Military Solution Unpopular in Vietnam for South China Sea Disputes


Vietnamese and Chinese leaders Nguyen Phu Trong and Xi Jinping at a tea party given by Xi in Trong’s honor. Photo: Xinhua

Vietnamese and Chinese leaders Nguyen Phu Trong and Xi Jinping at a tea party given by Xi in Trong’s honor. Photo: Xinhua

Reuters says in its report “China and Vietnam to ‘manage’ differences over South China Sea: communiqué”, “China and Vietnam pledged on Saturday to manage their differences and safeguard peace in the South China Sea, in a joint communique issued during a visit to China by Vietnamese Communist Party chief Nguyen Phu Trong.”

In addition, “In the joint communique on Saturday the two sides agreed to continue to ‘fully and effectively’ implement the Declaration on the Conduct (DOC) of Parties in the South China Sea and strive for the early conclusion of a Code of Conduct (COC) on the basis of consensus in the framework of the DOC.”

The DOC already signed by China and ASEAN and the COC to be finalized and signed are aimed at peaceful solution of disputes in the South China Sea. It proves China’s success in subduing the enemy with diplomacy.

It has won over the Philippines and the victory of Nguyen Phu Trong’s détente faction in Vietnamese communist party’s election over the hardline faction that caused standoff in the South China Sea over China’s drilling rig there proves peaceful solution is much more popular even in Vietnam.

That is especially true as Vietnam talked up in public statements its traditional friendship with China in spite of the fresh memory of China’s war with Vietnam in 1979. Vietnam’s military build-up mentioned in Reuters’ report proves the memory of the war is indeed fresh in Vietnamese people’s mind. Still they prefer peace and have been won over by China’s peaceful diplomacy.

Now only the US wants to subdue others with war, but as military solution is unpopular in the world, the US has failed to get ASEAN’s support for its confrontation with China in the South China Sea.

Poor United States, it goes nowhere in the South China Sea in spite of its strongest military because it has the weakest diplomacy.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Reuters’ report, full text of which is reblogged below:

China and Vietnam to ‘manage’ differences over South China Sea: communique

China and Vietnam pledged on Saturday to manage their differences and safeguard peace in the South China Sea, in a joint communique issued during a visit to China by Vietnamese Communist Party chief Nguyen Phu Trong.

After “candid” discussions, the two countries agreed to “manage well their maritime difference, avoid actions that complicate the situation and escalate tensions, and safeguard the peace and stability of the South China Sea”, said the communique published in full by China’s state news agency Xinhua.

China claims almost all of the South China Sea, where about $5 trillion worth of sea-borne trade passes every year. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan, in addition to Vietnam, also have claims in the sea, believed to have rich deposits of oil and gas.

In public statements, Chinese and Vietnamese leaders regularly talk up their common interests as “traditional” friends and neighbours, but conflicting claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea have become a major source of tension in recent years.

In the joint communique on Saturday the two sides agreed to continue to “fully and effectively” implement the Declaration on the Conduct (DOC) of Parties in the South China Sea and strive for the early conclusion of a Code of Conduct (COC) on the basis of consensus in the framework of the DOC.

In September, Chinese President Xi Jinping told Vietnam’s visiting prime minister their common interests far outweighed their differences, and called for their dispute in the South China Sea to be resolved through talks.

Vietnam is in the midst of a quiet military build-up which analysts say is designed as a deterrent, to secure its 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, as China grows more assertive in staking its claims in the South China Sea.

(Reporting by John Ruwitch; Editing by Andrew Bolton)


Subduing the Enemy with Diplomacy Better than with War


A scarecrow stands guard at a Russian post along Russia-Chinese border post

A scarecrow stands guard at a Russian border post along Russia-Chinese border. Huanqiu.com photo

ABC News published an article titled “Analysis: Russia’s Far East Turning Chinese” on flood of Chinese immigration into Russia’s Far East.

Russia and China have a long history of hostility. The article says, “Russia took the territory in 1858 and 1860 with the Treaties of Aigun and Peking, respectively. Of all of the unequal treaties forced upon the Qing dynasty by outside powers in the 19th century, these are the only two China has not managed to overcome. China and Russia signed a border agreement in 1999, but the Beijing government has never formally accepted the Aigun and Peking treaties.”

The article describes Russia’s worry about Chinese illegal immigration into Russia’s Far East. In fact, those who know the history of Chinese immigration do not worry. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Chinese immigrants flooded Southeast Asia. They now dominate the economy of some countries there but have never turned those countries Chinese. Singapore people are more than 80% ethnic Chinese, but they are pro-America instead of pro-China.

