The Room Where It Happened

by John Bolton;

  We had to admit we were all late to realize the full extent of Huawei’s strategy, but that was not an excuse to compound our earlier mistakes. Even as we discussed these issues, China was showing its teeth, unlawfully detaining Canadian citizens in China, just to show they could.22 Canada was under great domestic pressure, which Trudeau was having difficulty resisting. Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, never a friend of the US, was arguing that Canada should simply not abide by our extradition treaty.23 Pence, Pompeo, and I all urged Canada to stand firm, stressing we would support them every way we could, including directly raising with China the mistreatment of Canadian citizens. As we pointed out, this was the way China behaved even as some people continued to praise its “peaceful rise” as a “responsible stakeholder.” How would China act as it became dominant, if we let it? This is a national-security debate that will go on well into the future. Tying it to trade degrades our position both in trade and in national security.

  By early May, Ross was prepared to put Huawei on the Commerce Department’s “entity list,” as had been done to ZTE, precluding US firms from selling to Huawei without specific licenses, which could deal Huawei a body blow. I strongly supported the measure, for the same reasons we barred US government purchases of Huawei goods and services. This was not a commercial company as we know that concept, and it should not have been treated as one. At yet another Oval Office roll-around on May 15, Mnuchin said listing Huawei would effectively shut it down, which wasn’t true, but it was fine with me if it did. To be fair, Mnuchin may have been a little unhinged by the collapse just a week before of five months of intensive trade negotiations with China, which now appeared to be broken beyond repair. Mnuchin said Ross’s draft press statement on Huawei was extreme, so Ross asked if he could read it aloud and let others decide, which he did. Said Trump, “It’s a fucking great statement. It’s beautiful. Add ‘with the approval of the President’ next to one of the references to Commerce adding Huawei to the entity list.” Mnuchin wouldn’t give up but was finally overwhelmed, saying snippily to Trump, “I gave you my advice, and you followed the wrong person.”

  In the June 18 Xi-Trump phone call (see above), Xi pressed hard on Huawei. Trump repeated his point that Huawei could be part of the trade deal, along with all of the other factors being discussed. Xi warned that, if not handled properly, Huawei would harm the overall bilateral relationship. In an amazing display of chutzpah, Xi described Huawei as an outstanding private Chinese company, having important relations with Qualcomm and Intel. Xi wanted the ban on Huawei lifted, and said he wanted to work jointly with Trump personally on the issue, and Trump seemed amenable. He tweeted his delight at the call shortly after the two leaders hung up. Sensing weakness, Xi kept pushing at the G-20, saying we should resolve Huawei as part of the trade talks. Trump forthwith reversed his earlier position, saying he would now allow US companies to sell to Huawei immediately, thereby effectively reversing Ross, as Trump had reversed him on ZTE earlier. Fortunately, after this meeting, we re-reversed all this, and Trump’s loose comment had little real-world impact. But what impact did it have in the minds of the Chinese to see this behavior on Trump’s part? We were just lucky China didn’t move more quickly to pin Trump’s concession down before we prevented any damage.

  I briefed Mnuchin on the call a few hours later. More than a little concerned, Mnuchin said, “We’ve got to try to protect the President on the Huawei stuff. People thought he was trading national security for trade on ZTE, and if we allow him to do it again on Huawei, we’ll get the same kind of backlash, or worse.” That was true then and remains true today.24

  * * *

  Former Vice President Dan Quayle told me as far back as October 2018, after a trip to Hong Kong, that China had become increasingly aggressive, kidnapping from Hong Kong businessmen who had somehow crossed Beijing, many of whom were simply never heard from again. The business community was too scared to say much or get it reported in the international press. Quayle believed one reason China was prepared to behave so cavalierly was that Hong Kong’s economy now amounted to only 2 percent of China’s total, whereas at the time of the handover from Great Britain in 1997, it amounted to 20 percent. Those were stunning numbers.

