“[Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is] now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great,” US President Donald Trump said. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day.”
This short statement — whether or not it was said in jest — demonstrates just how tone deaf Trump is when it comes to speaking about authoritarian strongmen.
There are two problematic parts to Trump’s statement, which was given at a fundraiser in Florida on March 3.
The first issue is Trump calling Xi “great.” While the US president is apparently tirelessly working to “Make America Great Again,” the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already achieved that high level of praise.
This “great” man is leading one of the most egregious crackdowns on personal freedoms in the 21st century. Xi commands what can best be described as an Orwellian surveillance state.
This term gets thrown about loosely, but to contextualize the amount of surveillance in China, it is worth mentioning a story from December last year.
A BBC reporter wanted to highlight the all-seeing nature of Chinese surveillance; he was able to partner with Chinese authorities to see how long he could go before being “apprehended.” It took CCTV only seven minutes to locate the reporter.
The BBC report said: “170 million CCTV cameras are already in place and an estimated 400 million new ones will be installed in the next three years.”
This technology is used for public safety, but also to track and monitor dissidents across the country.
That has come in handy for the CCP, because over the past few years, it has passed laws restricting the ability of foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to remain in the country. The law vaguely states that NGOs “must not endanger China’s national unity, security or ethnic unity; and must not harm China’s national interests, societal public interest.”
In February, religious regulations took effect that would give the party the ability to crack down on worshipers in the name of public order. In the province of Xinjiang, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has created re-education camps, where China’s Uighur minority — most of whom are Muslims — learn how to become better citizens.
The “great” Xi uses these technological developments and vague laws to crack down on public expression in order to keep the party in power by removing any threats before they have the chance to gain momentum.
The second issue with Trump’s statement is the part about how “maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day.”
At best, this is a really bad joke, but with how Trump’s supporters revere him and the hyper-partisanship in the US, it is not something to make light of.
When the President of the United States refers to the press as the “opposition party” and when a candidate for the US House of Representatives body-slams a reporter one day before an election, these statements must be taken seriously.
Does Trump want to stay in power for life or was it a joke? Who knows? What matters is how his supporters interpret the remark.
Moreover, what matters just as much is how other authoritarian strongmen interpret the remarks. Instead of explicitly criticizing the rise of authoritarianism in China, Trump is joking about it.
When asked about the proposed amendments to the PRC constitution, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: “I believe that’s a decision for China to make about what’s best for their country.”
As the so-called leader of the free world, the US should be taking this issue much more seriously than the Trump administration has handled it so far.
Regrettably, this is not the first time that Trump has missed the mark on criticizing these leaders and their move away from democracy.
In April last year, Trump actually congratulated Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after the country voted to increase his powers, even though the vote was largely criticized by the international community. In 2013, Trump (in)famously tweeted about Russian President Vladimir Putin becoming his new “best friend.”
By joking about Xi’s power grab in China and refusing to condemn the move, Trump and his administration continue to send one message that is loud and clear: The US does not care about democracy or human rights.
Is this the message that the US wants to send?
Thomas Shattuck is the editor of Geopoliticus: The FPRI Blog and a research associate at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past