Asia-Pacific is the priority area for the United States due to China's rapid growth

Donald Trump, President of the United States, met with Xi Jinping, President of China, in South Korea during the summit of leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), at a key global moment due to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

José María Peredo, expert analyst, author of the book ‘Esto no va de Trump’ (This is not about Trump), contributor to Atalayar and professor of International Relations and Communication at the European University of Madrid, analysed the latest actions of the US president on Onda Madrid's programme ‘De cara al mundo’, offering the main keys to understanding them and the global position of the United States.

US President Donald Trump's meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, also taking advantage of the opportunity to tour Asia to participate in a summit of leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). I think it's a way of taking into account his interests in that area, which are many, and also compensating, if we can say so.

Yes, first and foremost, Asia and the Asia-Pacific region in particular, as this has been the priority area for the United States for ten years and very clearly in recent years, even though it might not seem so, because its political involvement and support in Gaza and its involvement, of course, also political and even military, in the war in Ukraine can sometimes cause it to lose focus. The United States is very interested in Asia.

The United States is naturally interested in different regions globally, in all of them, but its priority region is Asia, because of its importance, because of the emergence of China, because China is now a competitor that rivals the United States absolutely, especially in that region. That's the first thing. So the summit or meeting with Xi Jinping is of the utmost importance, first because relations with China are relations of rivalry, not enmity. 

This must be taken into account and clarified. China is not an enemy, China is a rival, and for the United States, that is how it is. So that rivalry can also lead to some areas of cooperation. 

Those areas of cooperation may also include, and here I open the dialogue, pressure for a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine. Who knows? 

In addition, we must take into account the ups and downs of this relationship. On the one hand, there are new tariffs, and very high tariffs at that. However, then there is an agreement for TikTok to continue operating. There are all the suspicions about Huawei, but there is also the whole issue of cooperation on rare earths, which are needed so that Americans can also manufacture computers, mobile phones, and so on. In short, it is a rivalry that goes beyond the military issue, as we saw with that famous parade by China a few days ago, because above all there is the economic, commercial and technological issue, which is what is at stake. 

China's ideal world would be for the United States to be out of the eastern coast of Asia in terms of security. That barrier between Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. 

We cannot forget Taiwan, of course.

And, of course, at the same time, that the United States would not leave in economic terms, because there are obviously economic, commercial and technological development interdependencies... In short, a very high percentage of the world is in Asia, obviously, and issues of technological development, technological production and resources are also fundamentally debated there. The summit of the ASEAN countries, an organisation that is the heir to the liberal order, created during the liberal order, is important. Some doomsayers have pointed out that this liberal order is over, but this is not the case. 

It is not over because, fortunately, there are still organisations and bodies where we continue to understand each other and move forward thanks to that spirit of interdependence and that spirit of global understanding that the liberal order has promoted. 

And then there is Brazil, there is Lula da Silva. 

We must also take into account another important figure in this environment, which I will not call multilateral, because that word is now very much out of use, but rather multipolar.

What we in Europe must also be aware of is that we must not only observe from Europe, but we must observe in order to adapt to this new situation and this new environment in which we live, but which is still undergoing transformation, where we have apparently lost our leading role, but economically we continue to play an extraordinary role, and Europe must be aware that in order to enter into these dialogues, at the summit in China, in the United States, it must fundamentally be a cohesive power, it must be a power with security capabilities, it must be a naturally multilateral power with different states with economic order, not with this series of disruptive forces that, on the extreme right and, above all, on the extreme left, seek to undo what has been built with such difficulty over decades.

Yes, Europe must stop being a bit of a henhouse. We saw this at the last summit on Ukraine: there is no agreement to use the frozen Russian funds, Zelensky is supported, Europe is still there, yes, but no. And, with regard to Russia, do you think Putin is toying with Trump, because there is talk of a meeting in Budapest, then it is postponed. Let's see what happens. Perhaps Putin is much more complicated than Trump thought. 

Than Trump thought, that's for sure, but we all knew that, yes, absolutely. It seems that the only one who didn't know was Donald Trump, but that's how it was.