  Dissatisfaction in Hong Kong had been growing, although without receiving media attention. The pervasive feeling was that Beijing was steadily eroding the “one country, two systems” concept, and that time was running out before Hong Kong simply became just another Chinese city. An extradition bill proposed by Hong Kong’s government provided the spark, and by early June 2019, massive protests were under way. I first heard Trump react on June 12, upon hearing the number of people at the demonstrations the Sunday before, some 1.5 million: “That’s a big deal,” he said, but immediately added, “I don’t want to get involved,” and “We have human-rights problems too.” That pretty much ended my Twitter campaign pressing China to honor its deal with Great Britain, highlighting how little respect China paid to international agreements, for all those so excited at the prospect of a trade deal.

  I hoped Trump would see these Hong Kong developments as giving him leverage over China, although not necessarily because he supported the demonstrators’ efforts to preserve Hong Kong’s unique status. I should have known better. During the UK state visit, on June 4, the thirtieth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Trump refused to issue a White House statement. Mnuchin told Trump he worried about the effects of the draft statement on the trade negotiations and wanted to water it down. That was bad enough, but Trump said he didn’t want any statement at all. “That was fifteen years ago,” he said, inaccurately. “Who cares about it? I’m trying to make a deal. I don’t want anything.” And that was that.

  The demonstrators, however, won a major victory when Beijing’s handpicked Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam backed off the extradition bill, effectively killing it. Protests continued, next putting two million “HongKongpeople,” pronounced as one word, into the streets the following weekend, now demanding Lam’s resignation.

  In the June 18 phone call, along with trade and Huawei, Trump said that he saw what was happening in Hong Kong, that it was a domestic Chinese issue, and he had told his advisors not to discuss Hong Kong publicly in any way, shape, or form. Xi was appreciative, saying that what happened in Hong Kong was indeed a purely Chinese domestic affair. He said that the extradition issue, which had touched off the demonstrations, was to close existing loopholes in Hong Kong law, and was for serious criminal matters. He also stressed that stability and prosperity in Hong Kong was a plus for both China and the United States, and others should refrain from interfering in Hong Kong affairs. Trump acquiesced. With that, Hong Kong’s fate might have all but disappeared from our agenda.

  However, as Pompeo pointed out when we spoke later that day, several statutory reporting requirements would obligate the State Department, at some point, to opine on the Hong Kong situation, with no way to duck. “What are you going to say on the Sunday talk shows?” he asked rhetorically. “Or me, or any of us?” By mid-August, there were increasing media reports about the possibility of a Chinese crackdown in Hong Kong. I briefed Trump on what we knew, and he said he might tweet about it. I urged him, if he did so, to rely only on public sources, but as was so often the case, he ignored this warning, tweeting instead:

  Our Intelligence has informed us that the Chinese Government is moving troops to the Border with Hong Kong. Everyone should be calm and safe! Many are blaming me, and the United States, for the problems going on in Hong Kong. I can’t imagine why?

  So much for stopping all those leaks from the “deep state.”

  On August 13, after our discussion on F-16 sales to Taiwan (see below), Trump tweeted again:

  I know President Xi of China very well. He is a great leader who very much has the respect of his people. He is also a good man in a ‘tough business.’ I have ZERO doubt that if President Xi wants to quickly and humanely solve the Hong Kong problem, he can do it. Pers
onal meeting?

  Of course, with so much at stake in Hong Kong, there was little doubt Xi personally was calling the shots. As October 1, the seventieth anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, approached, tensions grew accordingly. No one believed Beijing would accept extensive demonstrations in Hong Kong, especially if they turned violent, raining on Xi’s parade. China’s news agency Xinhua warned the demonstrators, “The end is coming,” about as explicit a threat as you could make.25

  In November, however, pro-democracy advocates turned local council elections into a referendum on the city’s future. Stunningly, HongKongpeople voted in unprecedented numbers, overwhelming pro-Beijing candidates, and completely reversed the political coloration of the local councils. This fight was on.

