A Presidential “Kowtow”:
Has Trump Given Chinese Nationalism The Green Light?
This article was co-authored by Chloe Yorke.
Speaking from the White House Rose Garden on May 29th, President Trump expressed his disapproval for China’s new national security legislation, a measure which greatly increases the Chinese Communist Party’s ability to maintain law and order in Hong Kong. Implementation of such a policy can be seen as a threat to the island’s semi-autonomous existence through the introduction and operation of mainland Chinese security. Two days later, standing in the same venue - accompanied by a proud exhibition of military force - Trump announced that he would deploy the National Guard to “dominate” domestic protests that have followed the killing of George Floyd, an African-American man, by Minneapolis Police. The double standard of his stance on freedom of expression in Hong Kong and in the United States is alarming and the hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed.
Despite being the president of a nation which regards itself as the world’s champion of democracy, Trump’s reactions to the George Floyd protests have been authoritarian in nature. Throughout his presidency, Trump has consistently emphasized his role as a ‘strong leader’ and on May 30th, Trump went so far as to declare, “I am your president of law and order.” He followed this with a threat to “deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem [of riots and looting]” if mayors and governors did not “establish an overwhelming law enforcement pressure.” His harsh approach to dealing with protesters may come as news to some, but the President has a history of idealizing authoritarian force. In a recently unearthed Playboy Magazine interview from 1990, Trump revered the Chinese government’s violent crackdown on the 1989 Tiananmen protests: “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world.” Trump clearly values an authority’s display of strength more than its ability to make peace, and has demonstrated this during his tenure as president. In 2016, during a forum against Hillary Clinton, he complimented Vladimir Putin: “I’ve already said, he is really very much of a leader. I mean, you can say, oh, isn’t that a terrible thing — the man has very strong control over a country.” In 2018, Trump extended praise to Kim Jong Un, saying “he’s the head of a country, and I mean he’s the strong head [...] don’t let anyone think anything different.” This glorification of despotism illuminates the reasons behind the President’s attempts to trample domestic unrest, and warrants a closer analysis of the United States’ position on the Hong Kong protests.
China has been quick to criticize the United States for encouraging political dissent in Hong Kong while adopting a tough stance on protests within its own borders. Zhao Lijian, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, countered Trump’s Rose Garden addresses by asking, “why does the US refer to those ‘Hong Kong independence’ and black-clad rioters as ‘heroes’ and ‘fighters’ but label its people protesting against racial discrimination as ‘thugs’?” Chinese diplomats have further used Trump’s extreme show of force in response to American civil unrest to “counter criticism of Beijing’s efforts to stamp out demonstrations in Hong Kong.” By drawing attention to the conflicting reactions that the United States has had to protests at home and abroad, China could utilize Trump's ‘law and order’ policy within the US to defend its efforts to exert further control over Hong Kong and counter the democratic protests.
In his denunciation of China’s national security act, Trump stated that the US would be “eliminating policy exemptions that give Hong Kong different and special treatment,” In addition to reevaluating agreements with Hong Kong about the extradition treaty and export controls on dual-use technologies, the US will move “to revoke Hong Kong’s preferential treatment as a separate customs and travel territory from the rest of China.” While Trump denounces Chinese control over Hong Kong, his policy only serves to emphasize how the “one country, one system” policy has arrived too early. Despite declaring retaliation against China, Trump’s decision to revoke special privileges highlight how Hong Kong is a bargaining tool to him. Throughout his career as a businessman, he has utilized ‘bluffing’ as a tactic for negotiation and has now played the Hong Kong card in a bid to force China to further negotiate trade terms.
In a peculiar exhibition of his ‘business acumen,’ Trump’s threat to impose trade sanctions on Hong Kong could have ramifications for the United States instead of China. As Hong Kong only accounts for 3% of China's total GDP, economic loss from sanctions may have little effect in deterring China from pursuing further domination over the special administrative region (SAR). Instead, given Hong Kong’s role as an international financial hub, the decision to expand sanctions could cause difficulties for US companies that operate there. According to a State Department report from 2019, "nearly every major U.S. financial firm has a presence in Hong Kong, with hundreds of billions of dollars in assets under management." Trump's proposed policy could have an adverse effect on the more than 1,300 US companies and 85,000 US citizens currently based in Hong Kong. The US China Business Council's statement in response to Trump’s speech only serves to reinforce this notion: “US companies invest in Hong Kong because of its special status, its geographic location and market-based economic system. Any change to this status quo would irreparably damage American global business interests.” Furthermore, the US’s removal of Hong Kong’s semi-autonomous title could lead to significant long-term impacts on the SAR and “would accelerate the erosion of Hong Kong's status as an international business center." By revoking special privileges, Hong Kong will not be different to the mainland Chinese cities as it will be subject to the same tariffs and export controls.
