The United States has declared a trade conflict against China, imposing stringent restrictions, which notably target HUAWEI. Coinciding with the launch of HUAWEI 5G Mate 60 Pro featuring entirely Chinese-made components and the visit of U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo to China, a surge of technology discourse has emerged. This paper will analyze Raimondo’s anti-China technological stance and touch up on how Chinese netizens express their nationalism in response to these anti-Chinese narratives.

A “Setup” Leads to “Upset”

In recent years, China has emerged as a formidable technological force, narrowing the technology gap and challenging aggressive Western dominance and hegemony, particularly that of the United States (Mahoney, 2022). This has resulted in the implementation of stringent measures by the US Department of Commerce. These measures include the prohibition of American companies from selling technological components to Chinese tech companies without government approval, the imposition of punitive tariffs on Chinese goods, and the inclusion of hundreds of Chinese enterprises on its Entity List. These actions are taken in response to the perception that China is an American national security threat. HUAWEI, suspected of close ties to the Chinese government and a potential espionage concern, has been a primary target of such technological restrictions. Obviously, the relationship between China and the United States has deteriorated, with the trade war evolving into a technological cold war (Mascitelli & Chung, 2019).

As the US Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo is tasked with fostering job growth, promoting innovation among entrepreneurs, and enhancing the competitiveness of American workers and businesses (Gina M. Raimondo, n.d.). China has transitioned from being a mere low cost labor market to an advanced technological society. American officials, including Raimondo, have consistently conveyed an ideological narrative that China threatens US national security and the “US-led global system” (Mahoney, 2022). To fulfill her responsibilities, the spokeswoman — on behalf of the Department of Commerce — has taken a tough anti-China stance, implementing measures to restrict the country's development in high technology sectors. “The rapid expansion of the Entity List with the inclusion of more and more Chinese companies happened under her reign at the Department of Commerce” (Gong, 2023). Additionally, she has fully supported a bipartisan bill — known as the Science and Chip Act — to demonstrate her American nationalism. This act aims to incentivize domestic semiconductor manufacturing in the US, with the goal of surpassing China’s semiconductor industry and maintaining a competitive advantage. Raimondo plays a vital role in shaping Sino-US ties. Hence, she becomes an important political figure, and her discourse on Chinese technology thus worthy of analysis.  

Although tensions have escalated, seemingly, both countries have attempted to prevent further deterioration of Sino-US relations. Following visits by several American high-ranking officials to China, US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo concluded her visit to Beijing and Shanghai. Ahead of her visit to China, she removed twenty-seven Chinese companies from its “Unverified List”, which restricts listed companies' abilities to purchase US technology (Wang, 2023). This move suggests a conciliatory gesture from the US toward China, especially when it is compared to her previous action. Hence, the aim of her visit was to communicate with the Chinese government to seek opportunities to cooperate and stabilize the trade ties between the two economies.

During Raimondo's time in China, HUAWEI quietly dropped its new series of Mate 60 Pro smartphones onto the market. What was unexpected is that images of Raimondo were doctored in “commercial ads” by a Chinese netizen, portraying her as endorsing HUAWEI's new 5G smartphone and unwittingly turning her into its brand ambassador. These advertisements (see Figure 1), rapidly gained attention on Chinese social media platforms, and even transcended the “great wall”, spreading abroad. The intended aim of her visit was to communicate to the Chinese government and stabilize the trade ties between the two largest economies. The surprising turn of events, however, could potentially jeopardize Sino-US relations. Initially, Raimondo did not respond to the high-end made-in-China 5G device and the “setup”. Nevertheless, she did express that she was “upset” with the new product launch when she was back in the US.

Zoom in to the Methodology

To delve deeper into the anti-Chinese technology discourse articulated by Secretary Raimondo, Critical Discourse Analysis — 'CDA' — will be used as an approach to address the following research question: How is Gina Raimondo responding to the technological advancements of China — which challenge the hegemonic position of the United States in contemporary technology sectors —, and how do Chinese netizens reflect on these anti-Chinese technological discourse? CDA, as argued by Blommaert and Bulcaen (2000), is a qualitative research approach that investigates the use of discourse in its social contexts, and unveils the dominant ideologies and power relations behind the discourse. This approach will be used to examine the narrative Raimondo established regarding 'high technology' and semiconductors/chips, particularly in relation to anti-Chinese technology discourse. By scrutinizing the language chosen by Raimondo, and analyzing how this discourse is portrayed within its respective context, valuable insights into power dynamics and concerns about anti-China sentiments emerge.

