logo
‘Nationalism in China has grown with Xi Jinping— many citizens think economic showdowns with the US are part of China's rejuvenation'

‘Nationalism in China has grown with Xi Jinping— many citizens think economic showdowns with the US are part of China's rejuvenation'

Economic Times29-05-2025
Rory Truex is Associate Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das, he discusses what's driving China — in the era of Donald Trump:
Q. What is the core of your research?
A. I study Chinese politics — I've researched public opinion in China, how citizens think about the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the regime. I've worked on US-China relations and how American foreign policy makers think about US-China ties. Finally, I've been working increasingly on authoritarianism in general and particularly authoritarian trends in the United States and elsewhere in the democratic world
Q. Which main features define the US-China relationship today?
A. The US-China relationship has undergone a significant transformation starting with Donald Trump's first administration. We saw the end of the broad idea of engagement with China then and a shift towards 'strategic competition', which sees these as rival countries, competing economically, in science, military power, international influence, etc. Some in the US policy arena even believe we are in a Cold War with China — we just haven't realised it yet.
Q. How do most Chinese view America under Donald Trump?
A. There is a general decline in attitudes towards the US — and a rise in nationalism, which corresponds with Xi Jinping's ascent. The party has used external competition to foster nationalism at home and frames geopolitical competition with the US as a foreign power trying to contain China's rise — this resonates with Chinese history and the idea of the 'Century of Humiliation'. There are some pockets of admiration for Trump — some Chinese view him as humourous and appreciate his off-the-cuff style. However, these aren't particularly large constituencies. More common is the idea that Trump is eroding American competitiveness and, in turn, helping China's rise.
Q. Can China actually afford to decouple economically from America?
A. My understanding is that full economic decoupling would be costly for both sides. I think this rhetoric from the CCP is a bargaining chip to show resolve before heading into talks. More broadly, the Chinese government has been preparing the population psychologically for war with the US and economic showdowns — Chinese citizens have been socialised into thinking any of those costs are part of the struggle for national rejuvenation.
Q. Does an authoritarian state like China have politics?
A. Yes — it's just difficult to observe. The machinations which occur at the elite level, between Xi Jinping and other leaders in the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee, cannot be readily observed — so, the degree of disagreement at that level isn't really known beyond signals in state-owned newspapers, etc. There is also mass-level politics — occasionally, the population engages in collective action that shifts policy-making. The 'White Paper Revolution' occurred in 2022 on the back of the long 'Zero-Covid' period in China which became increasingly draconian. Citizens protested then and the government had to roll back some of those policies. The citizen voice is muted — but it has an impact.
Q. Are most state decisions mainly diktat?
A. Of late, the CCP has tried to emphasise 'consultative processes' — this is 'consultative authoritarianism', where a government isn't just ruling by diktat but tries to incorporate public preferences. We see this in China's People's Congress System — every year, deputies convey different suggestions to the government. Laws put forth through the National People's Congress are posted for comment. Citizens can contact municipal governments through Mayor's Mailboxes. There are ways for people to express grievances — the question is, whether the government responds. My assessment is under Xi Jinping, we have not seen a strengthening of such channels. They exist but overall, there's been a relative closing of politics under him. Civil society organisations have been gutted — increasingly, this process is just lip service.
Q. China has some of the world's most capitalistic billionaires — how do they view life under a communist state?
A. Importantly, the CCP shifted its strategy about business elites in the last few decades — under Mao and the early years of Deng Xiaoping, the party was for peasants and workers. Jiang Zemin introduced the concept of 'The Three Represents' which sought 'advanced productive forces' — that's code for 'capital' —– to be brought into the party. Since then, the CCP has been quite cosy with business interests. Since the 2000s, the CCP is quite an elite party — it is nominally communist but in key levels of leadership, you'd be hard-pressed to find working-class people.
Q. Has the drive to become a global superpower reduced dissent in China?
A. It's important to note there are many people in China who dissent. It's hard to see them and several face real consequences. However, people in Xinjiang or Tibet, for instance, would take issue with the CCP, which is basically a Han-dominated regime. Young feminists in China understand the CCP as a traditional patriarchal authoritarian regime, while parts of the periphery, like Hong Kong, are not fully on board. In democracies, disagreements are front and centre — they are organised into parties that raise funds and compete electorally. In China, the party claims to represent everyone but glosses over dissent. Also, the Chinese's government's repressive capacity has increased so much in the last decade that a large-scale mass protest — a Tiananmen 2.0 — is almost impossible today, given the Orwellian level of surveillance. This has implications for its governance and other authoritarian governments.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

To survive AI and global geopolitics, India should become a hub of knowledge creation, not just knowledge processing
To survive AI and global geopolitics, India should become a hub of knowledge creation, not just knowledge processing

The Hindu

time20 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

To survive AI and global geopolitics, India should become a hub of knowledge creation, not just knowledge processing