However, there is indeed danger of war as lots of Chinese want a war with Russia to recover the 2 million square km of land in Russia’s Far East that China ceded to Russia under the two treaties mentioned in ABC News’ article.

Thanks to Obama, the war will be prevented as due to Obama’s pressure to contain both Russia and China, the two countries’ wise leaders have turned the two countries into good friends and indeed de facto allies with diplomacy that makes them strong enough to subdue the US with joint force.

Moreover, the diplomacy of win-win cooperation has turned potential enemies into good friends.

China follows its gifted strategist Sun Tzu’s teaching that subduing the enemy with diplomacy is better than with war. Putin seems also to have such wisdom. The two countries both turn a blind eye to the illegal immigration.

In fact Putin wants China to cooperate with it in developing Russia’s Far East as no Russians want to go there but Chinese people are fond of going there. Putin adopts the policy of allowing Chinese immigrants who have married Russian to naturalize. That will be good win-win cooperation.

Now, Putin has removed Russian border guards along Russian border with China in Russia’s Far East to allow Chinese immigrants free entry. The photo on top shows that a scarecrow is guarding the border at a border post.

Subduing the enemy with diplomacy is better than with war! Putin and Xi Jinping know that but Obama does not. I hope Trump does.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on ABC News’ article, full text of which can be viewed at http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82969&page=1.


US Strengthens Russia- China De Facto Military Alliance


FILE PHOTO - A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched during a successful intercept test, in this undated handout photo provided by the U.S. Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency. U.S. Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency/Handout via Reuters/File Photo

A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched during a successful intercept test, in this undated handout photo provided by the U.S. Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency. U.S. Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency/Handout via Reuters/File Photo

Reuters says in its report today, “China and Russia have agreed to take further unspecified ‘countermeasures’ in response to a U.S. plan to deploy an anti-missile system in South Korea, state news agency Xinhua reported on Friday.”

In spite of US claim that the anti-missile system THAAD is not installed to deal with China and Russia, China and Russia are unhappy as the system can indeed intercept the missiles within quite a large area covered by the system in Russia and China.

Therefore US deployment of the system gives China and Russia incentive to strengthen their military cooperation.

Perhaps, the US really wants to deploy the system to intercept Chinese and Russian missiles, but diplomatically is the deployment wise by strengthening Russia-China military cooperation?

It seems that US strategists are ignorant that subduing the enemy with diplomacy is better than with fighting.

Do they hope that in a war between the US and one of the two de facto allies, the other joins the war to fight the US?

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Reuters’ report “China, Russia agree on more ‘countermeasures’ against U.S. anti-missile system: Xinhua”, full text of which is reblogged below:

China, Russia agree on more ‘countermeasures’ against U.S. anti-missile system: Xinhua

China and Russia have agreed to take further unspecified “countermeasures” in response to a U.S. plan to deploy an anti-missile system in South Korea, state news agency Xinhua reported on Friday.

The countermeasures “will be aimed at safeguarding interests of China and Russia and the strategic balance in the region”, Xinhua said, citing a statement released after a China-Russia security meeting.

China and Russia held a joint anti-missile drill last May after Washington and Seoul began discussions over installing the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to counter any North Korean threats.

THAAD is now due to be deployed on a South Korean golf course, unsettling Moscow and Beijing, which worry that the system’s powerful radar will compromise their security and do nothing to lower tensions on the Korean peninsula.

China and Russia said in October they would hold a second drill this year.

“China and Russia urged the United States and South Korea to address their security concerns and stop the deployment of THAAD on the Korean Peninsula,” Xinhua quoted the statement as saying.

North Korea’s drive to develop nuclear weapons capability has angered China, Pyongyang’s sole major diplomatic and economic supporter. However, Beijing fears THAAD and its radar have a range that would extend into China.

On Thursday, South Korea’s trade minister said the South might complain to China about actions perceived to have been taken in retaliation for its decision to deploy the U.S. anti-missile system.

(Reporting by Brenda Goh; Editing by Paul Tait)

Note: This is Reuters report I reblog here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.