Maly (2020) suggests that people construct their worldview, societal structures and objects through discourse, which, in turn, influence the world around them. Therefore, the concept of ideology will be employed here to understand the strategies used to influence American citizens and their perceptions of China. Ideology is not merely a set of beliefs, values, and ideas, but a framework through which people interpret and understand social, political and cultural phenomena (Verschueren, 2011). This implies that ideology is constructed rather than innate, created by people, and shared within a group. It holds supreme, undeniable, has transcendent value within the group, and often becomes normalized. In addition, ideology is often implicit and invisible, that is, people take it for granted and do not realize that they hold a particular ideology. It possesses a systematic and logical structure behind it. Hence, ideology can be discursively reflected, constructed, and supported through language. It often reflects and reinforces existing power structures and societal norms, shaping attitudes, behaviors and actions of individuals and society (Verschueren, 2011).

Meanwhile, the concept of hegemony will be applied in this paper as a valuable approach for understanding how dominant ideologies and structures of power exert influence and maintain control over social, political and cultural realms. Blommaert et al., (2003) state that hegemony can refer to the dominance or leadership of one social group or nation over others. It involves the ability of a ruling group to maintain its power and control by shaping the norms, values, beliefs and practices of society in a way that benefits their interests. They emphasize that hegemony is not solely based on coercion or force but also on consent and persuasion, where the dominant group’s ideas are accepted as common sense by the rest of society.

In order to analyze Raimondo’s anti-China discourse during her visit to China and subsequent actions upon returning to the US, text data will be extracted from various sources, including news reports and videos from American mainstream news outlets, and hearing videos related to the American chips act, during which Raimondo testified. The analysis dives into Raimondo's language and narrative choices regarding China, exploring their socio-cultural implications, and uncovering implicit ideological beliefs. Subsequently, it seeks to reveal the complicated interplay between language, power dynamics, ideology and hegemony. Additionally, this paper will employ an approach of techno-orientalism, to understand the ideological underpinning of Raimondo’s anti-Chinese discourse, and explore how the West portrays the East through a Western-centric stereotype. The uptake of Chinese netizens in response to Raimondo’s anti-China stance will be examined at the end of the analysis.

US as a Technological Superiority and Military Supremacy

This part of the analysis will focus on examining Raimondo’s anti-Chinese discourse in detail, both during her visit to China and subsequently in the United States.

While traveling on the high-speed train from Beijing to Shanghai, Raimondo informed reporters that she received complaints from American business companies, asserting that “China is univestible” (Taylor & Ting, 2023) due to a combination of traditional concerns and new uncertainties. Raimondo indirectly reinforces the notion of China as a threat or undesirable investment environment. This sentiment arises amidst a series of sanctions imposed on Chinese tech firms under the export control policy due to concerns over American national security. Consequently, more US companies find themselves unable to generate significant revenue from China, contributing this development to a growing anti-China sentiment. Essentially, Raimondo’s remarks underscore the underlying tensions fueling the escalating conflict between the two nations. This aligns with the concept of ideology, where certain beliefs and values are propagated to shape perceptions and attitudes towards China.

Additionally, as someone with authority over export controls and tasked with promoting US business interests abroad, Raimondo serves as a representative of the administration’s position on American investment in China and vice versa. The mentioning of “traditional concerns” and “a whole new set of concerns” further emphasizes the negative portrayal of China, contributing to the hegemonic discourse that positions China as a risky and unfavorable entity, that threatens the United States' national security. The notion that China as uninvestible, spread by the various news media outlets, is not only a signal to American firms, but also to the country's allies, potentially influencing their perception and future investment decisions as well. This discourse aligns with a broader narrative of hegemonic stance in the West that portrays China as untrustworthy and dangerous, which in turn normalizes the protective measures the US government is issuing.

