BEIJING, July 5th, Xinhua News Agency Title: From "decoupling" to "taking risks" with China — — The "risk control" lies of "political swindlers" in the United States
Xinhua news agency reporter
In the trend of economic globalization, from time to time, we encounter counter-current obstacles; Under the development theme of win-win cooperation, noisy noises often appear.
"We don’t seek China ‘ Decoupling ’ , but seek ‘ De-risk ’ 。” When the "decoupling theory" went bankrupt in fact, some politicians in the United States and the West recently talked about the so-called "de-risk" to China and peddled their new rhetoric on China policy. "Decoupling" is naked anti-China political agitation, while "taking risks" hides evil intentions and attempts to contain China’s political attempts with stolen and generalized economic concepts.
The essence of the so-called "de-risk" in the United States and the West is to achieve selective "decoupling" through self-defined "risk", which not only covets the China dividend, but also attempts to curb the development of China. Its purpose is to draw more countries into the water, to ease the inner competition panic and maintain one’s own self-interest and hegemony by provoking opposition, promoting division and obstructing development; The consequences will be to disrupt the security and stability of the global industrial chain supply chain, undermine the foundation of normal international economic exchanges and cooperation, and hinder the development of the world economy and human progress.
The concept of stealing: "Rebirth" of "Decoupling Theory"
In just a few months, "de-risk" has changed from an economic term to a geopolitical hot word, behind which American and Western politicians spare no effort to highlight the platform and flag-waving.
In May this year, the Group of Seven held a summit in Japan, and formally unified its China policy as "risk removal" in the form of a joint communique, claiming that western countries "do not seek ‘ Decoupling ’ " And hope to enhance economic resilience through "risk removal" and "diversification".
Before and after the summit, American officials obviously increased their efforts to sell the concept of "de-risk". In the middle and late April, US Treasury Secretary Yellen and Presidential Assistant for National Security Affairs Sullivan delivered speeches on US-China relations on several occasions, emphasizing the so-called "safeguarding national security" bottom line, and downplaying the intention of "decoupling" in words. In Sullivan’s words, "de-risk" means that the United States "maintains a resilient and effective supply chain" to ensure that it is not "coerced" by other countries. US Secretary of State Blinken claimed that there is an important difference between "de-risk" and "decoupling".
The United States and the West abandoned "decoupling" and shouted "de-risk", which seemed to soften their positions and began to consider the issue from the "economic" level. However, after careful study of the concept essence, concept direction and behavior essence, "de-risk" is actually the "returning to life" of "decoupling theory". Under the cloak of decency, there is no substantial change in the direction of American and Western policies toward China.
— — From "decoupling" to "risk removal", the trend of "politicization" of economic issues between the United States and the West has not changed, and ideological considerations have always been a stumbling block to their normal economic exchanges with China.
Before being "enabled" by western countries, "de-risk" refers to the offside jurisdiction of financial institutions, which has been criticized by the United States, the European Union and the World Bank, and has long been placed in the dark corner of western economic textbooks as a derogatory term.
Until April this year, the US Treasury report still described "de-risk" as the behavior of financial institutions to terminate or restrict commercial relations indiscriminately out of fear of anti-terrorism and money laundering sanctions, arguing that this practice poses a challenge to promoting US foreign policy, and reducing the barriers related to "de-risk" is not only a US but also an international "priority".
Turn your hands into clouds and cover your hands for rain. In recent months, under the impetus and momentum of some western politicians, the "de-risk" classified as "business decision" by the World Bank has begun to be endowed with more political connotations, forming a complement to the western "decoupling theory" on China. The leading role of risk prevention rose from enterprises to the national level, and "business decision-making" evolved into "political decision-making". Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, said that "de-risk" includes both eliminating "economic risks" and reducing "diplomatic risks".
— — From "decoupling" to "risk removal", the so-called "minefield" of economic exchanges between the United States and the West with China has not changed, and "risk removal" is actually a "decoupling" of "breaking the whole into parts".
According to the Financial Times, the risks of economic exchanges with China in the eyes of the United States and the West mainly involve two types. One is what western countries get from China, such as new energy technologies and important mineral supplies; One is what China got from the West, such as semiconductor technology.
It can be said that the so-called "de-risk" in the United States and the West covers both demand and supply, fearing that the demand side will be "stuck" by China and that the supply side will not be able to "stuck" by China in the future. These are no different from promoting "decoupling" from China, completely ignoring interdependence as the inevitable result of economic globalization, and simply equating normal economic and trade exchanges with China with insecurity.
Gordon Flack, CEO of the US-Asia Center in Perth, University of Western Australia, believes that under the circumstance that "decoupling" from China as a whole is considered absurd, the West has begun to turn to "decoupling" from specific industries, specific enterprises and even specific products and technologies. The article on the website of the world newspaper syndicate believes that the United States and the West are promoting cooperation with China "in different ways ‘ Decoupling ’ " .
— — From "decoupling" to "risk removal", the policy orientation of the United States and the West to promote protectionism has not changed, and "risk removal" has given "mercantilism" a more decent excuse.
In April, when Sullivan gave a speech at the Brookings Institution, he created a momentum for "de-risk", claiming that the United States would "confidently" promote its industrial policy and at the same time set up a "small courtyard and high wall" to protect its advanced technology.
According to Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a senior researcher at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in the United States, the United States ignored economic costs and tried to impose a "technical blockade" on China on the grounds of so-called "national security". Whether it is "decoupling" or "removing risks" in wording, it is a sign that the United States has turned to the wrong path of "new mercantilism" and protectionism has gone deeper.