Trump’s intention to ultimately not defend Hong Kong’s autonomy can be better understood in the context of this administration’s ‘America First’ plan. The President’s announcement of the US’s amended relations to Hong Kong came at the end of a speech in which he condemned China for having “ripped off the United States like no one has ever done before . . . by raid[ing] our factories, offshor[ing] our jobs, gutt[ing] our industries, st[ealing] our intellectual property, and violat[ing] their commitments under the World Trade Organization.” Trump then stated that he would withdraw the US from the World Health Organization (WHO) - during a pandemic - because “they have failed to make the requested and greatly needed reforms,” and because “China has total control over the WHO.” Both decisions to revoke Hong Kong’s special privileges and leaving the WHO belong to a streak of nationalist, unilateralist, protectionist and isolationist actions taken while Trump has been in office. Similar measures have included pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017 and a sudden withdrawal from Syria in 2019 that allowed Kurdish allies to be attacked by Turkey’s military. America First signals to the world that their health, safety and freedom are not a priority for the US. This complicates the US’s international relationships, particularly with its allies.
What does the United States’ insufficient response to China’s encroachment on Hong Kong’s rights signal to other states that are at risk of rising Chinese nationalism?
Since the Republic of China’s relocation to Taiwan in 1949, the People’s Republic of China (mainland China) has vowed to reintegrate the island under the ‘One-China policy.’ In recent years, the prospect of a Chinese invasion has escalated, with President Xi announcing that he would make “no promise to abandon the use of force, and retain[s] the option of taking all necessary measures.” In recent weeks, China has increased its military drills around Taiwan, flying Chinese combat aircrafts over Taiwanese waters. Taiwanese self-determination and prosperity have always been heavily dependent on its relationship with the US. In recent years the Trump administration has made an effort to help Taiwan deal with pressure from China, including signing a law that requires U.S. support for Taiwan internationally, and announcing a deal to sell torpedoes to the island. However, Taiwan should not be considered immune to Chinese encroachment. The US, like most other countries, does not recognize Taiwan as its own country because it is unwilling to compromise its commercial ties to China. When Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was asked whether the US would consider formalizing its relationship with Taiwan, he responded: “We’re beginning to work to make sure we get America First, that we get this foreign policy right, and that we respond to these risks that the Chinese Communist Party presents to the United States in an appropriate way.” Ultimately, there is reason to believe that America, and in this case America’s economy, will come first, even before Taiwan’s independence. With this in mind, Taiwan should remain conscious of the dangers of becoming a bargaining chip in the USA's future negotiations with China. As former Obama administration Asian Affairs adviser David Russel puts it, “there’s reason to worry that Trump will lose interest in Taiwan. He’d trade away Taiwan in a heartbeat if he thought it would get him his trade deal with China.”
India is another nation that has felt the effects of Chinese nationalism. The Sino-Indian border has been subject to much debate since the 1950s, and currently is disagreed upon at 23 different points. In response to the recent border dispute with India, President Xi stated he would "scale up training and battle preparedness, promptly and effectively deal with all sorts of complex situations and resolutely safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests." This was complemented by Zhao Lijian statement: "China is committed to safeguarding the security of its national territorial sovereignty, as well as safeguarding peace and stability in the China-India border areas."
Even with regards to something as ambiguous as the Sino-Indian border, China is prepared to use its military to project influence. And why wouldn’t it? America’s leadership appears to respect such aggressive tactics beyond a reasonable degree. Providing that Xi looks to the US’s policy towards Hong Kong as the standard for punitive action, we can expect China to adopt forceful measures with regards to the Indian border conflict, especially in the case of heightened cross-border tensions. It is thus clear that, while Trump continues to “make America great again,” the US can be seen as effectively greenlighting China’s unfolding of a nationalist agenda elsewhere in the world.
