Chindia Alert: You’ll be Living in their World Very Soon
aims to alert you to the threats and opportunities that China and India present. China and India require serious attention; case of ‘hidden dragon and crouching tiger’.
Without this attention, governments, businesses and, indeed, individuals may find themselves at a great disadvantage sooner rather than later.
The POSTs (front webpages) are mainly 'cuttings' from reliable sources, updated continuously.
The PAGEs (see Tabs, above) attempt to make the information more meaningful by putting some structure to the information we have researched and assembled since 2006.
Tense relations with the US and the question of whether armed confrontation can be avoided will loom large when China’s political elites meet
Structural shifts in balance of power have brought the countries closer to the brink, analyst says, with the South China Sea the most likely flashpoint
Illustration: Brian Wang
This is the fifth in a nine-part series examining the issues Chinese leaders face as they gather for their annual “two sessions” of the National People’s Congress and Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference this week. This story looks at the sharp decline of US-China ties, and where it may lead.
When thousands of China’s elites flock to Beijing for the delayed national legislative session starting on Friday they will face a renewed debate about relations with the US. Specifically, can armed conflict between the two economic superpowers be avoided?
The question is not new, but it has taken on a new urgency as the acrimony escalates between Washington and Beijing amid the Covid-19 pandemic, exposing growing cracks in the current global order.
Harvard professor Graham Allison raised the question in a 2017 book, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’ Trap? The reference being to the Greek historian of 2,500 years ago and the conundrum named after him on the likelihood of armed conflict when a rising power challenges a ruling power.
President Xi Jinping has shown personal interest in the Thucydides trap concept, which Allison first posed in a 2012 newspaper article, referencing it on at least three occasions, including the eve of the swearing-in ceremony of US President Donald Trump three years ago.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2017, Xi said the Thucydides trap “can be avoided … as long as we maintain communication and treat each other with sincerity”.
Xi Jinping referenced the Thucydides trap concept on the eve of Donald Trump’s swearing-in ceremony. Photos: AFP
But since then, the devastating Covid-19 pandemic has driven the deeply fraught US-China relations to the brink of an all-out confrontation as a result of strategic distrust and misperception, said Wang Jisi, president of Peking University’s Institute of International and Strategic Studies.
“China and the US are shifting from an all-around competition to a full-scale confrontation, with little room for compromise and manoeuvring,” Wang said in a speech in late March. “We cannot rule out the possibility that the two powers may fall into the Thucydides trap.”
That seems to sum up the tone of recent communications from the US side. Trump has vowed to “take whatever actions that are necessary” to seek reparations and hold China accountable for the Covid-19 disease that was first identified in the city of Wuhan at the end of last year. His top aides, especially Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary Mark Esper, have been particularly blunt.
During the Munich Security Conference in February, Esper described China as a rising threat to the world order and urged countries to side with the US in preparing for “high intensity conflict against China”.
The prospects for bilateral ties are deeply worrying and we are just one step away from a new cold warZhu Feng, Nanjing University
Mainland authorities are usually reluctant to play up sensitive diplomatic topics during the annual gatherings of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, known as the “two sessions”.
Domestic concerns, especially the socio-economic upheaval wrought by the pandemic, will no doubt dominate the week-long meetings as the country faces the deepest economic contraction in decades, mass unemployment, and a possible manufacturing exodus from China.
However, the sharp decline in relations with the US in recent months and its possible consequences are expected to loom large in the minds of over 5,000 participants at the two sessions, according to Gu Su, a political scientist at Nanjing University.
“Considering the boiling tensions with the US over Covid-19 and the resulting scrutiny of China’s global ambitions – which have dealt a heavy blow to the economy, especially at local levels, and left the country increasingly isolated – it may be hard to suppress such discussions,” Gu said.
Given the widespread public interest in these contentious topics, Xi and other top leaders may need to weigh in personally and set the tone for the national debate, especially on the future of China and US relations, he said.
But it would be unrealistic to expect major policy decisions on diplomacy, as “the two sessions are not usually known for substantial foreign policy deliberations”, said Zhu Feng, an international affairs expert at Nanjing University.
Paramilitary police officers patrol in Tiananmen Square near the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, where China’s political elites are about to meet for the “two sessions”. Photo: Reuters
‘Worst-case scenarios’
The deterioration of US-China ties has clearly alarmed Xi and his top aides. On April 8, the Chinese leader issued an unusually stark warning that “we must get ready for the worst-case scenarios” in light of unprecedented external adversity and challenges, according to Xinhua.
While the state news agency did not elaborate on what Xi meant by worst-case scenarios, a recent study by a Chinese government-backed think tank offered some hints.
The China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), affiliated with the Ministry of State Security, said Beijing may need to prepare for armed confrontation with Washington amid the worst anti-China backlash since the Tiananmen crackdown in 1989, according to Reuters, which cited an internal report.
The report warned that China’s overseas investments, especially the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, could fall victim to rising anti-Chinese sentiments, while the US may accelerate efforts to counter Beijing’s expanding clout by increasing financial and military support for regional allies.
While the think tank declined to confirm the Reuters story, many international relations analysts shared similar bleak assessments of US-China relations.
“We are already in an all-around confrontation with the US, which sees both sides at odds on almost every front – from trade and tech tensions, military, ideological and geopolitical rivalry, to political and legal battles over the coronavirus,” Zhu said. “The prospects for bilateral ties are deeply worrying and we are just one step away from a new cold war.”
With much of the world still in the grip of the Covid-19 pandemic, Beijing’s critics and opponents, led by the US, have upped the ante in the blame-shifting game as they line up to pursue an international investigation into the origins of the deadly virus.
The coronavirus has also derailed most of China’s diplomatic agenda for the first half of the year, with Xi’s planned state visits to Japan and South Korea postponed.
Meanwhile, China’s relations with the European Union have become more tense, though Beijing managed to dodge a bullet at this week’s World Health Assembly, which adopted a mildly worded resolution drafted by the EU to carry out an independent inquiry into different countries’ response to the outbreak at “an appropriate time”.
But a growing number of European countries have pushed back against China’s diplomatic assertiveness and followed Washington’s lead to press Beijing for greater transparency over the coronavirus.
Shelley Rigger, a political science professor at Davidson College in North Carolina, said the CICIR report, if confirmed, offered a clear-eyed assessment of the situation and did not have the usual triumphalist tone present in many papers on international relations from China.
“That’s a good thing. Everyone needs to be realistic, and not indulge in wishful thinking or overconfidence,” she said.
The ‘two sessions’ explained: China’s most important political meetings of the year
Seth Jaffe, assistant professor of political science and international affairs at John Cabot University in Rome and an expert on Greek history, said the Chinese think tank report was “profoundly concerning”.
