Donald Trump recently put on record that ‘love’ is his third-favourite word, behind ‘god’ and ‘religion’. ‘Tariff’, he said, is his fourth favourite. Since then, putting up barriers between the US and the rest of the world seems to have overtaken ‘love’ on the president’s list of priorities – and not just when it comes to trade. As well as tariffs on the exchange of all manner of goods, the US government has now banned its officials working in China from engaging in any sexual relationships with Chinese citizens.
The United States is meant to be a melting pot, but Trump apparently draws the line at Sichuan hotpots. Perhaps he heard the expression ‘yellow fever’ and assumed it had leaked from a lab. Either way, a hands-on approach to Sino-US diplomacy is now firmly off the table.
The ban, which was put in place in January but was only revealed by the Associated Press last week, is America’s first blanket non-fraternisation policy since the Cold War. It will prevent US government personnel in China, as well as family members and contractors with security clearance, from engaging in any romantic or sexual relationships. For those stationed in China and already in a relationship, you can apply for an exemption. But what if it’s denied? Tough luck, buddy – it’s either break up or quit your job.
And if you break the rule? You’ll be immediately expelled from China. Imagine getting dumped and deported in the same week. Some might call it a streamlined supply chain, others will say it’s re-shoring American industry. But to me, that sounds like a trade imbalance.
To the suspicious, cynical or even just hopeless romantic, perhaps Trump’s ban could be the ultimate test of a relationship. After all, if you really love someone, you’d be willing to quit your high-paying foreign assignment for them, right? He leaves his job for her? It’s true love. He stays at his job and dumps her? He suspects she could be a spy. He gets caught breaking the rule and is deported? Heck, he was dumb enough to deserve it.
Look, I get it. National security matters. The idea of a diplomat being seduced into giving away state secrets in exchange for a delicious little dumpling is a legitimate concern. But a blanket ban is just draconian, unnecessary and cruel. For one, it assumes that every relationship between an American and a Chinese citizen is a high-stakes espionage thriller, when in reality, most US staffers will just be looking for a date who isn’t another sweaty, sad expat drowning his loneliness in Tsingtao.
Above all, the ban is an affront to the great cultural exchange that has birthed so many beautiful biracial children. People like me (a mixture of Vietnamese, Thai and English) literally wouldn’t exist without the long-standing tradition of white guys making bad decisions abroad. Some of the greatest love stories of all time involve a hapless foreigner falling head over heels for someone he met in a tea shop, only to realise years – and thousands of dollars – later that she was playing the long game. And you know what? Good for her. That’s capitalism, baby.
The Trump administration’s policy isn’t just hurting Western men, either. It’s also depriving young Asian women of their right to experience the highs and lows of an international gold rush. And what could be more American than that?
I suppose it also feels like an attack on me personally. Every mixed-race, half-Asian child is essentially an international peace treaty in human form. We are living proof that two wildly different cultures can come together, misunderstand each other constantly, and still produce something that makes even the most bigoted of men slide into your DMs. But now, thanks to this policy, an entire generation of future half-Asian babies is at risk. Who will carry on the sacred tradition of butchering the native language of your Asian parent? Who will endure a lifetime of hearing, ‘Wow, your English is so good!’, or ‘Where are you really from?’, and having to say, ‘No, I swear, that old white guy is actually my father’.
And what happens to those who are unlucky enough to be denied an exemption by the fortune cookie of US bureaucracy? Do they have to sit their partners down and say, ‘Look, I love you, and you’re a firework in the sack, but Uncle Sam says I have to stop overlooking the fact you’ve also bugged my phone’? Are US officials expected to put their romantic prospects through an FBI-style security clearance? Just imagine being on a six-month waiting list to hear back from a higher-up who hasn’t felt the touch of another woman since the Clinton administration, as he evaluates whether your love is genuine or a threat to democracy. And then you get your answer: ‘You will not have sexual relations with that woman.’
Let’s be honest, a policy like this is only going to make the ‘forbidden fruit’ that much sweeter. Nothing makes a person more attractive than the knowledge that he or she could literally ruin your life.
Love is always worth that small risk. It should know no borders. And it certainly shouldn’t be subject to national-security clearance.
Simone Hanna is a writer.
