Will Trump-induced fears cause Asian capital to flow back home?
unveiled sweeping 'reciprocal' tariffs on nearly all trading partners on April 2, Asia's economies have been at the top of investors' worry list. Concerns initially focused on Asia's acute vulnerability given that it accounts for seven of the 10 economies with the largest trade surpluses with the United States.
Advertisement
After Trump announced
a 90-day suspension of the levies on April 9, capital flows supplanted trade as the main cause for concern. Investors
betting on steep declines in Asian currencies amid the onslaught of protectionism missed the forest for the trees. Some of the most trade-reliant Asian economies have massive current account surpluses, part of which were recycled into overseas assets, especially US bonds.
Following the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, policymakers across the region decided that accumulating
large foreign currency reserves was a crucial prerequisite for financial stability. By 2007, the aggregate current account surplus of Asia's surplus economies – mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Singapore – had reached almost US$700 billion, up from nearly US$200 billion in 2000.
In 2005, then US Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke noted that Asian economies were saving more than they invested at home and had become a net supplier of capital to the rest of the world. The region's 'savings glut',
as Bernanke called it , was helping finance America's current account deficit. The former Fed chair questioned whether the imbalance between the US, which accounted for the bulk of global net capital imports, and Asia, which dominated global net lending, was sustainable.
By the end of last year, Asian investors – both official sovereign investors, such as central banks, and private ones, like insurance companies – accounted for 45 per cent of
foreign holdings of US Treasury bonds . They also accounted for 55 per cent of foreign holdings of debt issued by a US government department or government-sponsored enterprise and nearly 20 per cent of foreign holdings of US stocks, according to data from Societe Generale.
Advertisement
Yet
Trump's return to the White House has cast doubt over the status of the US as a safe haven. In addition to the ruinous trade policies, Trump's reckless
tax cuts and spending legislation – projected to add at least US$3 trillion to America's already ballooning public debt in the next decade – is putting US assets under strain and endangering the country's creditworthiness.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
2 minutes ago
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong's policy change for children of non-local talent ‘to ensure fairness'
Hong Kong's plans to impose a required residency period for children of non-local talent before they can apply for subsidised tertiary education is part of efforts to ensure fairness and the reasonable use of public funds, a minister has said. Advertisement Secretary for Education Christine Choi Yuk-lin on Saturday defended the coming policy change, noting the number of relevant applications had increased fivefold between 2022 and last year. In a bid to provide a transition period, the policy will initially require such dependants to have lived in Hong Kong for at least one year before they can apply in the 2027-28 academic year as local students and receive reduced fees. The threshold will then be increased to two years for 2028-29 applications. 'Everyone is naturally concerned about a small number of individuals – dependants of talent scheme arrivals who may have never lived in Hong Kong but have completed their secondary education exams in mainland China or elsewhere as private candidates,' she told a radio programme. Advertisement 'They then use their [Diploma of Secondary Education] results and their local resident status to apply for subsidised university places at our government-funded tertiary institutions at local students' fees.'
AllAfrica
2 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Trump takes step back from Philippines in South China Sea
Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr's recent visit to the White House promised to set a new tone for US strategy. The contrast with the Biden administration was vivid: President Donald Trump mostly discussed trade with Marcos and seemed eager to downplay any militarized rivalry with China. It's an encouraging pivot from the Biden administration's approach, which escalated the US-China rivalry. Last year, President Joe Biden was focused on the so-called 'latticework' of alliances in the Asia-Pacific, holding a trilateral summit with both Marcos and Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba of Japan. The rather clear intention was to balance and even contain China's rise. By contrast, while Trump did briefly praise the ongoing military exercises between the US and the Philippines, there was no mention of the trilateral initiatives with Japan. Instead, Trump seemed eager to tamp down the US-China rivalry, at least in the Philippines context. There was only minimal discussion of tensions in the South China Sea and these came at the behest of Marcos. Trump reportedly 'professed that he didn't mind if the Philippines got along with China.' Such a clear effort to defuse the US-China rivalry could simply reflect Trump's desire to secure a near-term summit with Chinese leader President Xi Jinping. However, it might also reflect the new realism that's taken hold in his administration, one that favors a 'spheres of influence approach' to global affairs over the neoliberal paradigm promoted by the Biden administration. Under Biden, the US was focused on safeguarding freedom of navigation and the law of the sea, a strategy that risked near-term escalation with China over meaningless rocks and reefs and fishing disputes. The Philippines has been increasing its maritime capabilities, but it has little prospect of matching China frigate for frigate or cutter for cutter in those sensitive sea areas. In fact, when Marcos did mention 'international law' and alluded to a country—plainly China—'that has intentions of unilaterally changing the world order,' Trump pointedly refused to respond in kind. Instead, he immediately pivoted to the importance of positive US-China relations, saying, 'we're getting along with China really well.' Trump also emphasized the crucial rare earth magnets exported by China and needed across many US industries, which are 'coming out now… in record numbers.' In this White House, it seems geoeconomics trumps geopolitics. When Marcos again brought up the volatile South China Sea situation while discussing Philippines military modernization, Trump changed the topic to terrorism. 'Don't forget… Philippines were loaded up with ISIS and lots of terrorists,' he said, adding, 'we spent a lot of time and a lot of talent on going into the Philippines and wiping out terrorists.' Trump went so far as to claim that 'During my [first] administration… we got [the terrorists] out, and now you really have a good solid country again.' It's worth pointing out that China also assisted the Philippines in this recent and bloody fight against terrorism, according to Manila. Trump further hinted at the White House's new focus on spheres of influence when he explained, 'And the [Philippines] was maybe tilting toward China, but we un-tilted it very, very quickly.' While realists will welcome the diminishing likelihood of a US-China war developing over rocks and reefs, an even more dangerous conflict still lurks. The situation in the Taiwan Strait—often tense—has become a powder keg waiting to explode, maybe even in the near term. Here Trump seems much more cavalier. When asked by a reporter about 'the ammunitions hub that the US plans to build in Subic and the Luzon corridor' of the Philippines, Trump remarked that 'we'll have more ammunition than any country has ever had.' The Philippines is a mere couple of hundred miles south of Taiwan and many US strategists are fixated on the country as a means of deterring or countering a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. If it comes to war in the Taiwan Strait, losses would be enormous on both sides. An authoritative wargame by the Center for Strategic and International Studies a couple of years ago said the US would likely lose two aircraft carriers in the first week of such a war and that's to say nothing of the real potential for nuclear escalation. Nor is the Philippines likely to make a major difference in such a war, since its armed forces are weak and it would likely be attacked by China if it becomes involved in the conflict. Trump is wise to play down the South China Sea conflict and focus on trade and counterterrorism with the Philippines. Wiser still would be a recognition that a spheres of influence approach should seek to detach the Philippines' future from the fate of Taiwan. Lyle Goldstein is director of Asia engagement at Defense Priorities.