“The acrimonious narratives surrounding Covid-19 are currently reshaping the attitudes of leaders and populations alike, which is leading to harder-line strategic postures, as evidenced by the hawkish CICIR report,” he said. “In this way, the virus blame game is stirring up nationalistic pride and grievance, narrowing the space for political leaders to manoeuvre, and creating zero-sum dynamics that invite future conflict – a vicious cycle.”
According to Jaffe, the author of Thucydides on the Outbreak of War: Character and Contest, although the temperaments of Trump and Xi would matter enormously in any actual crisis, it was the structural shifts in the balance of power in recent years that had brought the two sides closer to the brink.
The most likely collision scenario, he said, would be in the South China Sea.
“I still worry most about military close encounters associated with American freedom of navigation operations, which could rapidly escalate in unintended but dangerous directions, for example, in the direction of a serious naval conflict.”
Guided-missile destroyer the USS Barry sails in the South China Sea last month. Photo: AFP
He said an international incident would put Trump and Xi on a reputational collision course, with each leader facing pressure to stand up to the other and not back down, given the mistrust and heated rhetoric.
“The danger, then, is an unforeseen spark, which could set off a frightening movement up the escalation ladder,” he added.
Zhao Tong, a senior fellow at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Centre for Global Policy in Beijing, also expressed concern that military incidents and conflicts with the US had become “less unimaginable given how quickly mutual animosity is building”.
Nationalist sentiment
In recent months, many senior Chinese diplomats have risen to Xi’s hardline, nationalist call and displayed their “fighting spirit”, often at the expense of the country’s global image.
“In future crises, if People’s Liberation Army officers, like some Chinese diplomats, calculate that it is in their personal interests to act extra tough, even if they know their aggression could cause war and cost China dearly, they might still feel incentivised to do so,” Zhao said.
To make things worse, according to Zhang Tuosheng, a security analyst from the China Foundation for International and Strategic Studies, Beijing and Washington had yet to set up an operational crisis management mechanism.
The Chinese leadership surely understands the massive costs of military action against TaiwanShelley Rigger, Davidson College
“One of the major lessons is that we’ve paid scant attention to the establishment of a series of mechanisms that have proven necessary during the Cold War era in preventing tensions spiralling out of control in the event of emergencies or a real crisis,” he said.
Beijing made clear its resentment over the warming ties between Washington and Taipei ahead of and during Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen’s inauguration on Wednesday, but a military confrontation over the self-ruled island in the near term was not likely, according to Rigger.
“The Chinese leadership surely understands the massive costs – in blood, treasure and reputation – of military action against Taiwan. They are way too smart to count on the US not intervening,” she said.
Rigger noted several retired PLA officers, including
, had unusually toned down their hawkish stance on seeking reunification with Taiwan by force.
“That is a frustrating message for many Chinese to hear, but war is very costly and very unpredictable – something the US has learned through painful experience,” she said.
While experts called for efforts to lower tensions in the lead-up to the US presidential election in November, most said that would largely hinge on Trump.
“Anything is possible with Trump,” Rigger said. “If he thinks better relations with China will help him win re-election, he will do whatever it takes to turn the relationship around. I’d be really surprised if the Chinese leadership didn’t respond positively to such an opportunity.”
But Zhu said it would be naive to pin hopes on Trump, who was desperate to play the China card in his re-election campaign.
“Beijing should be particularly cautious on Taiwan and the South China Sea disputes and should not engage in rhetorical tit-for-tat with Washington,” he said. “We need to look beyond the Trump presidency and prioritise the steady development of bilateral relations over the need to outcompete Trump.”
The richest man in China opened his own Twitter account last month, in the middle of the Covid-19 outbreak. So far, every one of his posts has been devoted to his unrivalled campaign to deliver medical supplies to almost every country around the world.
“One world, one fight!” Jack Ma enthused in one of his first messages. “Together, we can do this!” he cheered in another.
The billionaire entrepreneur is the driving force behind a widespread operation to ship medical supplies to more than 150 countries so far, sending face masks and ventilators to many places that have been elbowed out of the global brawl over life-saving equipment.
But Ma’s critics and even some of his supporters aren’t sure what he’s getting himself into. Has this bold venture into global philanthropy unveiled him as the friendly face of China’s Communist Party? Or is he an independent player who is being used by the Party for propaganda purposes? He appears to be following China’s diplomatic rules, particularly when choosing which countries should benefit from his donations, but his growing clout might put him in the crosshairs of the jealous leaders at the top of China’s political pyramid.
Other tech billionaires have pledged more money to fight the effects of the virus – Twitter’s Jack Dorsey is giving $1bn (£0.8bn) to the cause. Candid, a US-based philanthropy watchdog that tracks private charitable donations, puts Alibaba 12th on a list of private Covid-19 donors. But that list doesn’t include shipments of vital supplies, which some countries might consider to be more important than money at this stage in the global outbreak.
The world’s top coronavirus financial donors
How Alibaba compares to the top five. No one else other than the effervescent Ma is capable of dispatching supplies directly to those who need them. Starting in March, the Jack Ma foundation and the related Alibaba foundation began airlifting supplies to Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and even to politically sensitive areas including Iran, Israel, Russia and the US.
Ma has also donated millions to coronavirus vaccine research and a handbook of medical expertise from doctors in his native Zhejiang province has been translated from Chinese into 16 languages. But it’s the medical shipments that have been making headlines, setting Ma apart.
“He has the ability and the money and the lifting power to get a Chinese supply plane out of Hangzhou to land in Addis Ababa, or wherever it needs to go,” explains Ma’s biographer, Duncan Clark. “This is logistics; this is what his company, his people and his province are all about.”
A friendly face
Jack Ma is famous for being the charismatic English teacher who went on to create China’s biggest technology company. Alibaba is now known as the “Amazon of the East”. Ma started the company inside his tiny apartment in the Chinese coastal city of Hangzhou, in the centre of China’s factory belt, back in 1999. Alibaba has since grown to become one of the dominant players in the world’s second largest economy, with key stakes in China’s online, banking and entertainment worlds. Ma himself is worth more than $40bn.
Officially, he stepped down as Alibaba’s chairman in 2018. He said he was going to focus on philanthropy. But Ma retained a permanent seat on Alibaba’s board. Coupled with his wealth and fame, he remains one of the most powerful men in China.
Media caption The BBC’s Secunder Kermani and Anne Soy compare how prepared Asian and African countries are
It appears that Ma’s donations are following Party guidelines: there is no evidence that any of the Jack Ma and Alibaba Foundation donations have gone to countries that have formal ties with Taiwan, China’s neighbour and diplomatic rival. Ma announced on Twitter that he was donating to 22 countries in Latin America. States that side with Taiwan but who have also called for medical supplies – from Honduras to Haiti – are among the few dozen countries that do not appear to be on the list of 150 countries. The foundations repeatedly refused to provide a detailed list of countries that have received donations, explaining that “at this moment in time, we are not sharing this level of detail”.
