America's "Suez Moment" Has Arrived

One man. Two completely opposite personas. The contrast is nothing short of astonishing.

In the White House Oval Office, Trump lectures foreign leaders as a matter of routine. Ukrainian President Zelensky, Canadian Prime Minister Carney, British Prime Minister Starmer, French President Macron — each was either berated to his face or skewered with biting sarcasm. Hardly anyone walked away unscathed.

Yet the ferocious tiger that roars in the Oval Office turned into a tame kitten the moment he touched down in China. Trump offered no hostile remarks. He was measured. He was reasonable.

On the question of Taiwan independence, Trump later told interviewers that he had discussed the matter in depth with President Xi Jinping, and had come to understand China's position — proof that he is, when it counts, capable of listening and reaching a compromise.

The Beijing visit produced several moments that will linger in the memory. The most striking came while the two leaders strolled among ancient trees at Zhongnanhai. Trump asked President Xi whether he often received foreign leaders there. Xi shook his head: "Very rarely. At first, we usually didn’t hold diplomatic events here. Even after we started having some, it’s ⁠still extremely rare. " Xi then added one name: "For example, Putin has been here." Trump's reply was immediate — "Good. I like it." The look on his face said it all: visibly flattered.

Anti-China commentators, finding little to criticize about the visit, resorted to fabrication. One claim held that President Xi wore shoes with padded heels to make him look taller. Word of these baseless rumors apparently reached Trump, because he went out of his way in a later interview to describe his impressions of Xi. He noted that Xi was exceptionally tall for a Chinese man. He then added: if Hollywood ever needed someone to play a Chinese leader, no one could match Xi Jinping.

If Trump's deference was striking, the posture of those behind him was even more so. At the welcome ceremony at the East Gate of the Great Hall of the People, America's most senior officials stood in a row. Behind them, a crowd of business leaders — with a combined market capitalisation of tens of trillions of dollars — lined up in the blazing sun, waiting for President Xi to come and shake their hands. Commentators were blunt: no country other than China has ever commanded such a scene.

Trump's China visit passed without confrontation, and the world exhaled. The analyses followed swiftly. American media was divided: admirers called Trump's approach pragmatic; critics said he conceded too much. The Times of India struck the sharpest note. Drawing on interviews with numerous American analysts, the paper offered one representative verdict: Trump's trip was America's "Suez Moment." Trump's statement that he is “not looking for traveling 9,500 miles to fight a war" for Taiwan, had raised widespread, serious questions about America's willingness to defend the island.

The conclusion was hard to avoid — the United States is no longer capable of making unilateral decisions that shape the world.

The Times of India, citing American analysts, concluded that Beijing emerged as the biggest strategic winner from Trump's visit. China demonstrated its standing as America's equal on the world stage. It also proved that the United States is increasingly constrained in its ability to counter Chinese power.

The "Suez Moment" analysts invoke refers to the Suez Crisis of 1956. Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. Britain and France, alongside Israel, launched a military intervention. Both the United States and the Soviet Union opposed them fiercely, and Britain and France were forced to withdraw. Britain's inability to conduct major international affairs without American backing was laid bare for the world to see.

Over time, "Suez Moment" came to describe something larger — a pivotal turning point where an old order collapses and a new power rises. Today, the term frames a broader debate: the emerging world order in the wake of America's declining hegemony.

Trump's China visit makes one thing clear: the world has changed. America no longer calls the shots alone. But where China and the United States do find common ground, it will be very difficult for anyone else to challenge them.

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

On the surface, China-US relations look calm. In reality, both sides are locked in close combat.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi met US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on July 22. The meeting took place on the sidelines of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Manila.

According to Xinhua, Wang Yi told Rubio that this year marks a landmark year for China-US relations. He noted that the two heads of state held a historic summit in Beijing, which established a positioning of "constructive and stable" strategic relations between the two countries.

Wang also set out China's firm position on what he called a series of negative words and actions by the US side. He demanded that Washington respect China's core interests, abide by the one-China principle, effectively manage frictions and disagreements, and address China's legitimate concerns, so that this year of opportunity for bilateral relations can become reality. Xinhua described the meeting as pragmatic, positive, and constructive.

Wang Yi's phrase "recent series of negative words and actions by the US" deserves close attention. The fact that the meeting was ultimately summed up as "constructive" suggests Washington offered certain commitments behind closed doors.

Two recent moves from the US side stand out as negative. While Washington has delayed new arms sales to Taiwan, it has refused to commit to stopping them altogether. The other issue is tied to AI large language models. China's Moonshot AI recently released its new Kimi K3 model, and its capabilities have caught up with America's most advanced systems.

The breakthrough triggered intense attention and drew a wave of negative commentary from US officials.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insists that America remains ahead. He claims the US leads China in AI by roughly a year. His next goal is to push America's share of global computing capacity from the current 60 percent straight up to 80 percent.

Bessent then said on July 21 that Washington would rigorously scrutinize AI models developed overseas with open-source code, including products released by Chinese firms. Should any such model be found to have stolen the intellectual property of US companies, he said, the US government has the means to impose sanctions.

Bessent also said the US government may go a step further and assess whether American companies using Chinese AI models should be required to disclose this to their customers. He likened the issue to that of counterfeit goods, stressing that businesses cannot use products built on stolen intellectual property.

These remarks show that the Trump administration has been thrown off balance by China's new model. It is now scrambling for ways to suppress it. The scrutiny of China's AI sector, which had focused on export controls over advanced chips, may now widen to cover training data, the provenance of underlying technology, corporate disclosure obligations, and intellectual property disputes. Fresh risk added to the US-China AI rivalry.

It's fair to assume that Wang Yi's warning to Rubio went beyond demanding a full halt to US arms sales to Taiwan. The warning was also aimed squarely at Bessent's remarks, calling for an end to the smearing and suppression of Chinese AI models.

This can be summed up in two points.

First, faced with the shock of China's AI advances, the US wants to preserve its own technological lead while unjustly suppressing others at the same time. No amount of spin from Bessent can whitewash that kind of behavior.

Second, Bessent's accusation that Chinese models copied American ones is, in essence, a trumped-up charge. It is one the US can investigate, "convict," and sanction entirely on its own terms. Wang Yi's warning was, in effect, laying the unpleasant truth on the table in advance.

From Beijing's perspective, if Washington uses this as a pretext to escalate, China could immediately turn the tables. President Xi could simply decline to visit the US in September, and Trump, in turn, need not bother coming to Shenzhen in October. That would inevitably rattle the US economy and stock market, right before Trump has to explain himself to voters in November's midterm elections.