Raimondo has been promoting the Chips and Science Act, which supports the objective to build a semiconductor ecosystem within the US. The act authorizes substantial subsidies and tax incentives, both for the domestic semiconductor industry and international companies, that exclude China. It mandates that any company benefiting from US subsidies must manufacture semiconductor chips within the country. The underlying agenda of the act is a targeted restriction on China, effectively establishing an exclusivity agreement. Once a decision is made to accept the subsidies from the US, investing in and establishing facilities in China, especially for high-end processes, is prohibited. From the perspective of China, this act is “one-hundred percent of protectionism, one-hundred percent of selfishness, and one-hundred percent of unilateralism which seriously violates the rules of free trade” (Wang, 2023). Despite the US advocating free trade for decades, its actions against China contradict this stance. In every action it undertakes, the US prioritizes its interests and benefits. In essence, the US leverages its dominant position to compel semiconductor companies to choose the United States over China, advancing its technology leadership in the world.

After Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo completed her high-stakes four-day tour of China, she engaged in an interview with NBC News to elaborate on her endeavors during the trip on September 3, 2023. Below is Raimondo’s response to questions about “if the US would be exporting superconductor chips to China in a way that China doesn’t feel we’re trying to choke their military technology” (NBCNews, 2023).

“We are trying to choke their military capacity. So if they feel that, that means our strategy is working. Certainly on my watch, we are not going to sell the most sophisticated American chips to China that they want for their military capacity. We are going to prevent any company for doing that. But I do want to be clear we will still continue to sell billions of dollars of chips a year to China, because the vast majority of chips made are not leading edge. It is good for America to create revenue for American companies which can plow back into research and development, which allows us to lead the world in innovation" (NBC News, 2023).

Parallel to the emergence of the HUAWEI breakthrough on semiconductors, Raimondo expresses a strong anti-China rhetoric, framing China as an enemy whose military shouldn’t benefit from US technology. The founder of HUAWEI, Ren Zhengfei — who served in the Chinese military for several years —, “is considered too ‘close’ to the Chinese government” (Mascitelli & Chung, 2019). By using the term “choke,” she suggests a status gap between the US and China, emphasizing a hegemonic stance from the US over China. Raimondo’s response portrays a deliberate effort to restrict or limit China’s technological improvement by controlling the flow of cutting-edge American chips to prevent their use in China. It also implies an ideological stance that the US will do everything they can to hinder China’s technological advancements in areas critical for military purposes. The US is determined to safeguard its technological superiority and military supremacy, prohibiting any threats from emerging, particularly under Raimondo’s watch.

Raimondo asserts the US’ refusal to sell cutting-edge chips to China, reflecting a consistent protectionist strategy aimed at impeding China’s development in the high-tech field. Emphasizing the critical role of chip technology in modernization and high-tech industries, she underscores how mastery of this technology can provide a competitive advantage. Meanwhile, Raimondo expresses a stance of high technological protectionism, emphasizing the restrictions imposed on China’s access to such technologies for military purposes. This discourse tends to portray stereotypes about China’s role as a massive consumer market, suggesting that nurturing its appetite for Western products could help the US to retain its global economic dominance (Roh et al., 2015).

Moreover, Raimondo acknowledges the willingness of the US to supply China with less sophisticated chips to generate revenue for research and advancement purposes. This narrative reinforces the hegemonic portrayal of the US as the ultimate decision-maker, wielding superpower status. Moreover, by framing China as a strategic adversary that seeks to bolster its military capabilities through advanced technologies, Raimondo’s discourse aligns with techno-orientalist notions. Techno-orientalist stereotypes depict China as a place characterized by extensive replication, robot-like behavior, a lack of critical thought, a hub of intensive labor factories, and as posing a threat to Western technological dominance by imitating and potentially undermining Western technologies (Huang, 2020). This portrayal justifies US efforts to maintain its hegemonic position in the realm of semiconductors while perpetuating a narrative of US dominance and Chinese threats.

Techno-Orientalist Imaginary of East: An Imitation of the West or Its “Other”

Until September 3, 2023, the Commerce Secretary was confident that HUAWEI would not achieve any breakthroughs or advances in semiconductor technology. Raimondo emphasized that export control effectively limits HUAWEI’s capability to develop high-end chips, even though they launched their 5G smartphone during her visit to China. These ongoing sanctions underscore concerns about the potential threat posed by oriental technological advancements to the dominant position of the United States. To further comprehend the ideology of this anti-Chinese technology discourse from Raimondo, it is essential to discuss the ideological framework of 'Orientalism' first, followed by an exploration of how techno-orientalism is employed in the subsequent analysis section.