  * * *

  China was also busily repressing ethnic minorities—in Tibet, for example—as it had been doing for decades. Beijing’s repression of the Uighurs also proceeded apace. Trump asked me at the 2018 White House Christmas dinner why we were considering sanctioning China because of its treatment of the Uighurs, a non–Han Chinese, largely Muslim people, who lived primarily in China’s northwest Xinjiang Province. Ross had warned me that morning Trump didn’t want sanctions because of the China trade negotiations. The issue of the Uighurs had been wending its way through the NSC process, but it was not yet ready for decision. It only got worse. At the opening dinner of the Osaka G20 meeting, with only interpreters present, Xi explained to Trump why he was basically building concentration camps in Xinjiang. According to our interpreter, Trump said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which he thought was exactly the right thing to do. Pottinger told me Trump said something very similar during the 2017 trip to China, which meant we could cross repression of the Uighurs off our list of possible reasons to sanction China, at least as long as trade negotiations continued.26

  Religious repression in China was also not on Trump’s agenda; whether it was the Catholic Church or Falun Gong, it didn’t register. That was not where Pence, Pompeo, and I were, but it was Trump’s call. US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback, pressing for Trump to do a religious freedom event at the upcoming September 2019 opening of the UN General Assembly, thought China was “horrible across the board,” which was just about right.

  * * *

  Trump was particularly dyspeptic about Taiwan, having listened to Wall Street financiers who had gotten rich off mainland China investments. Although it came in several variations, one of Trump’s favorite comparisons was to point to the tip of one of his Sharpies and say, “This is Taiwan,” then point to the Resolute desk and say, “This is China.” So much for American commitments and obligations to another democratic ally. Taiwan very much wanted a free-trade agreement with the US, which generated absolutely no interest that I could discern. China pounded away during my tenure, sensing weakness at the top, doubtless having heard from those Wall Street financial types. Yang Jiechi, in our November 8 meeting, gave me the customary lecture about Taiwan’s being the most important and sensitive issue in US-China relations. Remarkably, he said that we had a mutual stake in preventing Taiwanese independence as if we were co-conspirators, which I certainly didn’t believe. He talked endlessly about the “one China” policy, which he mischaracterized in Beijing’s favor. At the Buenos Aires dinner, Xi urged us to be prudent on Taiwan, which Trump agreed he would be alert to, meaning we escaped with our lives. I was delighted the discussion was so brief.

  Xi returned to Taiwan at Osaka, saying it involved Chinese sovereignty and national integrity, and warning that our entire bilateral relationship could become unhinged. He asked for Trump’s personal attention to the issue, probably figuring he had identified his mark and wasn’t going to let him get away. Always infuriating to me, Xi urged that we not allow Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen to travel to the United States, or to sell arms to Taiwan, both of which Xi deemed critical for stability across the Taiwan Strait. Much of Xi’s position directly contradicted the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, US legislation that authorizes US arms sales to Taiwan for purposes of self-defense, including an important sale of F-16s to significantly upgrade Taiwan’s defense capabilities. In fact, Taiwan was far from behaving belligerently. Quite the contrary. Dan Quayle told me in October that Taiwan had shrunk its military dramatically, by more than half in recent years, which struck me as a huge mistake.

  Pompeo was holding back a congressional notification on the F-16 sale, worried that, in addition to generally grousing, as Trump did on all Taiwan sales, this time he might actually refuse to proceed with it. Given our delicate circumstances on military sales to Ukraine, this was not fanciful. We strategized on persuading Trump and got Mick Mulvaney on board, as a former congressman from South Carolina, a state with major Boeing manufacturing facilities. On August 13, in an afternoon conference call with Trump at Bedminster, we explained the enormous political blowback if the sale didn’t proceed. There was no US subsidy or foreign aid involved, and Taiwan was paying full costs for the F-16s, for a total sales price of $8 billion and lots of jobs in South Carolina. We also said it was better to go forward now, before something dramatic happened in Hong Kong. Trump asked, “Did you ever give any thought to not making the sale?” to which, of course, the answer was no. Trump finally said, “Okay, but do it quietly. John, you’re not going to give a speech about it, are you?” which I actually hadn’t thought about. But I probably should have.