Count Your Wallet before You Bet


Nigeria's President Muhammadu Buhari greets China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi (C) and Chinese Ambassador to Nigeria Zhou Pingjian during their visit to the Presidential Villa in Abuja, Nigeria January 11, 2017. REUTERS/ Stringer

Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari greets China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi (C) and Chinese Ambassador to Nigeria Zhou Pingjian during their visit to the Presidential Villa in Abuja, Nigeria January 11, 2017. REUTERS/ Stringer

In its report “Nigeria trims ties with Taiwan as it courts China”, Reuters says, “Taiwan objected on Thursday to an ‘unreasonable’ Nigerian request to move its representative office out of the capital Abuja, a day after China announced plans to invest a further $40 billion in the African country.”

Obviously, China is using its huge financial resources to put diplomatic pressure on Taiwan.

Reasonable or unreasonable, China has the financial resources to do so while Taiwan does not have the financial resources to fight back.

US president-elect Donald Trump seems willing to help Taiwan, but being heavily in debt, does the US has the resources to counter that?

Count your wallet before you bet!

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Reuters’ report, full text of which is reblogged below:

Nigeria trims ties with Taiwan as it courts China

Taiwan objected on Thursday to an “unreasonable” Nigerian request to move its representative office out of the capital Abuja, a day after China announced plans to invest a further $40 billion in the African country.

The protest highlighted Taiwan’s frustration with Beijing’s use of diplomatic and economic power to isolate it internationally. Taiwan’s foreign ministry said it had been asked to move the office, which handles business affairs, to the former capital Lagos.

It urged Nigeria to reconsider, saying: “The foreign ministry seriously objects and condemns the unreasonable actions by the Nigerian government.”

Beijing regards Taiwan as a renegade province, ineligible for state-to-state relations and to be taken back by force if necessary. The sensitivity of the issue was underlined last month when China protested after U.S. President-elect Donald Trump accepted a congratulatory phone call from the president of the island.

On Wednesday, after meeting his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Abuja, Nigerian Foreign Minister Geoffrey Onyeama was quoted by state news agency NAN as saying: “Taiwan will not have any diplomatic representation in Nigeria and also they will be moving to Lagos, to the extent that they function as a trade mission with a skeletal staff.”

NAN quoted Wang as saying China planned to invest $40 billion in Nigeria, in addition to current projects already worth more than that amount.

A statement on the Chinese foreign ministry’s website said the two sides had agreed to stick to Beijing’s “one China” policy, that Taiwan is a part of China.

Nigeria’s presidency issued a statement on Thursday in which it said media reports that Nigeria had cut ties with Taiwan were incorrect.

“The correct position is that the official relationship between Nigeria and Taiwan has been at the level of trade representation and this has not changed from what it used to be,” said a statement by the president’s spokesman, Garba Shehu.

The emailed statement did not refer to Taiwan being asked to move its Abuja office.

Taiwan has 21 formal allies, only two in Africa. Last month, former African ally Sao Tome switched its diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China.

In countries with which Taiwan has no formal diplomatic relations it often sets up trade and commerce offices, in capitals and major cities.

While economic ties between the mainland and Taiwan have grown considerably in recent years, their relations have worsened since Tsai Ing-wen, who heads a pro-independence party, was elected president of the island last year.

(Reporting by Damon Lin and J.R. Wu; Additional reporting by Paul Carsten and Felix Onuah in Abuja; Editing by Ralph Boulton)

Note: This is Reuters report I reblog here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.


Not Trade War but Real War between US and China


Rex Tillerson, former chairman and chief executive officer of Exxon Mobil, is seated prior to testifying before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing on his nomination to be U.S. secretary of state, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. January 11, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Rex Tillerson, former chairman and chief executive officer of Exxon Mobil, is seated prior to testifying before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing on his nomination to be U.S. secretary of state, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. January 11, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

When the US wanted China to respect Hague arbitration ruling to give up China’s rights and interests in the South China Sea, Chinese troops conducted its largest drill there and Chinese navy chief pointed his finger at his US counterpart in his talks with him. Soon afterwards Chinese air force began to conduct combat patrol in the South China Sea especially on the disputed Scarborough Shale.

Now, Reuters says in its report “Trump nominee says China should be denied access to South China sea islands”, “U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of state set a course for a potentially serious confrontation with Beijing on Wednesday, saying China should be denied access to islands it has built in the contested South China Sea.”

What does that mean?

It means the nominee Rex Tillerson wants a real war instead of trade war with China.

The US is preparing for that as it has been sending a squadron of F-35, its most advanced fighter jets, to Japan for the war.

China is not less prepared as it has been stepping up the development, production and deployment its most advanced fighter jet J-20s so that if the US hurts China’s core interests of its rights and interests in the South China Sea, China has to fight. The Chinese ruling party the CCP will become extremely unpopular if it is afraid to fight.