In Said’s work (1978), 'Orientalism' refers to the western study of the Orient (mainly the Middle East, Asia, and the Far East), based on an ontological and epistemological distinction between them, offering a framework for orientalist imagination. The East is often portrayed as an exotic entity outside the West, an imitation of the West, or as its “other” (Said, 1978). Numerous writings from American and European scholars present inaccurate, misleading, and stereotyped cultural representation of the Orient based on imagined constructs. Through this process, the Occident (West) mastered the discursive power to define and reinforce simplistic images of the East that align with the cultural hegemony of the West. According to Said (1978), Orientalism was a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.

The discourse of Orientalism is powerful. It portrays the “other” as both mystic and exotic, but also as powerful and dangerous — which explains why it sometimes acknowledging the other's technological advancements. Hence, techno-orientalism — which was first proposed by David Morley and Kevin Robin in 1995 — extends from the Orientalist framework into the realm of digitalization. Morley and Robin characterize techno-orientalism as a “cultural logic” that establishes Asia as a location marked by both technological hype development and cultural regression, and as susceptible to manipulation, control and exploitation by the West. Tracing its origin to American concerns about Japan’s technological rise in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it emerged as a discourse to explain the anxieties surrounding Japan’s technological dominance, “projecting it as an ‘culture that is cold, impersonal, and machine-like’ in which its people are ‘subhuman and unfeeling aliens" (Siu & Chun, 2020, p. 7). Morley and Robins (1995) argue that Japan’s technological superiority posed a significant challenge to Western hegemony, leading to a what could be labeled an 'identity crisis'. Stemming from the “Japan Panic,” techno-orientalism became consolidated around political-economic concerns, framing Japanese and, by extension, Asian techno-capitalist progress as potentially threatening (Siu & Chun, 2020). As a result, techno-orientalism is seen as a complex and contested phenomenon, which can be used to both promote and critique Asian cultures (Harries, 2023).

Recently, the ascendance of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has led to a gradual shift in global power dynamics, impacting the global economy, and cultural globalization. Similar to Japan’s role in the late 1980s, China is now perceived in the techno-orientalist imaginary “as a powerful competitor in mass production, a global financial giant, and aggressive investor in technological, infrastructural, and scientific developments" (Siu & Chun, 2020, p. 7). Subsequently, anti-China discourse has exponentially risen. This also becomes evident in the rhetoric from both the Trump and Biden administrations, as they, for instance, use terms like “Chinese virus" and call to “ban TikTok".

American Crackdown: From uninvestible to different tools

Raimondo did not respond to her being virtually forced into the role of spokesperson for the new HUAWEI 5G smartphones. However, a few days later, on September 19, 2023, she testified before the House committee on Space, Science and Technology, providing testimony for the one-year review hearing of the Chips and Science Act. During the session, in response to a question that portrayed the Secretary as “bushwhacked” by the launch of HUAWEI’s 5G phone during her visit to China — evidence, according to the person who asked the question, of China’s capability to produce seven-nanometer chips — Raimondo answered:

 “I was obviously, I don’t know what the right word, upset when I saw the HUAWEI announcement. The only good news is we don’t have any evidence that they can manufacture 7-nanometer scales. And although I can’t talk about any investigations specifically. I promise you this: every time we find credible evidence that any company has gone around our export controls, we do investigate" (CNBC Television, 2023).

The above testimony places significant emphasis on preventing China from advancing its technology in ways that could potentially harm the United States. This narrative suggests an ideological protective stance toward US interest, centered around competition and the perceived threat of China’s technological progress. Moreover, it implies that Raimondo is doubtful about China’s ability to develop such technologies without “stealing it from the West".

The choice of the word “upset” carries a negative connotation, adding a emotive layer to Commerce Secretary Raimondo’s complex and contradictory situation. Even though Raimondo has not publicly addressed her image being used in HUAWEI's non-official ads, she is clearly displeased with it. The word “upset” employed in this context expresses her profound dissatisfaction. This unexpected and targeted practice not just humiliates her personally but carries implications for the US government on the international stage, as the doctored images become an element of her diplomatic representation. Additionally, the use of the word “upset” points towards the broader geopolitical consequences. It highlights the delicate balance of power dynamics in international relations. This incident could shape public perception, and affect diplomacy and trust in government officials. 