Earlier this month, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), India's largest IT services firm, confirmed it will lay off 12,000 employees. For decades, companies such as TCS symbolised India's prowess in IT-enabled services — a low-cost, high-scale model that rode the wave of globalisation. But that model is now under existential strain. The era of labour arbitrage is drawing to a close, and the age of artificial intelligence (AI) is rewriting the rules of economic competitiveness. Generative AI, machine learning, and automation are fast replacing the very tasks that once gave India its edge: coding, data entry, support services, and even parts of analytics. The decline in headcount is not a blip; India's core export, white-collar digital labour, is being disrupted. And the country does not seem prepared as we see problems in absorbing science and engineering talent newly entering the job market. Simultaneously, the manufacturing-led catch-up route is narrowing. For years, economists argued India could do what China did in the 1990s — turn industrial policy and export-led manufacturing into mass employment and structural transformation. But that ship has largely sailed. Countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh have already captured the low-cost manufacturing space. Add to that rising automation and India's own infrastructure bottlenecks, the feasibility of China-style manufacturing resurgence diminishes rapidly. What, then, is India's pathway to sustained economic relevance? The answer lies upstream — in innovation, discovery science, and a smart, coordinated science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy. If India wants to be a rule-maker rather than a rule-taker in the AI-driven global economy, it must invest urgently in becoming a hub of knowledge creation, not just knowledge processing. This will only be achievable with a new national compact that starts from STEM but goes above and beyond embracing STEPS — an integration of STEM with policy and society. This means building a generation of technologists who understand not just how to build systems, but how those systems affect entrepreneurship, business model and scaling, ethics, governance, and inclusion. It also means reforming curricula to include data governance, AI ethics, climate-tech, innovation economics, and intellectual property policy. Finally, it also means urgent, mission mode requirement of an integrated, State-agnostic approach where we will see not just southern India having a head start in STEM and STEPS. The New Education Policy (NEP), 2020 provides some groundwork, but implementation must go further and deeper. From IITs to State universities, India will need a deliberate shift toward interdisciplinary innovation and doctoral-level research capacity. India's innovation-to-education pipeline is currently too weak to sustain a 21st century knowledge economy. And sadly in this, as noted above, manufacturing likely will not save India any more. The dream of becoming the 'next China' in manufacturing is now largely unrealistic. India's manufacturing sector contributes just 14-16% of the GDP — a figure that has barely budged in a decade. More worryingly, global manufacturing is undergoing its own AI-led transformation: smart factories, predictive maintenance, and robotic assembly lines are shrinking the need for cheap labour. Competing on cost is now a losing battle. Moreover, global supply chains are also realigning around strategic resilience and digital integration, not just wage arbitrage. India's challenge is not to attract the next garment factory but to build the next quantum computing lab or climate-resilient agri-tech platform. Which brings us to the question of how a Triple Helix approach might be India's best shot at future-readiness. To get there, India will need a clear National Science and Innovation Strategy underpinned by deep collaboration between government, industry, and academia. No single actor can deliver the transformation needed and increasingly the need of the hour will be science-based entrepreneurship and scientist entrepreneurs. It has been done before like by Vijay Chandru, inventor of Simputer and founder of Strand Genomics, also a former IISc Professor, but one Vijay Chandru is hardly enough for a country of 1.3 billion. Blue-sky science Government also must invest in blue-sky science, reform its R&D funding structures, and design enabling regulatory frameworks for frontier tech (AI, biotech, semiconductors, and so on). Universities must evolve into innovation hubs, not just exam factories. They must work closely with industry, build tech transfer offices, and reward risk-taking. Industry also must move beyond short-term returns and co-invest in long-horizon research, from chip design to synthetic biology refusing to accept modest productivity gains with a middling equilibrium mindset. Global lessons abound. The U.S.'s DARPA ecosystem, Germany's Fraunhofer Institutes, and Israel's Start-Up Nation playbook all demonstrate how strategic state support and institutional coordination can turn ideas into global advantage. India can build from their lessons, leverage on the current global geopolitical headwinds and create a national consciousness around science and innovation. It is not just investment in science that will matter, but investment in the science of innovation itself brings in a critical evaluation mindset for upgrading based on evidence. India lacks a coherent framework to measure what works: which R&D models yield translational success? How do tech incubators perform over time? Where does research funding leak or stagnate? A National Science of Science and Innovation Policy (NSIP) platform — a cross-ministerial, data-driven approach to governing the innovation ecosystem — could be a way forward. NITI Aayog's AI strategy and the recent National Research Foundation are steps in the right direction, but coordination and scale remain insufficient. This effort must include dedicated funding for AI safety, public interest technologies, twin transition policies and sovereign computational infrastructure. The stakes are high: if India does not develop its own AI stack, algorithms, chips, cloud, data protocol, it will remain captive to technological colonialism. Stagnation, inequality The fallout from the AI transition is not hypothetical as we see in the TCS situation mentioned above. If India does not invest in science, technology, and evidence-based policy today, it will face economic stagnation, rising inequality, and geopolitical irrelevance tomorrow. The global economy will not wait for India to catch up and in fact, catching-up economies are looking for the country's leadership in these areas. This is particularly concerning since already, a handful of countries — mostly in West and East Asia — are monopolising AI patents, funding, and talent. Without a deliberate national push, India will continue to supply coders to other nations' AI empires rather than building its own. The good news is that India has the ingredients: a young demographic, a robust start-up ecosystem, and scientific institutions with proven excellence. What we need now is leadership, vision, and a strategic shift in mindset — from cost to creativity, from services to science, from political populism to real performance. India can still leapfrog into the global innovation vanguard. But only if it recognises that science, technology, and smart policy are not luxuries — they are our last, best bet in the age of AI. The dragon is roaring already, will the elephant wake up? Chirantan Chatterjee is a Professor of Development Economics, Innovation and Global Health at the University of Sussex

