A Schoolyard Lesson for the World’s Leaders

Donald Trump sometimes reminds me of a class bully I encountered when I was in Remove Class, transitioning to Form One at Muar High School.

I was a reasonably good-looking young fellow and perhaps a little too scholarly for the liking of some of my classmates. Among them was a boy whom the others nicknamed “Black Skin” because of his darker complexion — a nickname that would rightly be regarded as derogatory today.

He was rather stoutly built and, for reasons I never quite understood, seemed to enjoy picking on me. Most of the time, I simply avoided him.

Until one day.

He tried to muscle me physically. This time I resisted — and somehow ended up pinning him down completely.

Something changed after that encounter.

He never tried to bully me again. Indeed, from then on, he treated me with a great degree of respect. Once he realised that the boy he had been pushing around could stand up for himself, he kowtowed.

Watching Donald Trump deal with China sometimes brings that childhood episode back to mind.

For years, Trump approached China with tariffs, threats and the language of pressure, apparently confident that sufficient economic force would eventually compel Beijing to yield.

But China is not a small boy in a schoolyard.

It possesses enormous industrial capacity, a vast domestic market, formidable technological capabilities and considerable control over strategically indispensable rare earths. When China denied supplies of materials on which advanced industries depend, Washington suddenly discovered that economic coercion is not a one-way street. Very compartmentalised thinking indeed.

Perhaps the lesson of the schoolyard applies even among great powers: intimidation works best when the other fellow does not — or cannot — push back.

China has demonstrated that it can and it will.

I strongly believe Trump has recognised that dealing with Xi Jinping has to be different, but whether he will change his style with others remains to be seen. I suspect, however, that a leopard cannot change its spots. 

The Men Trump Appears to Respect
There are only two other leaders towards whom Trump has repeatedly shown an unusual degree of personal respect: Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.

Why?

Perhaps because neither can be intimidated by Trump.

Putin projects macho-ness (machismo?), which Trump lacks but admires. Kim’s entire posture towards the US has effectively been this: Push us and we will nuke you!

Trump appears to understand strength much more readily than restraint.

That brings me to Canada’s Mark Carney.

Carney is brilliant and sophisticated. He is exceptionally well educated. But those qualities do not necessarily carry much weight with someone who conducts international relations as a contest of leverage. Carney initially appeared determined to remain measured and statesmanlike even while relations with Washington deteriorated.

However, after Trump’s rebuff, Carney has more recently begun speaking more firmly and looking increasingly towards Europe and other partners.

Perhaps Carney is learning the schoolyard lesson too: courtesy with Trump cuts little ice. One has to stand up to him, especially when one has considerable leverage too. If he shows Trump his middle finger, I believe Trump will respect him more.

No Agreement Holds Good Under Trump
The world knows this: an agreement with Trump does not represent the end of the matter.

Positions can change. Tariffs can be announced, suspended, modified and reintroduced. An understanding reached today may encounter a completely different political calculation tomorrow.

And around Trump are officials who often reinforce rather than moderate his vacillating economic instincts.

Treasury Secretary Auntie Bessent and Commerce Secretary, hitherto Epstein-pal Howard Lutnick, are par excellence on this front. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is one who does not have a mind of his own; he will do things at the bidding of Bessent or Lutnick, regardless of what Trump has agreed. A typical clueless attack dog.

Pete Hegseth, the War Secretary, executes whatever Trump demands, again regardless of his understanding — or lack of it — of the situation.

Whatever one thinks of these men, foreign leaders would be foolish to assume that a pleasant conversation with Trump alone settles anything.

They must deal not merely with Trump the man, but with Trumpism as a system.

Xi and Trump
Xi Jinping understands this very well.

His recent visit to Washington was remarkable not because of whatever agreements were — or were not — reached; it was the first time Trump was acknowledging that China was the US’s equal in the world.

Their political systems are radically different, and each has his critics. But purely in terms of presentation, the contrast was striking.

People watching them could draw their own conclusions as to which style appeared more composed.