However, the donations that have been delivered have certainly generated a lot of goodwill. With the exception of problematic deliveries to Cuba and Eritrea, all of the foundations’ shipments dispatched from China appear to have been gratefully received. That success is giving Ma even more positive attention than usual. China’s state media has been mentioning Ma almost as often as the country’s autocratic leader, Xi Jinping.
AFP
So far…
Over 150 countries have received donations from Jack Ma, including about:
120.4mface masks
4,105,000testing kits
3,704ventilators
Source: Alizila
It’s an uncomfortable comparison. As Ma soaks up praise, Xi faces persistent questions about how he handled the early stages of the virus and where, exactly, the outbreak began.
The Chinese government has dispatched medical teams and donations of supplies to a large number of hard-hit countries, particularly in Europe and South-East Asia.
However, those efforts have sometimes fallen flat. China’s been accused of sending faulty supplies to several countries. In some cases, the tests it sent were being misused but in others, low-quality supplies went unused and the donations backfired.
In contrast, Jack Ma’s shipments have only boosted his reputation.
“It’s fair to say that Ma’s donation was universally celebrated across Africa,” says Eric Olander, managing editor of the China Africa Project website and podcast. Ma pledged to visit all countries in Africa and has been a frequent visitor since his retirement.
“What happens to the materials once they land in a country is up to the host government, so any complaints about how Nigeria’s materials were distributed are indeed a domestic Nigerian issue,” Olander adds. “But with respect to the donation itself, the Rwandan leader, Paul Kagame, called it a “shot in the arm” and pretty much everyone saw it for what it was which was: delivering badly-needed materials to a region of the world that nobody else is either willing or capable of helping at that scale.”
Walking the tightrope
But is Ma risking a backlash from Beijing? Xi Jinping isn’t known as someone who likes to share the spotlight and his government has certainly targeted famous faces before. In recent years, the country’s top actress, a celebrated news anchor and several other billionaire entrepreneurs have all “disappeared” for long periods. Some, including the news anchor, end up serving prison sentences. Others re-emerge from detention, chastened and pledging their allegiance to the Party.
“There’s a rumour that [Jack Ma] stepped down in 2018 from being the chairman of the Alibaba Group because he was seen as a homegrown entrepreneur whose popularity would eclipse that of the Communist Party,” explains Ashley Feng, research associate at the Centre for New American Security in Washington DC. Indeed, Ma surprised many when he suddenly announced his retirement in 2018. He has denied persistent rumours that Beijing forced him out of his position.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption Ma discussed trade with then-President-elect Donald Trump in January 2017
Duncan Clark, Ma’s biographer, is also aware of reports that Ma was nudged away from Alibaba following a key incident in January 2017. The Chinese billionaire met with then-President-elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower, ostensibly to discuss Sino-US trade. The Chinese president didn’t meet with Trump until months later.
“There was a lot of speculation of time that Jack Ma had moved too fast,” Clark says. “So, I think there’s lessons learned from both sides on the need to try to coordinate.”
“Jack Ma represents a sort of entrepreneurial soft power,” Clark adds. “That also creates challenges though, because the government is quite jealous or nervous of non-Party actors taking that kind of role.”
Technically, Ma isn’t a Communist outsider: China’s wealthiest capitalist has actually been a member of the Communist Party since the 1980s, when he was a university student.
But Ma’s always had a tricky relationship with the Party, famously saying that Alibaba’s attitude towards the Party was to “be in love with it but not to marry it”.
Even if Ma and the foundations connected to him are making decisions without Beijing’s advance blessing, the Chinese government has certainly done what it can to capitalise on Ma’s generosity. Chinese ambassadors are frequently on hand at airport ceremonies to receive the medical supplies shipped over by Ma, from Sierra Leone to Cambodia.
China has also used Ma’s largesse in its critiques of the United States. “The State Department said Taiwan is a true friend as it donated 2 million masks,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry tweeted in early April. “Wonder if @StateDept has any comment on Jack Ma’s donation of 1 million masks and 500k testing kits as well as Chinese companies’ and provinces’ assistance?”
Perhaps Ma can rise above what’s happened to so many others who ran afoul of the Party. China might just need a popular global Chinese figure so much that Ma has done what no one else can: make himself indispensable.
“Here’s the one key takeaway from all that happened with Jack Ma and Africa: he said he would do something and it got done,” explains Eric Olander. “That is an incredibly powerful optic in a place where foreigners often come, make big promises and often fail to deliver. So, the huge Covid-19 donation that he did fit within that pattern. He said he would do it and mere weeks later, those masks were in the hands of healthcare workers.”
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption Ma at an Electronic World Trade Platform event with Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed last year
Duncan Clark argues that Ma already had a seat at China’s high table because of Alibaba’s economic heft. However, his first-name familiarity with world leaders makes him even more valuable to Beijing as China tries to repair its battered image.
“He has demonstrated the ability, with multiple IPOs under his belt, and multiple friendships overseas, to win friends and influence people. He’s the Dale Carnegie of China and that certainly, we’ve seen that that’s irritated some in the Chinese government but now it’s almost an all hands on deck situation,” Clark says.
There’s no doubt that China’s wider reputation is benefiting from the charitable work of Ma and other wealthy Chinese entrepreneurs. Andrew Grabois from Candid, the philanthropic watchdog that’s been measuring global donations in relation to Covid-19, says that the private donations coming from China are impossible to ignore.
“They’re taking a leadership role, the kind of thing that used to be done by the United States,” he says. “The most obvious past example is the response to Ebola, the Ebola outbreak in 2014. The US sent in doctors and everything to West Africa to help contain that virus before it left West Africa.”
Chinese donors are taking on that role with this virus.
“They are projecting soft power beyond their borders, going into areas, providing aid, monetary aid and expertise,” Grabois adds.
So, it’s not the right time for Beijing to stand in Jack Ma’s way.
“You know, this is a major crisis for the world right now,” Duncan Clark concludes. “But obviously, it’s also a crisis for China’s relationship with the rest of the world. So they need anybody who can help dampen down some of these those pressures.”
Legislation ‘blatantly obstructs other sovereignties from developing legitimate diplomatic relations with China’, foreign ministry says
US president’s decision could damage efforts by Beijing and Washington to work together in the fight against Covid-19, observers say
The United States’ new Taipei Act aims to discourage Taiwan’s allies from cutting diplomatic ties with the island due to pressure from Beijing. Photo: EPA-EFE
Beijing has condemned US President Donald Trump’s decision to sign into law an act designed to bolster Taiwan’s diplomatic standing in the world, describing it as an act of hegemony.
