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 **

American officials used to preach the "rules-based international order" at every turn. That phrase now sounds like a punchline. Add one word and it tells the truth: an international order based on American rules.

The World Cup has produced a scandal, and the United States is at the center of it. In the Round of 32 on July 1, the US beat Bosnia and Herzegovina 2-0. But star striker Folarin Balogun stepped on an opponent's heel and picked up a red card. FIFA rules say a red card triggers a one-match ban. That should have kept Balogun out of the Round of 16 clash with Belgium on July 6.

The New York Times reports that Donald Trump got personally involved. He called FIFA President Gianni Infantino the same day. Trump argued the red card was controversial and pressed FIFA to reconsider the suspension.

FIFA folded, but with a twist. On July 5, the governing body confirmed Balogun had violated Articles 14 and 26 of its Disciplinary Code and handed down a one-match ban. Then it invoked Article 27, which allows disciplinary measures to be suspended in full or in part, to defer the ban for a year. Balogun was free to keep playing through the rest of the tournament.

The backlash was immediate and global. Trump, unmoved by the criticism, thanked FIFA for making the "correct decision" and for "correcting a grave injustice."

Belgium did not take it quietly. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot, a former referee himself, said he had spent his career upholding fair rulings. He put it bluntly: "If a phone call truly underpins this incomprehensible decision, then it amounts to undermining the most fundamental rules of football and sport." Belgium's head coach, Rudi Garcia, was even sharper. "I didn’t know that July 5 was equal to April 1 at FIFA," he said, adding that his complaint wasn't about defending Belgium or attacking FIFA. It was about "defending in football".

Other national teams piled on. England manager Thomas Tuchel asked the question everyone was thinking: "Where does this precedent begin, and where does it end?" His point cuts to the core of the scandal. Power and influence can now override sporting judgment, and a single phone call from a global superpower was enough to erase the idea of fair competition.

Maybe football still has a sense of justice. On July 6, Balogun started despite his dirty play, but Belgium still thrashed the United States 4-1. The score itself felt like a curse, a brutal callback to the tournament's own April Fool's farce.

There was a time when the United States looked both powerful and admirable, a country that was simply always right. I grew up watching American Westerns, the kind starring Clint Eastwood, where heroic cowboys gunned down "Indians" cast as savage and brutal. Even the word "Indians" carries that discrimination baked in, reducing Native Americans to "redskins". Those films erased a brutal history: European colonizers massacring Indigenous peoples across the Americas with superior weapons.

Seize the land, wipe out the people, then cast yourself as the hero. American ideology in a nutshell. Turning bloody history into entertainment and exporting it to the world is something only the United States has pulled off this well, and Hong Kong has not been spared its influence.

At the height of American power, even scandals got repackaged as virtues, seamless and airtight. That is no longer the case. As US power declines and its position weakens, the cracks are showing everywhere. A president meddling in a football ruling has now become global news. Similar things likely happened before, when America's power was unquestioned, but back then nobody dared expose them.

Lo Wing-hung