We hope it will be a limited war between the two powers as the US cannot send its army to invade China given China’s huge modern army and US experience of defeat in Korean War. China, on the other hand, is utterly unable to send its army to the US.

China is now able to win the naval war as China’s J-20 is superior to F-35 in a war of defense and China can sink US aircraft carriers with saturate attack of its large number of anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles.

What will follow then? Attack China with nuclear weapons in retaliation? That will be the end of human race.

Do Trump and his nominee Rex Tillerson want that?

Let’s hope that Rex Tillerson’s hardline statement is but rhetoric.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Reuters’ report, full text of which is reblogged below:

Trump nominee says China should be denied access to South China sea islands

By David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick | WASHINGTON January 11, 2017

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of state set a course for a potentially serious confrontation with Beijing on Wednesday, saying China should be denied access to islands it has built in the contested South China Sea.

In comments expected to enrage Beijing, Rex Tillerson told his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that China’s building of islands and putting military assets on those islands was “akin to Russia’s taking Crimea” from Ukraine.

Asked whether he supported a more aggressive posture toward China, he said: “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”

The former Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) chairman and chief executive did not elaborate on what might be done to deny China access to the islands it has built up from South China Sea reefs, equipped with military-length airstrips and fortified with weapons.

Tillerson also said Washington needed to reaffirm its commitment to Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province, but stopped short of Trump’s questioning of Washington’s long-standing policy on the issue.

“I don’t know of any plans to alter the ‘one China’ position,” he said.

Tillerson said he considered China’s South China Sea activity “extremely worrisome” and that it would be a threat to the “entire global economy” if Beijing were able to dictate access to the waterway, which is of strategic military importance and a major trade route.

He blamed the current situation on what he termed an inadequate U.S. response. “The failure of a response has allowed them just to keep pushing the envelop on this,” Tillerson said.

“The way we’ve got to deal with this is we’ve got to show back up in the region with our traditional allies in Southeast Asia,” he said.

Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration conducted periodic air and naval patrols to assert the right of free navigation in the South China Sea. These have angered Beijing, but seeking to blockade China’s man-made islands would be a major step further and a step that Washington has never raised as an option.

Tillerson’s words also went beyond Trump’s own tough rhetoric on China.

Obama has sought to forge a united front in Southeast Asia against China’s pursuit of its territorial claims, but some allies and partners who are rival claimants have been reluctant to challenge Beijing.

Tillerson called China’s South China Sea island-building and declaration of an air defense zone in waters of the East China Sea it contests with Japan “illegal actions.”

“They’re taking territory or control, or declaring control of territories that are not rightfully China’s,” he said.

Tillerson also said the United States could not continue to accept “empty promises” China had made about putting pressure on North Korea over that country’s nuclear and missile programs.

He said his approach to dealing with North Korea – which recently declared it is close to carrying out its first test of an intercontinental ballistic missile – would be “a long-term plan” based on sanctions and their proper implementation.

Asked if Washington should consider imposing “secondary sanctions” on Chinese entities found to be violating existing sanctions on North Korea, Tillerson said: “If China is not going to comply with those U.N. sanctions, then it’s appropriate … for the United States to consider actions to compel them to comply.”

He accused China of failing to live up to global agreements on trade and intellectual property, echoing past remarks by Trump, who has threatened to impose high, retaliatory tariffs on China. But Tillerson also stressed the “deeply intertwined” nature of the world’s two biggest economies.

“We should not let disagreements over other issues exclude areas for productive partnership,” he said.

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)


First F-35B Squadron Moves to Japan


By: Valerie Insinna, January 10, 2017 (Photo Credit: US Marine Corps)

WASHINGTON — A Marine Corps F-35B squadron has transferred from the United States to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in Japan, marking the first permanent international deployment of the joint strike fighter, the service announced Tuesday.

Marine Corps spokesman Capt Kurt Stahl told Defense News that 10 F-35Bs from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121) departed Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in Arizona on Monday, with the first jets slated to arrive in Japan on Wednesday. All 10 F-35s will arrive at Iwakuni by Thursday. Eventually, an additional six jets will be relocated from Yuma to Iwakuni, bringing the squadron up to a full 16 aircraft.

VMFA-121 is a part of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing.

“The transition of VMFA-121 from MCAS Yuma to MCAS Iwakuni marks a significant milestone in the F-35B program as the Marine Corps continues to lead the way in the advancement of stealth fighter attack aircraft,” the service said in a statement.