“China expresses its strong indignation and firmly opposes the bill,” foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a press conference on Friday.
The legislation, he said, “blatantly obstructs other sovereignties from developing legitimate diplomatic relations with China, which is an act of hegemony” adding that it also “seriously violated the one-China principle … [and] brutally interferes in Chinese domestic affairs”.
Trump signed the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (Taipei) Act of 2019 on Thursday, just hours before speaking to Chinese President Xi Jinping over the telephone to discuss how the two countries can work together to tackle the coronavirus pandemic.
China calls for ‘concrete steps’ from US to cooperate on fighting Covid-19
27 Mar 2020
The legislation aims to discourage Taiwan’s diplomatic allies from cutting ties with the island due to pressure from Beijing. It also requires the US to supplement its own diplomatic presence in countries that support Taiwan and reduce its diplomatic footprint if they side with Beijing.
The bill was written by Republican senator for Colorado Cory Gardner and Democrat senator for Delaware Chris Coons, who said the US should support Taiwan in strengthening its alliances around the world amid increased pressure and “bullying tactics” from Beijing.
It was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives on March 4 after being reconciled with the Senate’s version that was approved in October.
Relations between Beijing and Taipei have been at a low ebb since Tsai Ing-wen, from the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party, was elected president in 2016, and re-elected for a further four-year term in January.
Taiwan’s foreign ministry welcomed the legislation, thanking the United States for its support for the island’s “diplomatic space” and right to participate in world affairs.
In the coronavirus fog, tussling over Taiwan goes under the radar
27 Mar 2020
Observers said that while the new act would benefit Taipei on the world stage, it would also be detrimental to its relationship with Beijing, and could be damaging to the commitments made between Xi and Trump to work together to fight Covid-19.
“Given it has been suppressed by Beijing in recent years, the new act will help Taiwan to gain more support from the international community,” said Zheng Zhengqing, an expert on Taiwan affairs at Tsinghua University in Beijing.
He said that Xi believed Taipei’s international role should be decided by Beijing, not Washington.
“What Trump has done comes from the opposite direction … and could hinder engagement and cooperation between [mainland] China and the US amid the coronavirus outbreak and make matters worse,” he said.
Zhu Songling, a professor at the Institute of Taiwan Studies at Beijing Union University, said the Taipei Act had crossed a red line for Beijing and would bring further uncertainty to China-US relations, as well as relations across the Taiwan Strait.
Beijing considers Taiwan part of its sovereign territory awaiting reunification with the mainland, by force if necessary.
Taipei-based political and military commentator Chi Le-yi said that while the new legislation was significant, it remained to be seen how it would affect Taiwan’s global standing or the stability of the Taiwan Strait amid the ongoing strategic gamesmanship between mainland China and the US.
“The bill itself is very meaningful, it has turned the US’s concerns about Taiwan issue into a legal issue,” he said.
“But its impact will depend on how it is implemented by America’s executive units.”
Image copyright STRDELImage caption Prime Minister Modi is the third most followed leader on Twitter after Donald Trump
The world’s second most popular leader – when it comes to social media, at least – sent shockwaves through the internet on Monday, after announcing he was considering leaving the platforms.
After all, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the only politician to even come close to challenging US President Donald Trump’s online dominance.
And so it was somewhat unsurprising that the hashtag #ModiQuitsSocialMedia began trending in India, with users quick to share a heady cocktail of conspiracy theories, memes and desperate pleas.
However, Mr Modi, who has 54 million followers on Twitter, 35.2 million followers on picture sharing platform Instagram and 44 million followers on Facebook, soon revealed the true reason behind his abandonment of social media.
On Tuesday, he said that he would “give away my social media accounts to women whose life & work inspire us”.
But the “big reveal” came only after his first tweet generated an absolute social media storm.
Some theories suggested he was quitting social media platforms as they were being controlled by his opponents. Others speculated that he would launch an indigenous social platform, to match Twitter and Facebook, something similar to social media platforms like WeChat and Weibo in China.
“Expect SM companies stock to crash,” wrote one confident user.
Apart from the theories, there were desperate pleas from his fans. One wrote: “Please Sir, You can’t leave social media now for the sake of your fans!” Another added: “Modi Ji if you leave social media , they will use it against you and nation interest.”
“For me he is not only PM of India but also emotion. You’re king of social media. Don’t go sir.”
Some users suggested that his account had been hacked.
Soon, #Iwillalsoleavetwitter started trending.
Arun Yadav, the head of Haryana state IT and social media for BJP, tweeted asking the PM to not quit the platform as it was one way Indians could communicate with him.
But there were also jokes.
“Spare a thought for Twitter, Facebook & their stocks. PM Modi is all set to demonetise social media,” wrote one user, referring to the overnight decision to ban high value currency notes in November.
One user suggested that the prime minister was quitting all other platforms in order to make his TikTok debut.
“Modi ji is a typical Indian boyfriend after breakup,” quipped one Twitter user.
“Modiji should be awarded Nobel Peace Prize for bringing peace in the digital world,” said another.
Image caption #NoModiNoTwitter was a India trend on Twitter after PM Modi’s tweet yesterday
There were political reactions too.
In a cheeky response, Rahul Gandhi, former president of the main opposition Congress party, tweeted: “Give up hatred, not social media accounts.”
Congress leader and MP Shashi Tharoor followed suit, writing: “The PM’s abrupt announcement has led many to worry whether it’s a prelude to banning these services throughout the country too.”
Mr Modi’s eventual tweet which clarified matters was seen by some as an anti-climax.
But for the millions who were pleading with him to reconsider, this is surely a big relief.
Health official Debbie Birx appointed as ‘coronavirus response coordinator’ under Vice-President Mike Pence
Facing outbreak threat a month ago, US president said ‘we have it totally under control’. This week, under fire, he changed course
US Vice-President Mike Pence (right) speaks alongside US President Donald Trump during a press conference about the coronavirus at the White House on Wednesday. Photo: dpa
This story is published in a content partnership with POLITICO. It was originally reported by Adam Cancryn, Quint Forgey and Dan Diamond on politico.com on February 27, 2020.
In the end, US President Donald Trump got a coronavirus tsar – without having to call it a tsar.
Vice-President Mike Pence, whom Trump appointed on Wednesday to lead his coronavirus response, announced a global health official as the “White House coronavirus response coordinator” – installing a tsar-like figure under him to guide the administration’s response to the outbreak after a protracted public dance around how to display the power of the federal bureaucracy to the American people.
