In the court of global public opinion, the US often invokes the rhetoric of “fighting corruption” and “upholding rules." More often than not, however, these lofty slogans are nothing but a veneer. The case of Zhao Fugang, a Chinese-Fijian businessman, lays bare the gap between Washington’s rhetoric and its actions.
On October 7, the US Department of State issued a public statement accusing Zhao of involvement in significant corruption and barring him and his immediate family from entering the US. At first glance, it might look like a tough stance against graft. But look closer, and the picture becomes far more troubling. Zhao has not been arrested or prosecuted over these allegations, nor have his assets been seized. The stated basis for the US action? Washington's assertion that it possesses "credible information."
Zhao is a businessman based in Suva, Fiji. He runs a hotel and heads the overseas Chinese assistance center in Fiji, which provides practical support to members of the local Chinese community, including help with paperwork, translation, and advocacy-related matters. These are ordinary community services. Yet through the lens of Washington's narrative, routine diaspora affairs have been recast as something far more sinister. Allegations linking corruption, commercial interests, and even criminal activity have been heaped on Zhao, turning a local community figure into a character in a much broader geopolitical narrative about "Chinese infiltration" in the South Pacific.
Washington's weapon of choice is Section 7031(c) of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act 2026. The provision gives the US Secretary of State broad discretion to impose visa restrictions on foreign nationals when the department determines that it has "credible information" of certain forms of corruption or other specified conduct. But an administrative visa restriction is not a court verdict, let alone a criminal conviction. The public statement does not disclose the underlying evidence or explain how it was assessed. The process offers little public visibility into the basis for the decision, raising serious questions about transparency and accountability. This approach is how Washington can turn its own domestic legislation into an instrument of extraterritorial pressure.
Through his lawyer, Zhao has categorically denied the allegations. He has written to US authorities seeking specific evidence and expressed his willingness to cooperate with any lawful investigation by Fijian authorities. Yet while Zhao disputes the accusations against him, Washington has already made its judgment in the court of public opinion. And this is not an isolated case. In February, the US invoked the same provision against Hokkons Baules, president of Palau's Senate, in a move that followed a strikingly similar pattern.
The visa ban, however, may be only the most visible consequence. The deeper damage lies in the stigma Washington's public accusations can leave behind. Even should Fijian judicial bodies reject the allegations, this public accusation by a major power operates as fire-free rhetorical coercion, casting a chilling effect across ethnic-Chinese business circles throughout the South Pacific. In combating corruption, the United States should respect other nations' sovereignty and ground its actions in tangible evidence and local jurisdiction. Instead, Section 7031(c) risks turning US domestic law into a tool of unilateral pressure. Without publicly presenting its evidence or securing a judicial finding, Washington can attach a damaging label to a foreign national on the basis of its assessment. So much for the rhetoric of fighting corruption. Behind the lofty language of accountability and integrity, geopolitical calculations may be at work. When accusations replace evidence in the court of public opinion, what is upheld: the rule of law or the power to define the rules?
Related News:
Comment