Even the appearances of the two First Ladies added to the visual contrast of the occasion. One is supremely elegant, the other fashion-conscious.

The greater lesson, however, was not about manners or appearances.

It was about principles and respect, besides mere leverage.

Trump could impose pressure on China. China could impose pressure in return. That’s leverage.

As for principles and respect, it is about one’s preparedness to stand up to the bully.

And that will change everything.

Iran - the need for a fait accompli. 

In international politics, once an adversary has created an irreversible fact on the ground, everybody else eventually has to accept it.

There is a Chinese expression conveying roughly this idea: the rice is already cooked.

A fait accompli.

The US is forever practising double standards. We all know Israel has had nuclear weapons and, under Benjamin Netanyahu, is completely comfortable with the idea of using them. But the US and Israel are determined to deny Iran that capability — without giving Iran and the rest of the Arab world any form of guarantee. Naturally, Iran is anxious to have that capability too.

Given the US stance, Iran should race against the clock to acquire the capability. North Korea should be more than willing to give them a hand.

Once that capability is achieved, you can rest assured that the US will back off or beg you to return to the negotiating table. Period.

Again, I repeat: the US only respects might. And let's face it. Are Iran's ayatollahs more dangerous than Israel's Netanyahu? 

As for the rest of the World…
The broader problem is that most world leaders are politicians first.

They may be clever. They may even be shrewd. But relatively few appear philosophically grounded enough to think beyond the next election, the next opinion poll or the next news cycle.

Many describe their policies as strategic when their time horizons are remarkably short.

Countries caught between China and the US consequently perform an extraordinary balancing act.

Some hedge. Some choose sides. Some try to do both simultaneously.

Japan under Sanae Takaichi and the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos Jr. have moved towards particularly close security relationships with Washington. They keep forgetting that they are China’s immediate neighbours.

Any Asian country constructing its foreign policy primarily around the assumption of permanent confrontation with an immediate neighbour like China is simply stupid.

In particular, Taiwan
Taiwan’s Lai Ching-te despises his Chinese roots. He thinks all Taiwanese should discard theirs too.

Political systems are not the be-all and end-all; nationhood is. Taiwanese are Chinese and Taiwan is China’s. Trump has shown that he is not their saviour. Blood is thicker than water; it is time to happily return to China’s fold. China has said this many times – it is all prepared to let them have a different political system.

If the Taiwan question were ever settled peacefully, one of the most dangerous potential flashpoints in the Western Pacific would disappear. The economic possibilities for the region would be enormous.

And the silly Europe…
Europe has its own fundamental choices to make.

Europe chose to renege on its undertaking not to expand NATO, and this has resulted in Russia invading Ukraine. And this has destroyed much of the earlier economic relationship between Europe and Russia, including Europe’s access to large quantities of relatively cheap Russian energy, and thus its competitiveness.

Europe now has to decide what kind of continent it wishes to become.

Does it continue indefinitely with the security architecture created after the Second World War and expanded after the Cold War?

Or, over the very long term, does it attempt to create a European security order capable of accommodating both Western Europe and Russia?

Considering Russia as a perpetual military threat is a construct of the US and leaders like Ursula von der Leyen. It is time to contain NATO. Putin has made himself very clear on this point.

Europe must eventually decide what political, economic and security architecture best serves Europeans.

That requires leadership with imagination — not merely bureaucratic management.

As for the rest of the world, you need to elect leaders who genuinely care for you — not the rent-seekers you often see in your world, or pseudo-nationalists who do not understand the concept of Comparative Advantage in Economics!

The Schoolyard Lesson
Which brings me back to that classroom in Muar.

International politics is, many a time, literally a schoolyard. Leaders behave like children, but war between great powers is infinitely more consequential than a scuffle between two schoolboys.

The wisest leader does not go around looking for fights, but neither should he spend his life running away from the bully.

Statesmanship requires judgment, courage and determination — knowing when to compromise, when to stand firm and, most importantly, understanding the difference.

But above all, principles and respect must prevail.

Can Trump learn this?

I doubt it.

End