The move marked the administration’s latest attempt to show it is in control of the spreading global threat after weeks of fumbled messaging, rising market jitters and mounting backlash from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
Coronavirus: New cases outside China outnumber those inside for first time since start of epidemic
The two-day journey of upgrading the federal government’s public response highlighted a sharp contrast between Trump’s political instincts to play down the virus risk in an election year and calls from health officials and lawmakers to show the government in command of a deadly and frightening threat.
The new role will put Ambassador Debbie Birx, who has served since 2014 as the US government’s leader for combating HIV/Aids globally, at the centre of what now appears to be three leaders of the government response.
Trump revealed in a news conference on Wednesday evening that Pence would head up the administration’s management of the coronavirus, overseeing a task force nominally led by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. Birx will report to Pence but serve on the task force that Azar chairs.
Over three decades of public health experience, Birx “has been utilising the best science to change the course of the HIV pandemic and bring the pandemic under control”, the White House said in a statement, adding that she “will bring her infectious disease, immunologic, vaccine research and inter-agency coordinating capacity to this position”.
Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday, Pence said “we are ready for anything” to fight coronavirus.
Trump faces ‘black swan’ threat to economy and re-election
25 Feb 2020
“I promise you, this president, this administration, is going to work with leaders in both parties. We’ll work with leaders across this nation, at the state and local level. And this president will always put the health and safety of America first.”
Birx’s appointment marked the latest swerve by the White House in assigning responsibility to tackle the burgeoning public health crisis.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, Trump said “we have it totally under control” and maintained “it’s going to be just fine”. The virus has since exploded globally from China to nearly 50 countries, with more worries emerging inside the US.
A week after Trump’s Davos comments, the White House announced a task force to handle the widening outbreak. A month later, Trump was forced to vastly upgrade the response when his bold predictions proved to be wrong.
US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar (left) speaks as US Vice-President Mike Pence listens during a coronavirus task force meeting in Washington on Thursday. Photo: Reuters
Appointing a “coordinator” allowed Trump to fulfil an increasingly urgent call from lawmakers to put a trusted public health official at the centre of the White House response as a tsar.
Some administration officials had opposed appointing a tsar – a move President Barack Obama used in 2014 during the Ebola threat – because it could be perceived as an admission of failure up to this point, while others have been criticising Azar for months for his work on the president’s health initiatives far beyond coronavirus.
On Wednesday, Azar told lawmakers “I serve as the lead” on coronavirus efforts, and he denied a POLITICO report stating that the White House was weighing whether to appoint a tsar to coordinate its response to the spreading epidemic.
The leadership change – putting Pence in charge – was a shock to Azar and his team, four people familiar with the matter said, coming soon after the health secretary returned from his full day of congressional testimony.
Facebook cancels its big annual developers event due to coronavirus
28 Feb 2020
Azar had reason to be confident: Trump had reassured him earlier in the day that he was doing a good job atop the task force and would not be replaced. And technically, he was not, even though he has lost ultimate authority over the federal response.
Azar insisted at Trump’s Wednesday news conference, however, that he would remain the chair of the White House task force, indicating Pence would play a supervisory role. That was before Thursday morning’s coronavirus “coordinator” announcement, which Trump hinted at the prior night.
At a congressional hearing on Thursday, Azar downplayed the significance of Pence’s appointment, calling it a “a lot of continuity” of the administration’s response to date.
“What the vice-president will do is actually a function very similar to what acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney has been doing very ably for me,” he told the House Ways and Means Committee, describing the role largely as ensuring alignment across the government and coordinating decision-making outside the health care arena.
“The vice-president’s involvement and leadership across the whole of government brings just the weight of the office of the vice-president to that task.”
Why the WHO isn’t labelling Covid-19 a pandemic and how the world coped with past global diseases
Azar later insisted that he was consulted and involved in the decision to put Pence in charge, telling lawmakers that he was supportive as soon as the suggestion was made. “I said, quote, that’s genius,” he said.
Azar also told reporters after the hearing that he was “involved” in the decision Wednesday to name Birx.
“She’s a terrific leader. And she will do wonderful work helping us with just the internal processes,” he said. As for Pence’s new role, Azar said “the vice-president helps me, in terms of heft within the executive agency” but maintained that he’s still leading the inter-agency task force work among a slew of other responsibilities as the nation’s health chief.
The compromise position allows the White House to respond to frustration inside and outside the administration while allowing Azar to save face. Trump remains pleased with his health secretary and had reassured him as recently as Wednesday that he was happy with his work on the coronavirus, people close to the White House said.
The White House is battling bipartisan criticism from members of Congress sceptical of the administration’s response and emergency funding request, which some lawmakers have slammed as insufficient to counter the growing threat.
US lawmakers push White House for more aggressive coronavirus preparations
27 Feb 2020
The administration’s disjointed messaging about the severity of the threat earlier this week frustrated even Republicans on Capitol Hill, especially after White House National Economic Director Larry Kudlow declared the containment effort as nearly “airtight” at nearly the same time CDC officials were warning of its “inevitable” spread.
An exasperated Senator John Kennedy aired his concerns directly to Trump on Tuesday, after the Louisiana Republican struggled to extract basic answers about the disease from acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf.
“We had one story from the classified briefing, we had another story from one Cabinet secretary, then we had another story from another Cabinet secretary,” said Kennedy, who on Thursday praised the decision to elevate Pence. “[Trump] said, I hear what you’re saying, I’m gonna get this straight.”
The announcement of Birx’s latest role within the administration came hours after news broke in California of the first potential case of coronavirus spreading within the US.
Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during an April 2014 swearing-in ceremony for Debbie Birx (left) as ambassador-at-large and coordinator of US government activities to combat HIV/Aids. Photo: AFP
It also follows intense scrutiny of Pence’s record as governor of Indiana overseeing a massive HIV outbreak in the state that public health experts deemed preventable – an episode that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi raised directly with the vice-president on Thursday morning.
“I expressed to him the concern that I had of his being in this position,” she said during her weekly press conference.
Birx brings bipartisan credibility to the job, having won widespread praise from Democrats in the run-up to her 2014 confirmation as head of the Obama administration’s global HIV/Aids office.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrat Ben Cardin in 2014 called her “one of the most well-qualified nominees that has ever come before the US Senate for confirmation,” ahead of a unanimous vote to install her in the job.
Trump asks Congress for US$2.5 billion to fight coronavirus
25 Feb 2020
Congressman Eliot Engel, now the top Democrat on the House’s Foreign Affairs Committee, similarly lauded her as a “dedicated force in efforts to eliminate the global scourge of HIV/Aids”.
Yet despite her Obama-era appointment, Birx is a Republican and could be characterised as a conservative, one person who knows her said.
This person added that she’d be “good on camera” and has already worked closely with several of the administration’s current top public health officials – including Centres for Disease Control and Prevention director Robert Redfield, with whom she served as an Army doctor.
