Why Trump’s ban on WeChat and TikTok will fail
Banning the popular mobile apps will only fan tensions between the US and China and spark blowback against American companies.
Banning the popular mobile apps will only fan tensions between the US and China and spark blowback against American companies.
While it’s likely there will be no diplomatic movement with North Korea before January, 2021, whomever wins the election will have to cast aside ideas that are continuously tried and have consistently failed.
A US-led regional grouping including India, Japan, and Australia is slowly gelling into an informal military alliance that could hasten a new cold war with China.
The Trump administration is working hard to dismantle decades of interconnectedness between the US and China to put America on a path to confrontation. Will it work?
References to “Cold War mentality” seem to be used primarily to criticize threatening and zero-sum behavior by the U.S. and its allies.
From tariffs on Chinese products and that recent TikTok ban to slurs about the “kung flu” as the Covid-19 pandemic swept America, President Trump and his team have been expressing their mounting frustration over China and ramping up attacks on an inexorably rising power on the global stage.
While hawks in Washington are clamoring for confrontation with Beijing, the geopolitical factors that have shepherded grand rivalries in the past just aren’t there today with the US and China.
Australian relations with China have worsened in recent months and there’s debate down under about whether Australian officials are taking too much advice from their American counterparts.
With the Trump administration and hawks in Washington clamoring for confrontation with China, it’s probably worth revisiting how that worked out for the US in the past.
Reps. Ro Khanna (D) and Andy Biggs (R) announced that when possible, they plan to travel to Seoul to meet with South Korean President Moon Jae-in.
The legacy of the Korean War can help us understand how the United States got to this position and also prove instructive as policymakers attempt to craft new strategies moving forward.
Can restraint in foreign policy include the goal of decolonization for Guam? Can it be in the U.S. national interest to allow Guam to choose between becoming a state of the union, a freely associated state such as the Republic of the Palau, or an independent country?
It’s clear that today the U.S. believes it stands to gain from a strengthened role for international law in governing use of the Sea. More importantly, it’s a way to set the tone for a future relationship with China guided by mutual adherence to multilateral treaties.
With no sign of a vaccine in sight, the trans-Pacific movement of American soldiers who could serve as a significant vector for disease represents a clear and present danger for Japan.
A decisive move would be for Washington to publicly acknowledge what has long been the case: that China has a credible deterrent and that the U.S. and China are mutually vulnerable.
In 1984, a satisfied Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher announced her government’s agreement with Deng Xiaoping’s China over the eventual return of Hong Kong in 1997.
A recent New York Times story hyping a supposed ‘nuclear buildup’ in China sends the wrong messages and ignores what China is actually up to.
The Pentagon has more than it needs should it need to check China, but there’s a bipartisan push in Congress for more.
At worst, the denuclearization horse left the barn a long time ago. At best, a nuclear-free North Korea will require an extensive period of time to come to fruition.
It’s been two years since the historic Singapore Summit, but little progress has been made. The United States needs to start preparing for the long game.
A debate is brewing about the future of U.S. policy toward China and there are many in Washington who are eager for a fight.