On the other hand, the term “upset” also points to the ongoing technological competition. While tech experts from the US were actively dismantling the processor on the Mate 60, there was a lack of evidence for HUAWEI’s capability to develop cutting-edge chips independently. This interpretation of the situation implies that HUAWEI may not have disclosed the whole truth, and that the company may have bypassed export controls to develop the new phone. The investigation into whether Western chips were used becomes crucial. If the dismantling process reveals the absence of American chips, Raimondo’s concerns shift towards the potential of China overtaking the US in global technological knowledge and capabilities. 

Nevertheless, in the US, there is mention of Raimondo's relief regarding the absence of evidence that HUAWEI can manufacture seven nanometers at scale. This relief is framed as “good news", which reflects techno-orientalist tropes as it positions the West as technologically superior to China, and China's capabilities as doubtful. The expression implies an assumed norm of technological leadership held by the United States. The focus on investigating any attempt to “go around our export controls” reinforces a narrative of China as the “Other” trying to circumvent established norms and regulations. This framing perpetuates a dichotomy between the West and China, casting the latter as a potential threat or disruptor in the technological landscape. Implicitly, technological progress is framed within a context of war or competition, further intensifying the perceived tensions between the two countries.  

At the end of the hearing, the last lawmaker inquired about the Secretary’s trip to China, referencing China’s aspiration to lead socially, economically, militarily, and in space by 2045. His question focused on potential evidence that China is ahead of the US, behind the US, or equal to the US. Raimondo’s response is:

“I am as concerned as you are that we can’t let them get ahead and we certainly can’t let them get any of our technology to do things that could hurt us. I think that with respect to AI, us lead the world and we need to stay there. I also know that as you say the Chinese government is putting hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars into these technologies with the express goal of dominating. We don’t negotiate when it comes to national security. We don’t compromise that we are not going to make any changes to export control. They cannot get this tech for their military” (CNBC Television, 2023).

This response is full of anti-China sentiments, emphasizing the determination of the Biden administration to suppress the technological rise of China, and highlighting the US' global leading position. The word “concerned” used here aligns with the lawmaker’s sentiment, echoing the previously mentioned term “upset”. The continuous use of “can’t” and “don’t” in the answer strongly conveys the degree of certainty, explicitly establishing the notion that the US will not tolerate any country surpassing it. These words demonstrate that the speaker speaks from a position of perceived power. From Raimondo’s perspective, the US is dominant and can use its power to hinder China’s technological advancement and reject the idea of the Orient leading the future. Implicitly, there is a worldview where the US can dominate the world, with nations and power blocks being the central focus. It is obvious that China is constructed as an enemy, as a threat to national security.

Dating back to 2018, HUAWEI faced accusations of being a national security threat to the US (Mascitelli & Chung, 2019). Consequently, the White House had started to use the “national security” narrative as a justification to oppress HUAWEI. According to the US government, HUAWEI’s devices can be used for espionage. In the interest of safeguarding national security, the White house thus decided to impose a blockade on HUAWEI and has introduced new measures to prevent oriental progress.

AI serves as a military technology that provides opportunities to gain intelligence advantages in the emerging domain of cyber warfare (Thiel, 2019) . Therefore, Raimondo confidently asserts the US’s global leadership in AI technology, emphasizing the need to maintain this position. This statement connotes that any challenge from China could prompt the US to take action to prevent advancements in AI, especially in military applications that might pose a perceived threat to its national security. Drawing from techno-orientalist stereotypes, these discourses and practices contain the belief that science, technology and progress are beneficial when controlled by the West. Any advancements elsewhere could thus be viewed as detrimental. 