Most notably, this person said, she aided Redfield’s candidacy to become CDC chief in 2018, serving as a reference and advocating for him within the administration.
Seven people have been killed in Delhi in protests against India’s controversial new citizenship law, as US President Donald Trump made his first official visit to the country.
Violence has erupted again in parts of north-east Delhi, which saw deadly clashes between supporters and opponents of the law on Monday night.
Two journalists have been attacked and BBC reporters in the area say mobs are throwing stones and shouting slogans.
There are fears of further clashes.
Mobs in parts of north-east Delhi are throwing stones at each other, and the situation remains tense, according to BBC correspondents.
Gokulpuri, in #Delhi today. The BBC saw mobs of people with sticks and stones chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’. Parts of Delhi are witnessing the worst violence and rioting India’s capital has seen in decades. Seven confirmed dead. #DelhiViolence
A policeman and six civilians have died in Delhi’s deadliest violence since the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) – which critics say is anti-Muslim – was passed last year.
Around 150 people, including 48 policemen, are reportedly injured.
Image copyright AFP
“There are around 200 people, some are holding the Indian flag in their hands, others are holding saffron flags, generally associated with right-wing Hindu groups. They are chanting Jai Shri Ram [hail Lord Ram],” BBC Hindi reporter Faisal Mohammed said.
The crowd was also shouting “shoot the traitors”, our reporter added.
Correspondents say the timing of the unrest is an embarrassment to Prime Minister Narendra Modi as he hosts the US president and the violence has taken the spotlight away from Mr Trump’s visit.
Where is the violence?
It broke out in three Muslim-majority areas in north-east Delhi on Sunday and has continued since.
The violence in the area has seen protesters firmly split along religious lines, BBC reporters at the scene say.
Both sides have blamed each other for starting the clashes.
Image copyright REUTERSImage caption The violence in the Muslim-majority areas in north-east Delhi began on Sunday
The violence has been linked to a BJP leader, Kapil Mishra, who had threatened a group of protesters staging a sit-in against the CAA over the weekend, telling them that they would be forcibly evicted once Donald Trump had left India.
The clashes spilled into Monday and police fired tear gas shells and led baton charges to disperse the stone-throwing crowds. TV footage showed flames and smoke billowing from buildings.
Eyewitnesses said they saw charred vehicles and streets full of stones in areas like Jaffrabad and Chand Bagh on Tuesday morning. Police were allowing people to enter only after checking their identity cards. Some Metro stations have also been shut.
Who are the dead and injured?
Six civilians and one policeman have been killed in the violence so far.
“One of the seriously injured is a senior police officer. He has now been moved to another hospital for specialised treatment,” an official said.
Two journalists belonging to the NDTV news channel were badly beaten while they were out reporting on Tuesday morning.
Shahid Alvi, an auto rickshaw driver, died because of a bullet injury he suffered during the protest. His brother Rashid told BBC Hindi that Shahid was married just a month ago.
“He was shot in the stomach and died while we were taking him to the hospital,” he said.
Another victim has been identified as Rahul Solanki.
His brother, Rohit Solanki, told BBC Hindi that he died after being shot as he tried to escape from a mob.
“He had gone out to buy groceries when he was suddenly surrounded. He was shot at point blank range. We tried taking him to four hospitals but we were turned away,” he said.
What are officials doing?
Delhi’s freshly re-elected Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, called on the federal government to restore law and order.
“There are not enough police on the streets [in the affected areas]. Local police are saying they are not getting orders from above to control the situation, and they are not able to take action,” he told reporters.
The capital’s police force reports directly to Mr Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government.
Home Minister Amit Shah, who is in-charge of Delhi’s police forces, is holding a meeting with Mr Kejriwal to discuss the situation.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption The police and protesters fought pitched battles on the streets of Delhi
What is the citizenship act about?
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) grants amnesty to non-Muslim immigrants from three nearby Muslim-majority countries.
The new law has raised fears that India’s secular status is at risk.
Critics say it discriminates against Muslims. But the government says the protests are unnecessary as it only seeks to give amnesty to persecuted minorities.
Protests so far have been largely led by Muslim women and men, but a lot of Hindus have also joined them.
AHMEDABAD, India (Reuters) – Donald Trump was cheered by more than 100,000 Indians at the opening of the world’s largest cricket stadium on Monday, promising “an incredible trade deal” and “the most feared military equipment on the planet” at his biggest rally abroad.
Indians wore cardboard Trump masks and “Namaste Trump” hats to welcome the U.S. president at the huge new Motera stadium in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s own political homeland, the western city of Ahmedabad.
Modi, a nationalist who won re-election last year and has shifted his country firmly to the right with policies that his critics decry as authoritarian and ethnically divisive, touts his relationship with Trump as proof of his own global standing.
U.S. officials have described Trump’s visit as a way to counter China’s rise as a superpower.
“You have done a great honour to our country. We will remember you forever, from this day onwards India will always hold a special place in our hearts,” Trump said to thunderous applause.
India is one of the few big countries in world where Trump’s personal approval rating is above 50%. It has built up ties with the United States in recent years as Washington’s relationship has become strained with India’s foe Pakistan.
“As we continue to build our defence cooperation, the United States looks forward to providing India with some of the best and most feared military equipment on the planet,” Trump said.
Trump said the two countries will sign deals on Tuesday to sell military helicopters worth $3 billion and that the United States must become the premier defence partner of India, which relied on Russian equipment during the Cold War. Reuters reported earlier that India has cleared the purchase of 24 helicopters from Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) worth $2.6 billion.
But in a sign of the underlying political tensions in India, violent protests broke out in Delhi – where Trump is due on Tuesday – over a new citizenship law that critics say discriminates against Muslims and is a further attempt to undermine the secular foundations of India’s democracy.
Vehicles were set on fire in the eastern part of Delhi, metal barricades torn down, and thick smoke billowed through the air as thousands of those who are supporting the new law clashed with those opposing it.
In his speech Trump extolled India’s rise as a stable and prosperous democracy as one of the achievements of the century. “You have done it as a tolerant country. And you have done it as a great, free country,” he said.
Trump planned to raise the issue of religious freedoms in India with Modi, an administration official said last week.
VERY BIG DEALS
In Ahmedabad, Modi embraced Trump as he stepped off Air Force One, along with his wife, Melania.
Folk dancers carrying colourful umbrellas danced alongside the red carpet as drummers, trumpeters and other musicians performed at the airport to welcome Trump and the U.S. delegation. Crowds lined the route along his cavalcade, many taking pictures on their phones.
The two sides did not manage to hammer out a trade deal ahead of the visit, with differences remaining over agriculture, medical devices, digital trade and proposed new tariffs. Trump said he was going to discuss economic ties with Modi, describing him as a tough negotiator.
