Bhakti M. Desai, an Indian international relations analyst, says though Donald Trump has been “vocal of his apprehensions on a rising Chinese economy” and has accused Beijing of currency manipulation the two countries’ economies “are highly dependent on each other” and a trade war “could be disastrous for both countries”.

Following is the text of Desai’s interview with the Tehran Times:

Q: As you know Barack Obama nominated the 21st century as the Asia century and that’s why he signed the TPP treaty. So, why is Donald Trump against the treaty?

A: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is basically a free Trade agreement involving 12 Pacific Rim countries excluding China. Apparently, the treaty aims to promote economic growth creation and retention of jobs, productivity and competitiveness, raise standard of living, reduce poverty, etc. Most importantly, it seeks to lower tariff and non-tariff barriers. The treaty was signed on 4th Feb 2016, but awaits ratification in concerned countries. Under President Obama’s administration America’s strategic pivot gradually shifted to East Asia from the Middle East. With treaties such as TPP, Obama sought to seek new defines and trade alliances for the U.S. on one hand and contain China by engaging with ambitious Asian powers on the other hand. In fact, Obama was keen on getting the TPP ratified in the lame duck session of the Congress, before his term in office comes to an end in January 2017. However, leaders from both the parties in the Congress refused to go ahead with the ratification process in the lame duck session and Trump announced that the U.S. would quit TPP on his first day as president. Trump has called the TPP as a “political disaster” and has gone ahead and said that while the NAFTA was the worst trade deal in history of America the TPP was even worse, posing the greatest danger yet to American jobs and prosperity. In fact throughout his presidential campaign Trump had consistently attacked the TPP and was not the only presidential candidate to do so.

The American working class believes that trade deals like TPP are designed to boost the profits of large corporations by outsourcing jobs and cutting down wages of American workers. Moreover TPP seeks to establish an investor state dispute settlement mechanism which would allow companies to sue governments that change policies to favour state provided services. Furthermore the Obama administration tried to push the agreement through Congress without much deliberation. All this had already created a lot of opposition toward the agreement among the working class Americans. Trump’s electoral voters are essentially white working class Americans from rural areas and industrial towns. In his election campaign Trump tried to align Clinton with the trade deal and projected himself as a proponent of the rights of American workers by opposing the TPP.

Q: Is Trump’s opposition to NAFTA and TPP an aversion to globalization of economy?

A: I believe Trump’s opposition to NAFTA and TPP is largely based on domestic considerations rather than global dynamics. NAFTA which was signed almost twenty years back turned out to be a disappointment and has been blamed for considerable environmental and economic problems including job loss in the U.S. There is a lot of displeasure among the American working class of how trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and TPP have robbed American workers of their jobs and forced them to compete with low-wage workers from around the world. The fact is that Corporations and Wall Street firms in America have unprecedented control over decision and policy making. These firms and corporations are powerful enough to shape, draft and even fast track laws, agreements through the congress to boost their profits. Over the years these corporate backed policies of successive American governments have irked American middle class and working class, who now feel that their interests stand neglected. Trump banked heavily on this sentiment of American voters in his election campaign. Withdrawing from TPP was one of the main pledges of his presidential campaign. Trump is a businessman he understands that globalization is here to stay and there is no escape from it. But by endorsing protectionist policies and opposing NAFTA and TPP Trump wants to exhibit to the American voter that he will put their interests and American interests first.

Q: Regarding the mutual economic dependency of the U.S. and China, how would you evaluate the future relationship between the two countries?
A: Trump’s recent comments and speeches have casted several doubts over the future of U.S.–China relations. China’s growth as the world’s second biggest economy and largest military have made it a necessary partner for the U.S. on various issues. China is among the top three trade partners of the U.S. Though Trump has been vocal of his apprehensions on a rising Chinese economy and has accused it of currency manipulation it cannot be denied that the U.S. and Chinese economics are highly dependent on each other.
The recent appointment of hardliners Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross to key positions testifies the fact that Trump intends to take drastic and dramatic steps to renegotiate trade deals. Both Navarro and Ross are known China critics and advocates of hard-line policies against China. Trump’s economic nationalism seemed to have hit the right chord with the American voters and on these lines one can expect that the Trump administration could resort to protectionist policies in dealing with China. The Obvious manifestations being increasing tariffs and taxes on Chinese goods as well as goods from other countries. Trump’s 7-point plan to rebuild American economy threaten to label China a currency manipulator and bring cases against it in the U.S. and at the WTO for unfair subsidy behaviour. But such drastic step could provoke China to reciprocate with similar actions resulting in a trade war which could be disastrous for both countries.

Q: Trump made a direct contact to the Taiwanese president. Many experts evaluated the move as a violation of the “One China policy”. What is your analysis?
A: On December 3 Donald Trump spoke to Taiwanese President Tsai-Ingwen and even proudly tweeted about it, sparking concern even criticism from various quarters. Trump is the first American president to directly talk to a Taiwanese president since 1979 when the U.S. broke all diplomatic relation with Taiwan. Over the years the U.S. has been selling military equipment to Taiwan but has not asserted or acknowledged Taiwan’s independence in an effort to avoid confrontation with China. China considers Taiwan as a renegade province which must be united with the mainland. For the people of China, Taiwan is not just a political issue but an emotive one. The Chinese consider the “One China Policy’’ as the very foundation of U.S. – China relation. It is therefore obvious that Trump’s direct contact with the Taiwanese president and his subsequent tweets have caused concern and attracted opposition from the Chinese government. Beijing has warned that such actions could prompt it to retaliate. Trump’s remarks that he does not want to be bound by One China Policy, however does not mean that he will actually abandon the policy.

Q: How do you evaluate the “Pivot to Asia” strategy during the Trump era?

A: President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” was a masterplan designed to contain China and to enhance USA’s role in Asia-pacific through defence-strategic and economic partnerships with Asian powers. There is a stark contrast between the personalities, approaches and attitudes of Obama and Trump and this will definitely reflect upon their domestic and foreign policies. While Obama was more political in his approach and intended to project himself as a humanitarian leader, Trump is more economic in his approach; he is a businessman who is not very concerned with humanitarian projection of himself. Trump’s statement that he wants allies to pay “fair share” for U.S. security guarantees indicates a clear shift from the previous administration’s stance. Any change in the “Pivot to Asia” policy would mean that most of the Asian powers who got involved in the game in the hope of security and trade benefits will be left in a lurch. It would also mean countries like Japan and South Korea would have to magnify their defence budgets as they will be mostly left to fend for themselves against North Korea’s threat. Trump and his advisors understand that a U.S. withdrawal from Asia-Pacific region would create room for increasing Chinese influence which they would not want. The Philippines and Malaysia’s growing proximity to China is already a matter of concern among Trump and his advisors. Therefore under Trump the “Pivot to Asia” policy would not be abandoned but it will be followed with new cynosures.