Two weeks after the previous hearing that was discussed in this paper, a full committee hearing on “CHIPS and Science Implementation and Oversight” was convened by Senator Maris Cantwell on October 4, 2023. In this session, the members of the Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation deliberated on the execution of the Chips and Science Act. Some members addressed the outcome of the Secretary’s visit to China again, specifically voicing concerns about HUAWEI’s innovation. While Raimondo was performing as a witness, the following question was asked: “What gaps remain in US technology export restrictions that may have allowed a targeted company to manufacture an advanced semiconductor?”. Raimondo answered:

“Let me just say the reports about HUAWEI are incredibly disturbing and although I can’t comment on any investigation. I promise you we take every credible threat seriously and investigate to the fullest whenever we think there is some credible allegation that a company has done an end run around our export controls. We need different tools. We would need resources additionally to do that. Threat is different today. The threat from China in 2023 is different from the cold war threat of decades ago. It is technology, it is AI, it is moving fast. I’m proud of the fact that under my watch, we imposed the largest fine in history 300 million fine against a company called Seagate for violating export controls selling to HUAWEI. So we are as tough as we need to be (CNBC Television, 2023).”

After a few weeks of investigating HUAWEI's new smartphone, Raimondo employs another negative word: “disturbing”. In the context of Raimondo’s statement, the term “disturbing” carries stronger connotations. It conveys feelings of danger. While she mentions that she cannot comment on the investigation, it implies that the US might not find any evidence that HUAWEI bypassed export controls in order to use American advanced semiconductor chips to develop its new phone. Paring “incredibly” with “disturbing” heightens the level of concern, suggesting a perceived challenge to US dominance in technology. This choice of phrase indicates that HUAWEI is not just a historic adversary that was sanctioned by the US. Rather, HUAWEI is a contemporary threat, which may involve the development of high-ends chips within China. 

In order to enforce technology control over HUAWEI, Raimondo argues that America is going to level up the restrictions towards HUAWEI by using “different tools,” as well as more resources, including law enforcement, legislative measures, diplomatic strategies, and so forth. The phrase “different tools” seems to refer to the notion that current measures are no longer sufficient to constrain HUAWEI’s progress. 

In the last part of the statement, Raimondo states that the US received a record-breaking fine of $300 million from a company for violating American export controls because of trading with HUAWEI. Raimondo proudly notes that this fine demonstrates the efficacy of the US' measures. Despite facing a technology competition with China, the US remains committed to finding alternative means to hinder China’s advancements. In the US techno-orientalist imaginary, depicting China as a rapidly advancing technological power that warrants high attention and strict control helps to depict China as the enemy. Ideologically, Raimondo’s emphasis on imposing measures reinforces a narrative of American supremacy in global technological trade, serving to legitimize US action in the name of (inter)national security.  

After Raimondo’s visit to China, the strained relationship between China and the US has not improved. In the context of export control, Raimondo confidently assumed that no Chinese company could develop cutting-edge chips without relying on the Western technological world-leader. However, HUAWEI’s introduction of a smartphone featuring high-end chips during her visit challenged her assumptions and raised deep concerns about the future addressment of China’s technological advancement. Techno-orientalism explains the West's deep anxiety about potentially losing its technology primacy on the global stage. This unease may be compounded when viewed from the perspective of strategic concerns. The United States has long been a global leader in science and technology, especially when it comes to semiconductors and chip development. HUAWEI’s breakthrough suggests that China, once considered a mere oriental power, is not only catching up, but may even be surpassing the West in certain aspects.

The Pride Sentiment of Chinese People Regarding Technological Breakthrough

On the other side of the divide, Chinese netizens are reveling in Raimondo’s discomfort. With HUAWEI’s Mate 60 series phones equipped with Kirin 9000 chips and the Commerce Secretary of the United States unexpectedly endorsing this new phone during her visit to China, Chinese netizens interpret the new phone as HUAWEI’s counterattack against the US. The sanction against HUAWEI and China under the unfair “free trade” practices are understood as the reasons for this attack. The fact that US export controls have not hindered HUAWEI’s innovation in chip technology highlights China’s achievement in technology and its sense of national pride. The concept of 'banal nationalism' is more apt here, as it can help to explain how Chinese nationalism has reached a higher level in Chinese cyberspace in the context of Raimondo's anti-China discourse.