“We will be making very, very major, among the biggest ever made, trade deals. We are in the early stages of discussion for an incredible trade agreement to reduce barriers of investment between the United States and India,” he said.
“And I am optimistic that working together, the prime minister and I can reach a fantastic deal that’s good and even great for both of our countries – except that he is a very tough negotiator.”
Modi, who has built a personal rapport with Trump, is pulling out the stops for the president although prospects for even a limited trade deal during the visit are seen as slim.
“There is so much that we share, shared values and ideals … shared opportunities and challenges, shared hopes and aspirations,” said Modi at the rally.
Trump, who faces his own re-election campaign this year, has frequently praised Modi for his crowd-pulling power.
Last year, Trump held a “Howdy Modi” rally with Modi in Houston, drawing 50,000 people, mainly Indian Americans. At the time, Trump likened Modi to Elvis Presley as a draw for crowds.
Later, Trump and his entourage which includes daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner flew to Agra to see the Taj Mahal at sunset. Children lined the route cheering and waving flags as his convoy drove past.
Trump and Melania posed for pictures at the Taj, the 17th century monument to love. “It’s incredible,” he told reporters.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption Mr Trump is making his first official visit to India
US President Donald Trump is expecting a raucous welcome on his first official state visit to India on Monday and Tuesday.
He follows a long line of leaders who have made the journey. Some of his predecessors were greeted enthusiastically; others stumbled through diplomatic gaffes; one even had a village named after him.
Can history be a guide to how this diplomatic tryst might go? Here’s a brief look at past visits, ranked in order of how they went.
The good: President Eisenhower
Let’s begin at the beginning.
Dwight D Eisenhower, the first US president to visit India, was greeted with a 21-gun salute when he landed in the national capital, Delhi, in December 1959. Huge crowds lined the streets to catch a glimpse of the World War Two hero in his open-top car – Mr Trump is expecting a similar reception in Ahmedabad city, where he will be doing a road show.
Image copyright US EMBASSY ARCHIVESImage caption Dwight D Eisenhower, pictured with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, was the first US president to make the trip
The warmth between President Eisenhower and Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru helped during what was a rocky phase in US-India ties. This was early in the Cold war, when the US and Pakistan had become become close allies, and India insisted on staying neutral or “non-aligned”. Like today, relations with China were at the core of the India-US equation, with Washington pressuring Delhi to take an aggressive stance with Beijing on the issue of Tibet.
But, on the whole, Eisenhower’s four-day trip was billed a success. And nearly every US president on a state visit to India has emulated his itinerary: he laid flowers at Mahatma Gandhi’s memorial, took in the splendour of the Taj Mahal, addressed parliament and spoke at Delhi’s iconic Ramlila grounds, which, according to one news report, attracted one million people.
When he left, Nehru said he had taken with him “a piece of our heart”.
Image copyright US EMBASSY ARCHIVESImage caption President Eisenhower was greeted by large crowdsThe game-changer: Bill Clinton
If there was a game-changing visit, it would be Bill Clinton’s in March 2000 with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Mr Clinton’s arrival came after a two-decade lull – neither Ronald Reagan nor George Bush Snr made the journey East. It came at a tricky time as Washington had imposed sanctions on Delhi following its 1999 test of a nuclear bomb.
But, according to Navtej Sarna, a former Indian Ambassador to the US, the five-day trip was “a joyous visit”. It included stops in Hyderabad, a southern city that was emerging as a tech hub, and Mumbai, India’s financial capital. “He came and saw the economic and cyber potential of India, and democracy in action,” says Mr Sarna.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption Bill Clinton’s visit was described as “joyous”Mr Clinton also danced with villagers, took a tiger safari and sampled Delhi’s famously creamy black dal (lentils) at a luxury hotel that has since been associated with the president.
The country’s reaction is perhaps best expressed in this New York Times headline: “Clinton fever – a delighted India has all the symptoms.”
The nuclear deal: George W Bush
George W Bush, as Forbes magazine once put it, was the “best US president India’s ever had”. His three-day visit in March 2006 was a highlight in the two countries’ strategic relationship – especially in matters of trade and nuclear technology, subjects they have long wrangled over. His strong personal dynamic with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was hard to miss – after he left office, Mr Bush, a keen artist, even painted a portrait of Mr Singh.
The two leaders are credited for a historic but controversial nuclear deal, which was signed during Mr Bush’s visit. It brought India, which had for decades refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), out of isolation. Energy-hungry India got access to US civil nuclear technology in exchange for opening its nuclear facilities to inspection.
Image copyright US EMBASSY ARCHIVESImage caption George W Bush and Manmohan Singh had a very good relationshipHowever, while the visit was substantive, it was not as spectacular as others – there was no trip to the Taj, nor an address to parliament. But the timing was important. Anti-US sentiment over the invasion of Iraq was running high – left-wing MPs had staged a protest against Mr Bush’s visit, and there were demonstrations in other parts of India.
Double visit: Barack Obama
Barack Obama was the only president to make two official visits. First, in 2010 with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and then in 2015 with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
On his first visit – in a break from the past – he landed in Mumbai, instead of Delhi, with a large trade delegation. This was not just about economic ties but a show of solidarity following the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008, which killed 166 people. Mr and Mrs Obama even stayed at the Taj Mahal hotel, one of the main targets.
It was significant that the US president declared support for India to join a reformed and expanded UN Security Council, says Alyssa Ayres, a former US deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asia. “That all these years later nothing has changed in the UN system is another matter, but that was a major policy shift for the United States.”
Image copyright US EMBASSY ARCHIVESImage caption Barack Obama visited India twiceMr Obama returned in 2015 as chief guest at India’s Republic Day celebrations, at PM Modi’s invitation. Trade, defence and climate change were at the heart of the talks. The trip also emphasised an Indo-Pacific strategy, where both leaders expressed unease over Beijing’s provocations in the South China Sea.
The not-so-good: Jimmy Carter
Although Jimmy Carter’s two-day visit in 1978 was a thaw in India-US relations, it was not free of hiccups.
With some 500 reporters in tow, Carter followed a packed itinerary: he met Prime Minister Morarji Desai, addressed a joint session of parliament, went to the Taj Mahal, and dropped by a village just outside Delhi.
The village, Chuma Kheragaon, had a personal connection: Carter’s mother, Lillian, had visited here when she was in India as a member of the Peace Corps in the late 1960s. So when Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, made the trip, they gave the village money and its first television set. It was even renamed “Carterpuri”, a moniker it still holds.
Image copyright US EMBASSY ARCHIVESImage caption Jimmy Carter being greeted by villagers of ‘Carterpuri’But beyond the photo-ops, India and the US were sparring. India was building its nuclear programme, and had conducted its first test in 1974. The US wanted India to sign the NPF, which sought to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. But India refused, saying the agreement discriminated against developing countries.