Slamming 50% Trump tariffs, farmer leader Chaduni urges ban on US firms in India
Slamming 50% Trump tariffs, farmer leader Chaduni urges ban on US firms in India

India Today

time20 minutes ago

  • India Today

Slamming 50% Trump tariffs, farmer leader Chaduni urges ban on US firms in India

Haryana farmer leader Gurnam Singh Chaduni has called for a complete ban on American companies operating in India after US President Donald Trump announced steep tariffs on Indian week, Trump signed an Executive Order imposing an additional 25% duty on Indian imports — on top of an earlier 25% hike — citing India's continued purchase of Russian oil. The combined 50% tariff will take effect from August to the move, Bharatiya Kisan Union (Chaduni) chief Gurnam Singh Chaduni said India must "hit back in a similar manner" by targeting US companies. "The US has imposed heavy tariffs on India and India must hit back in a similar way and ban American companies operating on Indian soil," Chaduni told India Today farmer leader argued that many American businesses in India, especially large fast-food and retail chains, earn substantial profits and repatriate them to the US."Why are we allowing this when the US is imposing tariffs on us? We must give a similar reply and ban all these companies," he said. "You travel on highways and one can spot the big food giants of the US spreading their business all over. This must stop," Chaduni farmer leader, who played a prominent role in the 2022 anti-farm laws protests, said the government must take a firm stand to deter future trade pressure from Washington."We cannot allow anyone to dictate things to us like this. If we don't take a stand now, America will continue to do this in the future too and threaten us regularly. The US-based companies should immediately be banned and not allowed to mint money," he demand also comes against the backdrop of a long-standing flashpoint in India–US trade of the contentious issues has been the proposed entry of US companies into India's dairy and agriculture sectors — a move New Delhi has consistently resisted, citing potential threats to farmers' livelihoods and to the country's self-reliance in these key Washington escalating trade tensions through higher tariffs, Chaduni's call to ban US businesses signals growing pressure on the Indian government to respond with stronger retaliatory measures.- EndsMust Watch

Trump to seek 'long-term' federal takeover extension for DC police
Trump to seek 'long-term' federal takeover extension for DC police

India Today

time20 minutes ago

  • India Today

Trump to seek 'long-term' federal takeover extension for DC police

US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he would ask congressional Republicans to extend federal control of Washington's city police force beyond 30 days, escalating his campaign to exert presidential power over the nation's also asserted that any congressional action could serve as a model for other US cities. He has previously threatened to expand his efforts to other Democratic-run cities such as Chicago that he claims have failed to address was not clear how Trump's takeover of Washington's Metropolitan Police Department could be replicated elsewhere. In seizing control on Monday, Trump took advantage of a federal law, the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, that permits the president to do so under emergency circumstances for up to 30 days. Trump also announced on Monday that he was deploying 800 National Guard troops to the city, a tactic he employed in Los Angeles in June when he mobilised thousands of Guard soldiers and hundreds of US Marines in response to protests over his administration's immigration extraordinary moves in Washington are reflective of how he has approached his second term in office, shattering political norms and legal concerns to test the limits of his office's Republican president has claimed that the capital is gripped by a wave of violent crime and pervasive homelessness, despite both federal and city crime statistics showing that violent crime has declined precipitously since a spike in offices of House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, both Republicans, were not immediately available to comment on Trump's request for congressional action. Democratic legislative leaders also did not immediately respond to requests for told reporters on Wednesday that if Congress fails to act, he can declare a "national emergency" to extend the 30-day limit. It was not immediately clear what legal power Trump was referring to."There's nothing about the president extending past 30 days unilaterally," Claire Finkelstein, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, said of the Home Rule Act. "If the 30 days are up, that's that."The president has used emergency declarations to justify numerous unprecedented executive actions, including historically high tariffs on foreign imports and his wide-ranging immigration crackdown. Many have drawn lawsuits challenging his both Washington and Los Angeles, Trump bypassed or ignored objections from elected local leaders. A federal trial on whether Trump violated the law in Los Angeles by calling up the National Guard over the objections of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is underway in San Francisco.- EndsTune InMust Watch

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store