The Marine Corps’ short takeoff vertical landing version of the F-35 is the first variant of the aircraft to be permanently stationed outside of the United States. VMFA-121 became the US military’s first operational F-35 squadron in July 2015. Since then, the squadron “has continued to fly sorties and employ ordnance as part of their normal training cycle,” the Marine Corps said.

One such demonstration was Exercise Steel Knight in December 2015, a live-fire exercise that combined ground and air operations. The F-35B also took part in a proof-of-concept demo aboard amphibious assault ship America last October, where pilots tested the jet’s ability to operate in harsh at-sea conditions with a range of weapons.

The Air Force will become the next US service to internationally deploy the joint strike fighter, but is opting to locate its first squadron in Europe rather than in the Asia-Pacific. The F-35A will be permanently based at Royal Air Force Base Lakenheath in England as early as 2020.

Source: Defense News “First F-35B Squadron Moves to Japan”

Note: This is Defense News’ report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.


Trumpnomics: US Companies Make Less Money, People Get More Jobs?


File Photo: T-shirts made in the USA are for sale at the Walmart Supercenter in Bentonville, Arkansas June 5, 2014. REUTERS/Rick Wilking/File Photo

File Photo: T-shirts made in the USA are for sale at the Walmart Supercenter in Bentonville, Arkansas June 5, 2014. REUTERS/Rick Wilking/File Photo

Reuters describes in its report today US business’ worry about Trump’s policy of bringing jobs back from abroad that may give rise to a trade war that hurt US business’ interests abroad, especially in China.

It gives its report on the worry the sensational title of “U.S. companies have new business risk – being labeled ‘anti-American’ by Trump”.

The report begins with the description: “Some U.S. companies are reviewing potential mergers while others are rethinking job cuts or looking at their manufacturing operations in China for fear of being cast as ‘anti-American’ by President-elect Donald Trump, according to Wall Street bankers, company executives and crisis management consultants.”

It seems to me Trump will hurt US rich people’s interests to benefit poor unemployed people. Something similar to what communists in China did before the reform and opening up but failed. Depriving rich people of their wealth only lead to common poverty.

However, I believe US people choose Trump due to his wisdom instead of his stupidity. Trump must certainly be aware that America needs wealth to prosper. The US will certainly be benefited by the lot of money its firms make abroad. The problems is only Trump has to force them to bring home the wealth they have made instead of allowing them to keep their wealth away from the US with some tricks to evade tax, etc.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Reuters’ report, full text of which is reblogged below:

U.S. companies have new business risk – being labeled ‘anti-American’ by Trump

By Lauren Hirsch and Mike Stone | NEW YORK/WASHINGTON Tue Jan 10, 2017 | 3:10pm EST

Some U.S. companies are reviewing potential mergers while others are rethinking job cuts or looking at their manufacturing operations in China for fear of being cast as “anti-American” by President-elect Donald Trump, according to Wall Street bankers, company executives and crisis management consultants.

Having seen some of America’s largest companies, including General Motors Co (GM.N), Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), bluntly and publicly rebuked by Trump on Twitter, many others are worried they may be his next target – especially if they have significant overseas manufacturing, have had U.S. job cuts or price increases for consumers.

“Any business that leaves our country for another country, fires its employees, builds a new factory or plant in the other country, and then thinks it will sell its product back into the U.S. without retribution or consequence is WRONG!” Trump, who assumes office on Jan. 20, tweeted in December.

Trump campaigned on an “America First” anti-globalization platform that promised the return of thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs to economically depressed areas.

That nationalist rhetoric and Trump’s willingness to use his Twitter account as a cudgel has so rattled some companies that they are putting on hold mergers and acquisitions that may involve significant job cuts or moving production or tax domicile abroad, out of fear that such deals could be seen as “unpatriotic”, several top Wall Street bankers said.

Bermuda-based White Mountains Insurance Group Ltd (WTM.N) had been in talks to sell itself in a transaction that would have been structured as an inversion – where a U.S.-based buyer would move its tax domicile overseas.

However, the deal fell apart after the November election partly because potential buyers worried that leaving the U.S. tax home would be seen as “anti-American,” three people with knowledge of the matter said. Potential buyers also found the target less attractive because of the likelihood of lower U.S. corporate taxes under the Trump administration, the people said.

Representatives of the $3.8 billion company declined to comment.