In a leaked conversation that made headlines and threatened to derail the visit, Mr Carter promised his Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, a “very cold and very blunt” letter to Desai. The two leaders signed a declaration, promising greater global co-operation, but Carter left India without the assurances he had hoped for.
The ugly: Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon was no stranger to India when he arrived in August 1969 for a day-long state visit. He had been here as vice-president in 1953, and before that on personal trips. But, by all accounts, he wasn’t a fan.
“Nixon disliked Indians in general and despised [Prime Minister] Indira Gandhi,” according to Gary Bass, author of Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger and a Forgotten Genocide. And, he adds, the feeling was said to be mutual.
This was also at the height of the Cold War, and India’s non-alignment policy “appalled” American presidents. Mr Bass says that under Gandhi, India’s neutrality had turned into a “noticeably pro-Soviet foreign policy”.
Image copyright GETTY IMAGESImage caption Richard Nixon waves to the crowds alongside Mohammad Hidyatullah, India’s acting presidentThe relationship only turned frostier after the trip as India backed Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in its fight for independence from Pakistan, a close American ally. The differences were laid bare when Gandhi visited the White House in 1971. Declassified state department cables later revealed that Nixon referred to her as an “old witch”.
And the future: Donald Trump
The US and India have certainly had their ups and downs, but during the last official visit in 2015, Mr Obama and Mr Modi signed a declaration of friendship: “Chalein saath saath (Let’s move forward together)…” it began.
President Trump’s visit will take the relationship forward, but it’s unclear how.
Image copyright AFP
His arrival in Ahmedabad, the main city in PM Modi’s home state of Gujarat, followed by a big arena event, is expected to draw a massive crowd. It will echo President Eisenhower’s rally in Delhi years ago, perhaps cementing the personal ties between the two leaders.
But while Mr Trump’s trip will be packed with pageantry, it could be light on policy. Unlike other presidential visits, this one is not expected to yield concrete agreements, with the trade deal Mr Trump so badly wants looking unlikely.
News of his death was met with an intense outpouring of grief on Chinese social media site Weibo – but this quickly turned into anger.
There had already been accusations against the government of downplaying the severity of the virus – and initially trying to keep it secret.
Dr Li’s death has fuelled this further and triggered a conversation about the lack of freedom of speech in China.
The country’s anti-corruption body has now said it will open an investigation into “issues involving Dr Li”.
The Chinese government has previously admitted “shortcomings and deficiencies” in its response to the virus, which has now killed 636 people and infected 31,161 in mainland China.
According to Chinese site Pear Video, Dr Li’s wife is due to give birth in June.
What has the public reaction been?
Chinese social media has been flooded with anger – it is hard to recall an event in recent years that has triggered as much grief, rage and mistrust against the government.
The top two trending hashtags on the website were “Wuhan government owes Dr Li Wenliang an apology” and “We want freedom of speech”.
Both hashtags were quickly censored. When the BBC searched Weibo on Friday, hundreds of thousands of comments had been wiped. Only a handful remain.
“This is not the death of a whistleblower. This is the death of a hero,” said one comment on Weibo.
A photo circulating on Twitter reportedly sourced from messaging platform WeChat also shows a message in Chinese saying “Farewell Li Wenliang” written in the snow on a riverbank.
Many have now taken to posting under the hashtag “Can you manage, do you understand?” – a reference to the letter Dr Li was told to sign when he was accused of disturbing “social order”.
These comments do not directly name him – but are telling of the mounting anger and distrust towards the government.
Media caption Coronavirus: Shanghai’s deserted streets and metro
“Do not forget how you feel now. Do not forget this anger. We must not let this happen again,” said one comment on Weibo.
“The truth will always be treated as a rumour. How long are you going to lie? What else do you have to hide?” another said.
“If you are angry with what you see, stand up,” one said. “To the young people of this generation, the power of change is with you.”
An epic political disaster
The death of Dr Li Wenliang has been a heart-breaking moment for this country. For the Chinese leadership it is an epic political disaster.
It lays bare the worst aspects of China’s command and control system of governance under Xi Jinping – and the Communist Party would have to be blind not to see it.
If your response to a dangerous health emergency is for the police to harass a doctor trying to blow the whistle, then your structure is obviously broken.
The city’s mayor – reaching for excuses – said he needed clearance to release critical information which all Chinese people were entitled to receive.
Now the spin doctors and censors will try to find a way to convince 1.4 billion people that Dr Li’s death is not a clear example of the limits to the party’s ability to manage an emergency – when openness can save lives, and restricting it can kill.
He was initially declared dead at 21:30 on Thursday (13:30GMT) by state media outlets the Global Times, People’s Daily and others.
Hours later the Global Times contradicted this report – saying he had been given a treatment known as ECMO, which keeps a person’s heart pumping.
Journalists and doctors at the scene said government officials had intervened – and official media outlets had been told to change their reports to say the doctor was still being treated.
But early on Friday, reports said doctors could not save Dr Li and his time of death was 02:58 on Friday.
Image copyright LI WENLIANGImage caption Li Wenliang contracted the virus while working at Wuhan Central Hospital
What did Li Wenliang do?
Dr Li, an ophthalmologist, posted his story on Weibo from a hospital bed a month after sending out his initial warning.
He had noticed seven cases of a virus that he thought looked like Sars – the virus that led to a global epidemic in 2003.
On 30 December he sent a message to fellow doctors in a chat group warning them to wear protective clothing to avoid infection.
Four days later he was summoned to the Public Security Bureau where he was told to sign a letter.
In the letter he was accused of “making false comments” that had “severely disturbed the social order”. Local authorities later apologised to Dr Li.
In his Weibo post he describes how on 10 January he started coughing, the next day he had a fever and two days later he was in hospital. He was diagnosed with the coronavirus on 30 January.
Media caption The BBC’s online health editor on what we know about the virus
Singapore has raised its Disease Outbreak Response System Condition (Dorscon) level from yellow to orange. This means that the disease is deemed severe and spreads easily from person to person but has not spread widely and is being contained
Chinese President Xi Jinping has told his US counterpart Donald Trump that China is “fully confident and capable of defeating the epidemic”. The country has introduced more restrictive measures to try to control the outbreak:
The capital Beijing has banned group dining for events such as birthdays. Cities including Hangzhou and Nanchang are limiting how many family members can leave home each day
Hubei province has switched off lifts in high-rise buildings to discourage residents from going outside.
The virus has now spread to more than 25 countries. There have been more than 28,000 cases worldwide but only two of the deaths have been outside mainland China.
CHINDIA ALERT: You'll be living in their world, very soon 