  After I left the White House, when Trump abandoned the Kurds in Syria, there was speculation about who he might abandon next.27 Taiwan was right near the top of the list, and would probably stay there as long as Trump remained President, not a happy prospect.

  * * *

  More thunder out of China, in the form of the coronavirus pandemic, came in early 2020. Although epidemiologists (not to mention biological weapons experts) will be studying this catastrophe long into the future; the mark of China’s authoritarian government and social-control systems is all over it. There is little doubt that China delayed, withheld, fabricated, and distorted information about the origin, timing, spread, and extent of the disease;28 suppressed dissent from physicians and others;29 hindered outside efforts by the World Health Organization and others to get accurate information; and engaged in active disinformation campaigns, actually trying to argue that the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and the disease itself (COVID-19) did not originate in China.30 Ironically, some of the worst effects of China’s cover-up were visited on its closest allies. Iran, for example, looked to be one of the worst-hit countries, with satellite photos showing the excavation of burial pits for the expected victims of COVID-19.31

  With 2020 being a presidential election year, it was inevitable that Trump’s performance in this global health emergency would become a campaign issue, which it did almost immediately. And there was plenty to criticize, starting with the Administration’s early, relentless assertion that the disease was “contained” and would have little or no economic effect. Larry Kudlow, Chairman of the National Economic Council, said, on February 25, “We have contained this. I won’t say [it’s] airtight, but it’s pretty close to airtight.”32 Market reactions to these kinds of assertions were decidedly negative, which may finally have woken the White House up to the seriousness of the problem. And obviously, in addition to the humanitarian implications, the economic and business consequences would certainly continue to reverberate through the November elections and beyond. Trump’s reflex effort to talk his way out of anything, however, even a public-health crisis, only undercut his and the nation’s credibility, with his statements looking more like political damage control than responsible public-health advice. One particularly egregious example was a news report that the Administration tried to classify certain public-health information regarding the United States on the spurious excuse that China was involved.33 Of course China was involved, which is a reason to disseminate the information broadly, not restrict it. This, Trump was reluctant to do througho
ut the crisis, for fear of adversely affecting the elusive definitive trade deal with China, or offending the ever-so-sensitive Xi Jinping.

  Other criticisms of the Administration, however, were frivolous. One such complaint targeted an aspect of the general streamlining of NSC staffing that I conducted in my first months at the White House. To reduce duplication and overlap, and enhance coordination and efficiency, it made good management sense to shift the responsibilities of the directorate dealing with global health and biodefense into the existing directorate dealing with weapons of mass destruction (biological, chemical and nuclear). The characteristics of bioweapons’ attacks and pandemics can have much in common, and the medical and public-health expertise required to deal with both threats went hand in hand. Combining the two directorates therefore maximized the opportunities for working more effectively together, as well as raising the priority of biosecurity, by structurally recognizing that the threat could come from either of two directions, natural or man-made. Most of the personnel working in the prior global health directorate simply moved to the combined directorate, and continued doing exactly what they were doing before. One person moved to the international organizations directorate and continued to work there on health issues in the UN system and other bodies. Like all NSC directorates, most staffers come from other Departments and agencies, and rotate after one- or two-year assignments at the NSC back to their home bases. That process continued. Tim Morrison, the senior director I brought in to handle these matters, and his successor, Anthony Ruggiero, have successfully kept global health a focus.34

  I personally made it clear that global health remained a top priority, and that the NSC’s role remained unchanged. That criticisms of the reorganization came from Obama Administration alumni who had initially created the separate global health office signaled their underlying political basis. Obama’s staffing reflected the view that the White House had to be involved in often-minute operational details, which was contrary to Scowcroft’s model of a non-operational NSC, as well as the management philosophy that properly delegated authority was a far more effective way to administer programs and policies than constant second-guessing from on high.35