• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Michael D. Swaine"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "China’s Foreign Relations",
    "U.S.-China Relations"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Chinese Views on the Presumptive U.S. Presidential Candidates Hillary R. Clinton and Donald J. Trump

While some Chinese observers praise Trump’s directness, others perceive him as a threat. For such observers, Clinton’s predictability is seen positively, yet some of her positions are expected to increase tensions.

Link Copied
By Michael D. Swaine
Published on Jul 19, 2016
Program mobile hero image

Program

Asia

The Asia Program in Washington studies disruptive security, governance, and technological risks that threaten peace, growth, and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific region, including a focus on China, Japan, and the Korean peninsula.

Learn More

Source: China Leadership Monitor

This year (2016) is a presidential election year, and as always, views toward China and U.S.-China relations play a role in the presidential campaigns of both the Republican and Democratic Party candidates.

In many past campaign years, while stressing the growing importance of the U.S.-China relationship, presidential candidates have generally highlighted the points of contention between Beijing and Washington, especially in the economic, human rights, and (to a lesser extent) national security arenas. These statements and policy platforms have often criticized China (sometimes very sharply) for its alleged transgressions, and proposed various supposedly new or more energetic policy moves designed to elicit more favorable Chinese behavior.

The China issue has frequently been a campaign point for past presidential candidates of both parties. In his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton used the China issue to criticize the foreign policies of the incumbent George H. W. Bush Republican administration. Clinton used the 1989 government actions in Tiananmen Square to accuse Reagan and Bush of sending “secret emissaries to raise a toast with those who crushed democracy.”1 Similarly, in 2000, part of Al Gore’s foreign policy agenda was to strongly support normalized trade relations with China because “it is right for America’s economy and right for the cause of reform in China.” This gave George W. Bush a point on which to attack Gore.2 Again, in the 2012 election, Barack Obama took a shot at China by complaining to the WTO about Beijing’s imposition of more than $3 billion in duties on U.S. automobile exports, which the Obama administration regarded as an abuse of trade laws. Other than being a counterargument to Mitt Romney’s claim that Obama had not been tough enough on China’s trade policies, this was also a way to remind voters that Romney’s role as a private equity executive was linked to the outsourcing of American jobs to China.3

This year is no exception to the general pattern of a China focus in the foreign policy arena. Both of the presumptive presidential candidates, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Donald J. Trump, have addressed China, U.S.-China relations, and U.S. policy toward China at various times in their campaigns, often stressing the problems Beijing poses while offering various supposed new or improved policy solutions. That said, the 2016 presidential campaign arguably provides a particularly interesting example of the China views of presidential candidates. Given her long history as First Lady, U.S. senator, and public political figure, Clinton has an extensive track record of views on China and has in the past generated considerable controversy within that country over her stances. Chinese views on her during the current campaign to some extent reflect that history. In contrast, Trump is a relative newcomer to the national political arena, and has made far fewer comments on China. However he has arguably made up for that deficiency in recent months as an extremely provocative and energetic candidate, offering a variety of controversial statements on China or China-related aspects of U.S. foreign policy...

This article was originally published in China Leadership Monitor.

NOTES

1 Paul Haenle, “The China Factor in the U.S. Presidential Election: Separating Rhetoric from Action,” Carnegie-Tsinghua, October 17, 2012,
http://carnegietsinghua.org/publications/?fa=49700#3.

2 “Gore Tries to Sway Union on China Trade,” Associated Press, May 23, 2000,
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/may/23/news/mn-33119.

3 Jeff Mason, “Obama knocks China trade policy, Romney on campaign tour,” Reuters, July 5, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-campaign-obamaidUSBRE8640WM20120705;
see also Tom Cohen, “Obama, Romney duel over China, immigration,” CNN Politics (website), September 18, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17/politics/campaign-wrap/.

I am indebted to Wenyan Deng for her critical assistance in the preparation of this article.

Read Full Text

About the Author

Michael D. Swaine

Former Senior Fellow, Asia Program

Swaine was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and one of the most prominent American analysts in Chinese security studies.

    Recent Work

  • Other
    What Kind of Global Order Should Washington and Beijing Strive For?

      Michael D. Swaine

  • Commentary
    A Smarter U.S. Strategy for China in Four Steps

      Michael D. Swaine

Michael D. Swaine
Former Senior Fellow, Asia Program
Michael D. Swaine
Political ReformForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaChina

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Paper
    Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

    After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

      Saheb Singh Chadha

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    Ahead of the Ankara Summit, NATO’s Mood Has Changed

    European allies are less focused on appeasing Trump and more focused on smoothing the transition to a Europe-led alliance.

      • Nate Reynolds
      • +1

      Sophia Besch, Alper Coşkun, Nate Reynolds, …

  • Photo of commercial ship anchored near the Strait of Hormuz.
    Article
    In the Middle East and North Africa, America and China Converge More Than They Diverge

    Middle powers in the region will keep hedging between Washington and Beijing. It’s in the great powers’ interests to play along.

      • Photo of Kathryn Selfe.

      Amr Hamzawy, Kathryn Selfe

  • White House fences and stormy weather
    Paper
    The Effects of U.S. Democratic Backsliding on U.S. Power

    Democratic erosion is undercutting four key elements of U.S. power, with mounting and likely lasting effects.

      Thomas Carothers

  • Turkey ship Istanbul Bosporus Straits Black Sea
    Article
    Managing Montreux: Turkey and the Russia-Ukraine War in the Black Sea

    For ninety years, Turkey has been positioned as the principal gatekeeper of Black Sea security. As a result, European and NATO efforts to support Ukraine will require closer engagement with Ankara.

      Thomas de Waal

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.