AllAfrica
2 hours ago
- AllAfrica
US willfully ceding the energy innovation race to China
During the Cold War, the US and Soviet Union were locked in a desperate race to develop cutting‑edge technologies like long-range missiles and satellites. Fast forward to today and the frontiers of global technology have pivoted to AI and next‑generation energy. In one domain, AI, the US has far outpaced any other nation – though China looks to be closing the gap. In the other, energy, it has just tied its shoelaces together. The reason isn't technology, economics or, despite the government's official line, even national security. Rather, it is politics. Since returning to the White House in January, Donald Trump has handed out huge wins to the coal and oil and gas industries. This is no great surprise. Trump has long been supportive of the US fossil fuel industry and, since his reelection, has appointed several former industry lobbyists to top political positions. According to the Trump administration, national security requires gutting support for renewable energy while performing political CPR on the dying coal industry. The reality is that, since 2019, the US has produced more oil, gas and coal annually than Americans want to use, with the rest exported and sold overseas. It is currently one of the most prolific exporters of fossil fuels in the world. In short, the US does not have an energy security problem. It does, however, have an energy cost problem combined with a growing climate change crisis. These issues will only be made worse by Trump's enthusiasm for fossil fuels. Over the past six months, the Trump administration has upended half a decade of green industrial policy. It has clawed back billions of US dollars in tax credits and grants that were supercharging American energy innovation. Meanwhile, China has roared forward. Beijing has doubled down on wind, solar and next‑generation batteries, installing more wind and solar power in 2024 than the rest of the world combined. To China's delight, the US has simply stopped competing to be the world's clean energy powerhouse. Roughly one-in-five lithium‑ion batteries, a key component in clean energy products, are made in China. Many of the newest high‑tech batteries are also being developed and patented there. While Trump repeats the tired mantra of 'drill, baby, drill', China is building factories, cornering the market for critical minerals such as lithium and nickel, and locking in export partners. At the same time, household energy spending in the US is expected to increase by $170 each year between now and 2035 as a result of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The bill, which includes sweeping changes to taxes, social security and more, will raise energy costs mainly because it strips away support for cheap and abundant renewables like wind and solar. Household energy costs could go up even more as Trump threatens to make large‑scale clean energy development much more onerous by putting up bureaucratic hurdles. The administration recently issued a directive requiring the Secretary of the Interior to approve even routine activities for wind and solar projects connected to federal lands. Meanwhile, climate change is hitting American communities harder with each passing year. As recent flooding in Texas and urban fires in California and Hawaii have shown, fewer Americans still have the luxury of ignoring climate change. As the cost of these disasters mount – $183 billion in 2024 – the grifting of the oil and gas industry will become an increasingly bitter pill for the nation to swallow. China, with its authoritarian government, is less susceptible to the petroleum-obsessed dogma fueling the Republican party. It does not have prominent leaders like US politician Marjorie Taylor Greene, who previously warned that Democrats are trying to 'emasculate the way we drive' by advocating for electric vehicles. Rather, China's leaders are seeing green – not in the environmental sense, but in a monetary one. It is generally cheaper nowadays to build and operate renewable energy facilities than gas or coal power stations. According to a June 2025 report by Lazard, an asset management company, electricity from new large-scale solar farms costs up to $78 per megawatt hour – and often much less. The same electricity from a newly built natural gas plants, by comparison, can cost as much as $107 per megawatt hour. Across the world, utilities are embracing clean energy, choosing lower costs for their customers while reducing pollution. China saw the writing on the wall decades ago, and its early investments are bearing a rich harvest. It now produces more than half of the world's electric vehicles and the vast majority of its solar panels. The US can still compete at the leading edge of the energy sector. American companies are developing innovative new approaches to geothermal, battery recycling and many other energy technologies. But in the battle to become the world's 21st-century energy manufacturing powerhouse, the US seems to have walked off the playing field. In Trump's telling, the US may have simply exited one race and reentered another. But the fossil fuel industry – financially, environmentally and ethically – is obviously a dead end. Stephen Lezak is program manager at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
