Why some Chinese are warming to Trump, 'rape' comments aside

Chinese are scrutinizing the presumptive GOP nominee more closely now. While Trump described China's trade policy as 'raping' the US, he also espouses a more isolationist strain that plays well.

Reuters
In a 2015 photo, dredgers deposit sand on the northern rim of the Mischief Reef, located 135 miles west of the Philippine island of Palawan. A year ago, China sketched out plans for the islands it is creating in the disputed South China Sea, saying they would be used for military defense as well as to provide civilian services that would benefit other countries.

For months, China’s netizens and state media have bantered about the entertainment value of a possible US presidential contest pitting Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton. 

Now that this matchup is all but certain, the tone of levity is sobering up.

In recent days, Chinese academics have started to seriously debate the trade-offs for China of Trump vs. Clinton. Nearly all agree that the stakes are immense, given that the United States is China’s biggest trading partner and also the biggest check on its ambitions as a world power.

“Many Chinese view Trump as kind of a joke, but that is starting to change,” says Wang Yiwei, director of the Renmin University Institute of International Affairs.  

People are warming to Mr. Trump, he says, because of his support for a more isolationist US foreign policy. “They think the US is too involved with the world," he says.

Yet Chinese views are rarely uniform on any topic, and on the US election, they vary according to gender and nationalist instincts, among other factors. On social media, many women have celebrated the historic nature of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. She also is more of a known quantity than Trump. 

As a presidential candidate in 2008 and later as US Secretary of State, Clinton was critical of China’s human rights record. In September, she caused an international stir when she tweeted that Chinese President Xi Jinping was “shameless” for speaking at an international women’s conference while persecuting feminists at home.

Such comments have not made Clinton popular here, either among government leaders or netizens. 

“Hillary will definitely make things difficult for China,” read one comment on Weibo, China’s main social media platform. Many academics agree, predicting that if Clinton became president, she would be far more aggressive than President Obama in seeking to contain Beijing’s influence in the South China Sea and other parts of Asia.

On the other hand, Clinton – traditionally a supporter of freer trade – is seen to be more likely than Trump to maintain good economic relations with China. Trump has proposed levying a 45 percent tariff on Chinese products. At a rally in Indiana last Sunday, he accused China’s trade policy of “raping” the United States. 

On Wednesday, the Communist Party’s Global Times newspaper published a roundup of comments on the election by Chinese academics. Several noted Trump’s protectionist rhetoric, but they doubted he would follow through if elected. 

“Many of Trump’s speeches against China are mere claptrap,” Zhao Minghao, a research fellow at the Charhar Institute, an independent think tank, was quoted as saying. If Trump launched a trade war against China, he added, it would not only “hurt the interests of US consumers and enterprises, but also impair the whole global trade system.”

On Weibo, some netizens continue to treat Trump as if he were a carnival figure. A favorite Chinese homonym for his name is “chuang po,” which means “broken bed.”

For their part, government spokesmen have shown little sign of alarm over the US election, maintaining their traditional reserve over other countries’ polls.  At a regular media briefing Wednesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei deflected concerns about Trump’s ascension in the GOP, and suggested the US-China relations would endure, regardless.  

“It is worth noting that mutual benefit and win-win results are defining features of economic cooperation and trade between China and the US,” he said. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.