Nationalism is a political and social ideology that is commonly discussed and accepted in society, meaning that it is normalized through discourse. It regards the nation-state as the most decisive political unit and prefers national loyalty in politics (Wang & Tao, 2021). Nations are not naturally formed but constructed through various banal, seemingly “normal” things. Banal nationalism, as conceptualized by Billig (2009), refers to unconscious expressions of national identity and pride that are embedded in daily routines and practices. These expressions, such as displaying the national flag or celebrating national holidays, are often overlooked. They do, however, contribute to a strong sense of loyalty and pride regarding a person's nation. They foster a collective consciousness that can influence political, social, and cultural dynamics, and particularly, often by creating an “other”, an enemy.

Banal nationalism is especially prominent in China. Everything from geopolitical conflicts to non-recognition by the international media and other incidents that harm China’s interests are seen as insults to China (Wang & Tao, 2021; Chen et al., 2022). Therefore, after experiencing the increasing anti-Chinese narratives in the West in relation to China’s technological advancements, Chinese netizens took over the comment section of Raimondo’s posts on X (Twitter’s upgrading version) with 遥遥领先 (Far Ahead) repeatedly and her HUAWEI ads (see Figure 2) to show their Chinese nationalism.

'Far Ahead' (遥遥领先) originates from a Chinese idiom denoting a substantial lead in achievements, competition, etc., often used with positive connotations. Initially employed fourteen times by HUAWEI’s top management, Yu Chengdong, in product launch conferences, the phrase has evolved. It now indexes a relationship with HUAWEI and is widely used by Chinese netizens, intertextulized in various contexts. It has transcended its original meaning to become a meme, projecting both HUAWEI’s technological advancement and national sentiment amidst international tensions. As a meme, 'Far Ahead' has a high degree of recognition and popularity, and is widely used on different platforms and occasions. Its variability and selectivity allow it to be modified in different contexts and occasions to enhance its communicative power.

The rollout of HUAWEI’s new 5G smartphone during Raimondo’s visit indeed caught the United States off guard, arousing a surge of national pride and identity among the Chinese populace. Many Chinese netizens flocked to Raimondo’s posts on X and left comments such as “Far Ahead”. As mentioned before, over the past few years, HUAWEI has been subjected to multiple rounds of bans and restrictions from the US due to its technological advancement of which the Chinese are proud. The US has set up various obstacles to suppress HUAWEI’s development. The Chinese public is disgusted with American hegemonic practices. The 'Far Ahead' comment, written in Chinese characters, on the one hand, can be interpreted as signalling that HUAWEI has overcome American measures, as it developed its own seven-nanometre chip, expressing an emotional victory over US sanctions. HUAWEI no longer needs to import advanced chip from the West, and can start to lead the global 5G technology market. But more importantly, from the perspective of Chinese netizens, 'Far Ahead' signals not only HUAWEI's high-tech ascension in the 5G industry. It is also a symbol for the Chinese traditional spirit of continuous self-improvement. Thus, it is also an expression of national sentiments. Moreover, 'Far Ahead' serves as a rallying cry for its national unity/solidarity, reflecting a form of Chinese nationalism.

In addition to the Chinese characters, photoshopped pictures of Raimondo endorsing HUAWEI Mate 60 (see Figure 2) are circulated in the comment section. In these doctored pictures, her physical position and gestures — such as holding the new phone with a big smile or a thumb-up — project Raimondo as the perfect spokesperson for HUAWEI. This narrative event indicates the Chinese netizens’ effort to undermine Raimondo’s stance on HUAWEI, and on China. Raimondo is, of course, “upset” regarding HUAWEI’s achievement and “incredibly disturb[ed]" about 'Far Ahead' comments. 

Is the Other’s rise stoppable or desirable to the West?

“There has long been a complicated coexistence between Western fears of China and Western senses of cultural and technological superiority" (Mahoney, 2022, p. 12). Under the dubious guise of concerns of national security, the United States has attempted to curb China’s technological development, aiming to maintain its global technological dominance. Raimondo's visit to China further underscores the escalating tensions between the two nations, with the US increasingly viewing China as an enemy that threatens its technological dominance. As HUAWEI continues to demonstrate remarkable progress, the US faces the realization that its global technological hegemony is being challenged.