Let's say that, as you have explained, the light of Gaza is overshadowed by the failure to achieve that meeting and those advances with Putin to end the war in Ukraine. It may be a political and negotiating tactic by the Russians, who are also very skilled, both at entering into conflicts and at getting out of them in a negotiated manner, always attentive to any circumstance. in this case, just after achieving a ceasefire in Gaza, immediately sitting down with Putin, because in terms of Donald Trump's international image, on the one hand, it would have been strengthened, and Russia's, on the other hand, which would have said exactly what Trump says, then perhaps that is strictly a tactical move to find, that is one possibility, another is that, in fact, there are negotiating tables where there is not enough agreement, because Putin, in order to be able to sit at a table, has to achieve something, let's say, after having provoked a war of so many years and with thousands of victims from his own country and army. 

This is a dilemma that the Russian president finds himself in at the moment, which he has to resolve.

Furthermore, what Putin has done is respond, it would be a very serious escalation and we would respond with a very strong impact if Tomahawk cruise missiles were used, perhaps that type of deterrent or threat in Russia has had a response, or perhaps Putin's hand does not tremble so much in the face of this type of deterrent.

I believe that it is obviously Russia's reaction to respond forcefully to threats and in proportion to the threats it considers itself to be under. This is very much in line with the long-standing strategy of the Soviet Union and now Russia, as well as pushing things to the limit.

I would say that this is one part of it. I am not going to sit back and let it appear that the missiles or the increase in weapons have weakened me. that may be another argument, but I would say that the issue is a matter of negotiation over how far I am willing to concede, bearing in mind that at this point, once American and European support has been reaffirmed, there is not going to be a Russian victory, and this is a problem for Putin and his government.

We have mentioned the ceasefire in Gaza. Trump is putting all his eggs in one basket because he has sent his Vice-President J. D. Vance, as well as his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, especially with what I believe to be provocation by some groups in the Israeli Parliament to debate the possibility of annexing the West Bank, which the United States has already said it will not allow under any circumstances.

Firstly, Trump's policy on this ceasefire must be seen as a success, without forgetting any of the victims, especially the civilians, the children and the young Israelis who were also affected by the initial Hamas attack. Obviously, it is a success to have achieved a ceasefire and to move forward with that decision.

The United States' prominence and leadership capacity is growing significantly, especially in this world of rivalry and competition between powers. That is the first issue.

The second issue is the Israeli Parliament. Obviously, one of the steps that should be taken, and which depends on no one else but Israeli society, is for there to be a different trend in the Israeli Parliament from the trend towards polarisation of the extreme right-wing and ultra-religious extremist parties that have conditioned and determined Netanyahu's government, although Netanyahu is primarily responsible for the decisions, but which have conditioned him. The idea of annexing the West Bank is now on the table, and naturally this reminds us of the constant influx of settlers and the unilateral creation of settlements by Israel, which has been taking place during various Netanyahu governments and, specifically, under pressure from these extremist groups. This has undermined any attempt at negotiation for several years.

So, clearly, there is a divide in Israeli society, as there is in other societies, and there is a need for Israeli society to be aware that a broad consensus is needed in order to move forward with negotiations and peace.

One last question: the demonstrations against Trump a few days ago in numerous American cities. 

The divide exists and polarisation continues, and the ‘Trumpist’ or ‘MAGA’ movement and the anti-Trumpists remain at odds and active in every area, in every situation and on every issue. On immigration, in the alternative media and militant activism, on the one hand, and on the other, on issues of the utmost daily importance. So, that polarised culture war continues.

If we compare it to Trump's first term in office, the situation at the moment is not that it is better and magnificent, but Donald Trump's experience undoubtedly seems to bring stability to the government. The first term was a mess of changes, and now there is a stable government. With majorities in both houses of Congress, until the midterm elections take place, it seems that these demonstrations today do not have as much force as they did some time ago. But we must also consider that we have elections in a year's time and how the Democrats will manage that expectation.

Whether they handle it sensibly or by activating the streets, which they have also done on some occasions and which has also had consequences, naturally, in the political and public arena