At least two other insurance deals have also fallen apart since the election for similar reasons, said the people, who declined to elaborate and asked not to be named because the matter is not public.

Trump’s aggressive anti-China rhetoric has also given some companies pause.

James Park, chief executive of wearable fitness device maker Fitbit Inc FIT.O, said he expects all companies that have significant manufacturing operations in China, including his own firm, to prepare contingency plans.

Trump has threatened to hit China and Mexico with high tariffs and named vocal China critic Peter Navarro to lead a new White House office overseeing U.S. trade policy.

“Whether it’s taking higher costs into account or operationally preparing for moving manufacturing (out of China), companies are thinking about what to do,” Park said in an interview.

WATCHING TRUMP’S TWEETS

Companies are also beefing up their Twitter monitoring for any Trump tweets that could affect them and engaging public relations firms for advice on potential lines of attack and how to respond if they were to come, several U.S. chief executives as well as half a dozen corporate advisers told Reuters.

“Back in December the board was already asking questions: ‘What’s the plan in terms of what happens if he comes after us, are we ready? The board is asking us if we have a PR firm at the ready, if we have a person monitoring his Twitter,” said a top executive at a large U.S. defense contractor.

“Our plan is to not get into a fight, and concede immediately. The reality is that we’re trying to stay below the radar,” the executive said, asking not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Since his election in November, Trump has ramped up criticism of companies from Ford Motor Co (F.N), Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) and GM, to United Tech and Rexnord Corp (RXN.N) over manufacturing in Mexico for U.S. consumers or moving U.S. jobs abroad.

Trump also slammed Lockheed Martin and Boeing Co (BA.N) for what he called “out of control” costs on their weapons programs.

Both Lockheed and Boeing have said they will work to drive down costs of the programs, while Ford scrapped plans to build a $1.6 billion plant in Mexico, and United Tech’s Carrier unit is keeping half of the 2,100 U.S. jobs it was to shift to Mexico.

Government relations and public relations advisers say they have received a number of calls from companies wanting help in assessing if they have any red flags that could draw Trump’s ire.

Advisers say these potentially include outsourcing of manufacturing, consumer price increases and lower tax rates than peer companies.

“We have literally had about a dozen clients ask us how they should be thinking about this in the last few weeks,” said George Sard, chairman and CEO of strategic communications firm Sard Verbinnen & Co, adding that he is seeing concern from companies in a wide range of industries.

“The week after the election it was non-stop meetings and conference calls and analysis,” said Kent Jarrell, crisis and litigation communication expert at APCO Worldwide. “It’s almost like a whole new Trump practice is developing.”

Corporate leaders, say the advisers, can no longer focus only on maximizing shareholder value; they must now also weigh national interest.

“CEOs are talking to their boards saying we’ve got to be viewed pro-America. If something is more on the margin – like layoffs, or moving manufacturing, then they are not going to do it,” said one Fortune 500 CEO, who said he had spoken with other U.S. companies.

TAKING A PAGE FROM TRUMP PLAYBOOK

Sard, of Sard Verbinnen & Co, said that while companies are well advised not to get into a Twitter war with Trump, his firm is advising clients to “learn from his playbook” and be prepared to communicate directly with shareholders, employees, and customers through blogs and social media.

There is already evidence that companies are quickly adjusting to the new Trump era. Firms have been more vocal in publicizing job creation and they have sometimes let Trump claim credit.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCHA.MI) (FCAU.N), the No. 3 automaker in the United States, announced plans on Sunday to create 2,000 U.S. jobs. The timing was partly influenced by CEO Sergio Marchionne’s desire to get the news out ahead of any possible criticism from Trump for the automaker’s overseas manufacturing, a person familiar with the company’s thinking said.

Trump has in the past few weeks attacked FCA’s two Detroit rivals, as well as Japan-based Toyota, for their manufacturing operations in Mexico and threatened to impose stiff border taxes on any imports.

In December, SoftBank Group Corp (9984.T), majority owner of Sprint Corp (S.N), unveiled a $50 billion U.S. investment at the Trump Tower in Manhattan. Trump and SoftBank head Masayoshi Son made the announcement together, and Trump later tweeted: “He would never do this had we (Trump) not won the election!”

“You never want to be against the president – especially not one as vocal as (Trump),” the Fortune 500 CEO said.

Trump on Twitter: tmsnrt.rs/2jf8zG8

(Additional reporting by Olivia Oran in New York, Liana Baker in San Francisco and David Shepardson in Detroit, Editing by Soyoung Kim and Ross Colvin)