Today, Bill Whalen asks if US President Donald Trump is on the path to winning a Nobel Peace Prize. H.R. McMaster discusses the valuable US alliance with Australia with a former Australian national security adviser on Battlegrounds. And James O. Ellis Jr. and Steven Chu point out the glaring weakness in Taiwan’s energy security, making it vulnerable to a blockade by mainland forces.
Determining America’s Role in the World
Writing in Defining Ideas, Distinguished Policy Fellow Bill Whalen asks if President Trump is on the precipice of foreign policy wins in Ukraine and Gaza that would put him square in the category of US presidents deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize. With his new, shorter deadline for a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and mounting pressure on him to ease the emerging threat of starvation in the Gaza Strip, Whalen argues Trump is not that far away from achievements that should earn him the prize. Add on top of this the deal to end hostilities between the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and various other warring subnational factions. But as with all things involving America’s 45th and 47th president, Whalen says it’s not that simple. “Trump has already defied long odds by getting a second term in Washington,” Whalen writes. “But it might be too much for a handful of Scandinavians to elevate the man from ignoble to Nobel laureate.” Read more here.
On the latest episode of Battlegrounds, Senior Fellow H.R. McMaster speaks with Justin Bassi, director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and former national security advisor to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, about Australia’s crucial role in the Indo-Pacific region. Bassi and McMaster discuss how more recent internal debates are playing out within Australia regarding Trump administration policies, how we can promote a positive agenda to advance our mutual interests, and his views on the future of AUKUS—the alliance between Australia, the US, and the UK—to strengthen defense and promote a free and open Indo-Pacific. Watch or listen to the episode here.
Confronting and Competing with China
Writing in Foreign Affairs, Distinguished Visiting Fellow James O. Ellis Jr. and former Energy Secretary Steven Chu argue that Taiwan’s pivot away from nuclear power, underwhelming expansion of renewables, and heavy reliance on natural gas mean it is extremely vulnerable to a blockade by the People’s Republic of China. Making matters worse, the island nation cannot store more than a ten-day supply of gas on the island. “This reliance on energy imports could easily be exploited, especially by China, which has its eyes on unifying with Taiwan,” Ellis and Chu write. “The Chinese navy and coast guard routinely rehearse cutting off the island’s ports, including from energy tankers.” They cite polling that indicates the Taiwanese people are waking up to this fact but will likely need outside help to reinvigorate and diversify their domestic energy generation capabilities. Read more here. [Subscription required]
The Economy
Continuing his discussion with Maurice Obstfeld about the path of the international economic system, Senior Fellow Steven J. Davis takes this latest episode of Economics, Applied to entertain what might happen next to the global economic order. As it approaches a potential “fork in the road,” Obstfeld and Davis entertain what new disruptions to global trade, the US relationship with China, and the uncertain future of global institutions like the World Trade Organization will mean for the future of the international order. Obstfeld says the current US approach lacks an underlying goal, “is a chaotic procedure,” and is predicated on the notion that all of the existing US trading relationships were unfair. The current approach is both costly and difficult for business, but a reversal on tariffs would ease pressure on businesses. Watch or listen to the episode here.
California
In a new article for California on Your Mind, Senior Fellow Lee Ohanian chronicles all the missteps and failures that have led to the Federal Railroad Administration withdrawing $4 billion worth of federal grants to the beleaguered California high-speed rail project. First authorized by voters in 2008, the project has already spent more than $15 billion in funding and, so far, no track has been laid. The scope of the project has narrowed, and now only consists of a link between Merced and Bakersfield. “Lacking full funding, confirmed timelines, cost-effective budgets, and routes that are true to the original 2008 vision, the project has drifted over the last 17 years into an expensive albatross that realistically should not be continued, given the enormous importance of alternative public investments that are dearly needed, which include water storage and conveyance, repairing decaying K–12 schools, and upgrading the outdated electrical grid,” Ohanian writes. Read more here.
Related Commentary