As stated by Raimondo during one the hearings that was discussed in this paper, the US intends to employ “different tools” to address oriental advanced technology to consolidate its global hegemony. Her concerns extend beyond mere political needs, and likely reflect considerations about the future trajectory of American technological dynamics. Her anti-China stance indicates a preference for restricting China’s engagement in high-end technology for its military purposes, while allowing its use in low-end industries to continue. In this narrative, the US advocates free trade, fair competition, and openness for everyone, but within a framework controlled and defined by US interests and regulations.

However, the progress of HUAWEI demonstrates that more international pressure on China can result in Chinese achievements. The launch of HUAWEI’s 5G phone exemplifies China’s ability to unleash a surprising “explosive force” in response to US oppression. Therefore, we might wonder if HUAWEI’s rise stoppable or even desirable to the West? How the United States and the rest of the West should deal with Chinese technological development remains a critical topic for future debates (Alon et al., 2021).

References

Alon, I., Zhang, W., & Lattemann, C. (2021. The Case for Regulating Huawei. FIIB Business Review, 10(3), 202–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319714520984666

Billig, M. (2009). Reflecting on a Critical Engagement with Banal Nationalism – Reply to Skey. The Sociological Review, 57(2), 347–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.2009.01837.x

Blommaert, Collins, Heller, Rampton, Slembrouck, & Verschueren. (2003). Ethnographies of hegemony: Introduction. Retrieved February 28, 2024, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43647846_Ethnographies_of_hegem...

Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29(1), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.447

CNBC Television (2023). LIVE: Senate holds hearing on CHIPS and Science Act implementation and oversight — 10/04/23. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8sFSKCZzLo

Gina M. Raimondo. (n.d.). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.commerce.gov/about/leadership/gina-m-raimondo

Gong. (2023). Raimondo’s visit may have limited impact on relations - Chinadaily.com.cn. Chinadaily. Retrieved August 2023, from https://epaper.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202308/29/WS64ed1b68a310a478839f806b....

Huang, Y. (2020). On Sinofuturism. Screen Bodies, 5(2), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.3167/screen.2020.050205

Mahoney, J. G. (2022). China’s Rise as an Advanced Technological Society and the Rise of Digital Orientalism. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 28(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-022-09817-z

Maly, I. (2022). From methodology to method and back. Some notes on digital discourse analysis. Diggit Magazine. Retrieved February 28, 2024, from https://www.diggitmagazine.com/working-papers/methodology-%20method-digi...

Mascitelli, B., & Chung, M. (2019). Hue and cry over Huawei: Cold war tensions, security threats or anti-competitive behaviour? Research in Globalization, 1, 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2019.100002

Morley, & Robin. (1995). Spaces of Identity. http://books.google.ie/books?id=v27KDAEACAAJ&dq=spaces+of+identity&hl=&c...

NBC News. (2023). U.S. will not sell its ‘most sophisticated’ semiconductors to China, Raimondo says. YouTube. Retrieved March 6, 2024, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNIYAnvNPOo

Roh, D. S., Huang, B., & Niu, G. A. (2015). Techno-Orientalism. Rutgers University Press. http://books.google.ie/books?id=M2Z0CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tech...

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Vintage. http://books.google.ie/books?id=npF5BAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Orie...

Siu, L., & Chun, C. (2020). Yellow Peril and Techno-orientalism in the Time of Covid-19: Racialized Contagion, Scientific Espionage, and Techno-Economic Warfare. Journal of Asian American Studies, 23(3), 421–440. https://doi.org/10.1353/jaas.2020.0033

Taylor, & Ting. (2023). US’s Gina Raimondo concludes China visit on mixed notes. https://www.rfa.org/. Retrieved August 30, 2023, from https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/raimondo-china-08302023033836.html

Verschueren, J. (2011). Ideology in Language Use. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139026277

Wang, Z., & Tao, Y. (2021). Many Nationalisms, One Disaster: Categories, Attitudes and Evolution of Chinese Nationalism on Social Media during the COVID -19 Pandemic. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 26(3), 525–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-021-09728-5

Wang. (2023). US’ removal of 27 Chinese entities from “unverified list” far from enough - Global Times. Global Times. Retrieved February 28, 2024, from https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202308/1296792.shtml

Wang. (2023). TikTok - Make Your Day. TikTok. Retrieved March 5, 2024, from https://www.tiktok.com/@ambassadedechine/video/7201561035835215110?q=chi...