in the past may not be in the future. Singapore was ruled by the British Empire. The foreign policy change of the U.K., such as Brexit and Engaging China, and the other ASEAN nations such as the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia exhibiting signs of resetting their foreign policy towards China are case studies for Singapore to learn from. Singapore with her majority of population having Chinese heritage should have a even brighter future with China's peaceful rise than other Asian countries. This conclusion is obvious unless Singapore is taking part in any action against China's rise. At this juncture, when the U.S. just elected a new President, Donald Trump, who carries no ‘legacy’ baggage in foreign policy; it is the most opportune time for Singapore to reset her foreign policy regarding China and the U.S. Singapore could play a significant role in bringing the two great powers to a collaborating and friendly relation and ripe the benefits or Singapore could take sides causing more friction between the two great powers and suffer the worst consequence. Apparently, Singapore’s bright future hinges on her making a clear and wise choice.
 
Ifay Chang. Ph.D. Producer/Host, Community Education - Scrammble Game Show, Weekly TV Columnist, www.us-chinaforum.org . Trustee, Somers Central School District
 

​

Abstract
 
There are so much valid arguments and so many examples for the U.S. and China to collaborate.  Beyond the ‘global warming and climate change’ where the two countries have agreed to work together to reduce pollutions, there is a host of opportunities for the two great powers to collaborate. A few examples are discussed in this column. Our world has been poisoned by the ‘hegemony theory’ for too long; it is time for the world powers to understand ‘world harmony’ (世界大同) and explore collaboration rather than confrontation.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
As the Presidential Election Day arrives, President Obama's two terms will draw to an end in a couple of months. What will his legacy be when he leaves the White House? This is a question many political analysts and historians will ponder, since Obama has had a miraculous rise to become the most powerful individual on Earth for the past eight years. In my view, President Obama's greatest achievement, which will be his legacy, is his effort dealing with 'Global Warming and Climate Change'. The fact that he had met with the Chinese leader , Xi Jinping, and successfully collaborated with China to mutually commit to a significant reduction in environmental pollution in the coming decades is the most positive accomplishment for the Obama Presidency. This effort induces the world to follow as evidenced by the ratification of the Paris Climate Change agreement by both the United States and China announced at the G20 summit in September 2016 which no doubt will lead the world to pay attention to environment thus benefiting the Earth and all its inhabitants.
 
The benefit of US-China collaboration is tremendous as we all can see in thehandling of the 'Climate Change' issue. But where and what else can US-China collaborate for mutual benefits and world welfare? Amid much China bashing, American citizens seem to be brain washed that there is no way to collaborate with China other than target her as an enemy. The hostile rhetorics towards China uttered by the two Presidential candidates, Trump and Clinton, in their campaign speeches are especially disappointing and misleading. On the above title question, I see an American phenomenon of burying our heads in the sand. People use outdated arguments and ignore the facts in assessing China; not only being inaccurate but also leaning towards blaming China for our domestic setbacks such as losing competitiveness in our manufacturing industry and even in research and innovation. A recent set of documentary films shown in Discovery Channel, entitled, Smart China (Exec Producer, Kyle Murdoch, Producer, Verity Mackintosh, Director, Robin Singleton and Presenter, Josh Klein, in youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h8y3b5NTt0&feature=em-share_video_in_list_user&list=PLbPCj8kYQM0DkgaL3WzQBczJ5PBok2Sq-)
clearly depicted a correct impression we Americans should have, that is, the real challenge to the U.S. is how we may revitalize our industrial power by collaborating with China and treating China as a giant market place with talented people, manufacturers and consumers, rather than targeting China as an enemy.
 
Where and what can the United States and China collaborate then? If we lift our heads up from burying in the sand, we can see that there are plenty of areas and specific projects we can work together for mutual benefits and for world prosperity. Let me list a few categories below and focus one or two domains for more detailed discussion:
 
(I) Terrorist Threat: No doubt the Islamic terrorism has become a global imminent threatening which drives hundreds of thousands of refugees running away from their home countries in the Middle East to Europe, America and elsewhere. China has a significant population of Muslims and years of experience in accommodating Muslims as Chinese citizens under China’s constitution.  Naturally, China is very much concerned with the current ‘terrorists problem’. From world peace and a long term point of view, it makes great sense for the U.S., China, and the EU leading countries to work together to deal with this issue.
 
(II) Maritime Pirating: It is amazing with today’s advanced maritime technologies, we still see pirates capturing commercial ships in the open sea. The U.S. has the most powerful navy in the world; why isn’t the U.S. making demands and providing protection on freedom and safety of navigation in the open sea? This is an action China and many Asian countries would appreciate more than seeing the US Navy conducting military exercises in the Asia pacific. The recent outcry of the Philippines’ new President preferring focusing on domestic economic development to foreign military alliances should make us rethink our Asia policy. More than 60% of China’s trades depend on safe sea lane transportation. The U.S. Navy can easily lead a global maritime alliance to eliminate pirates and maintain ocean safety.
 
(III) Developing Countries: China is emerging to become a developed country. She has decades of experience in trying to lift her out of the developing country status. There are so many countries needing help to develop their economy. This is an area that the U.S. and China can perfectly collaborate to promote world prosperity and obtain mutual benefits as well. Opening dialogue and collaborate will produce many win-win projects on Asia, Africa and South America.
 
(IV) Anti-Drug War: In a 2013 study, it is reported that an estimated of 24.6 million Americans above age 12 were current illicit drug users which is an increase of 9.4% over previous year. The actual number of drug addicts in China is not known; estimates suggest that it is between 2.3 and 20 million people. This may seem like a very small number when compared to China’s population, but because of how fast drug abuse has risen, China may surpass other countries that currently have the most drug abusers. Both China and the U.S. are drug transit (and money laundry) regions and huge drug abuse market places. If the U.S. and China could collaborate in prevention, education, eradication, interdiction, rehabilitation, treatment and law enforcement, the positive effects will be tremendous.
 
(V) Science Research and Space Exploration: The above mentioned Discovery Channel video offers convincing arguments that the U.S. and China should collaborate. On space exploration, the U.S. adopted the policy of excluding China when the International Space Station was launched in 1998 as a seven nation joint project. China was forced to go it alone in space research. Less than two decades, China just demonstrated her capability of launching a space station of her own and the launching of manned spacecraft. In the past month, China has launched her Tiangong 2 space lab and this month she demonstrated a successful docking of a manned spacecraft Shenzhou 11 (2 astronauts, a man and a woman) with the space station Tiangong 2. The EU space research organizations have expressed interest in collaborating with China, unfortunately there may be some system incompatibility issue. After witnessing China’s achievement, even a layman can conclude that collaboration between the U.S. and China in space exploration will be beneficial to mankind.
 
The above is just a few examples of a host of opportunities for the two great powers to collaborate. The world has been poisoned by the ‘hegemony theory’ for too long; it is time for the world powers to understand ‘world harmony’(世界大同) and explore collaboration rather than confrontation!