Singapore’s Straits Times believes that the industrial policy of the United States to promote the return of manufacturing industry is aggravating the tendency of protectionism, and its Inflation Reduction Act and Chip and Science Act, which cost hundreds of billions of dollars respectively, are arousing the European Union, Japan, South Korea and other countries to follow up subsidies for green technology and semiconductor industries. If these protectionist practices are "whitewashed" in the name of "removing risks", they may further erode the basic rules of the WTO.
Insufficient strength: the source of panic in the United States and the West
Some people in the United States and the West exaggerate "de-risk" to China, the essence of which is "de-China". The fundamental purpose is to block China’s economic ties with the world and safeguard its own hegemony. Changing waistcoats and inventing new rhetoric continue to curb China’s development, exposing the inability of the United States and the West to "decouple" from China, the panic mentality of competition with China and the narrow prejudice against different development paths.
— — "De-risk" is a discourse trap to avoid the bankruptcy of "decoupling theory".
From official documents to public statements, western politicians have repeatedly emphasized "not seeking ‘ Decoupling ’ " It also proves the bankruptcy of "decoupling theory" from the side. During his previous visit to China, Blinken said that complete decoupling between the United States and China would be "disastrous". Borrell, Vice-President of the European Commission, said at the shangri-la dialogue Conference in Singapore: "Our daily trade volume with China is 2.7 billion euros! To ‘ Decoupling ’ ? Don’t even think about it If we do this, we will create a global crisis. "
In the years since the decoupling theory was put forward, the economic and trade relations between China and its major trading partners, including western countries, are still deepening. According to official data of the United States and the European Union, in 2022, the total trade volume of goods between the United States and China and between Europe and China reached US$ 690.6 billion and Euro856.3 billion respectively, both reaching record highs.
The "decoupling theory" was "hit in the face" by reality, which made the United States begin to look for new pretexts. "De-risk" is in line with the nature of human beings to seek advantages and avoid disadvantages. It seems to be objective, but in fact it hides evil intentions: on the one hand, it caters to the general psychology of the international community eager to avoid risks and attempts to win over more countries "into the pit" by "de-risk"; On the other hand, China is labeled as "the source of risk" by "de-risk". Behind this rhetoric is the selfish and overbearing mentality of the United States, which wants to profit from China and is unwilling to give up containing China.
Bates Gill, executive director of the China Analysis Center of the Policy Institute of the Asia Society of the United States, said that "de-risk" only describes what the United States and the West are doing in more obscure terms.
— — "De-risk" is a "fig leaf" to cover up "malicious competition".
In the past few decades, the economic development momentum of China and the United States has been in sharp contrast. The reason why the United States regards China as a "risk" is that it holds a wrong understanding of China, mirrors China with the template that a strong country will dominate, and misjudges China with the trajectory of traditional western powers.
In terms of speed and scale, after more than 40 years of reform and opening up, China has become the world’s second largest economy, the largest manufacturing country, the largest commodity trading country and the second largest consumer market. In terms of quality and fineness, China’s R&D and innovation capabilities have been continuously enhanced, and its position in the value chain has continued to rise, narrowing the gap with the United States and even surpassing it in the fields of 5G technology and green energy technology.
In this process, the American economy experienced the hollowing out of industries, the Internet bubble, the subprime mortgage crisis and the sharp increase in debt, and now it is facing the risk of recession. When China acted as an important engine of world economic growth, the internal "competition panic" in the United States continued to grow, and suppressing China became its main means.
Graham Allison, a well-known American international political scholar, believes that more than 20 years ago, the United States was "hard to see China in the rearview mirror", but now China is following closely behind, running or surpassing in some areas, which makes the United States panic and regard China as an "all-round rival".
"America always tends to blame others." Stephen Perry, chairman of 48 British group clubs, believes that it seems easier for the United States to explain the rapid development of China by demonizing China than to face up to reality and compete fairly.
— — "De-risk" is "arrogance and prejudice" against the emerging development paradigm.
The key to China’s economic success lies in its development model which conforms to its own national conditions, can stand the test of practice and is different from that of the West. Seeing China as a "risk" reflects the arrogance of the United States as a "lighthouse country", which only recognizes the so-called rules and values that are beneficial to itself and does not hide its prejudice against emerging forces.
Fu Xiaolan, an academician of the British Academy of Social Sciences, believes that China’s innovative development path, which is driven by the government and the market, has continuously injected new impetus into China’s economic development in the past decade and set an example for other countries.
Obviously, the United States does not agree with this, and insists that it does not conform to American values as a challenge and security threat. Yellen’s recent speech on US-China economic relations made it clear that the United States will safeguard national security interests and human rights, even though targeted measures may have a negative impact on the economy.
Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, wrote in his book Great Diplomacy that Americans think they have an obligation to promote American values to the whole world. "There is no country like the United States that absolutely does not allow foreign interference in internal affairs, but also wishful thinking that American values are universally applicable."
The United States draws a line with values, generalizes the concept of national security, abuses export control measures, artificially interferes with normal economic and trade exchanges, and attempts to attack and weaken the development momentum of China, which runs counter to the principle of market economy and fair competition that the United States has always advertised.
The thief shouted to catch the thief: the real risk of "going to risk"
In a market economy, there are risks in all economic activities. The United States and the West can’t correctly view the meaning of risk, but they distort and exaggerate the normal economic exchanges with China as so-called "risk", which is euphemistically called "risk control", and the final result may be "risk out of control".
— — To "decouple" China in the name of "removing risks" and ignore the fact of China’s economic contribution will bring greater economic risks to the West itself.
"People usually don’t commit suicide to reduce their fear of death." Carl Bildt, the former Swedish Prime Minister, questioned "de-risk". "Is it just because we are afraid of possible risks in the future that we have reason not to trade with China from now on?"
Stephen roach, a senior researcher at Yale University in the United States, believes that American companies have gained the double benefits of improving efficiency and developing the market from investing in China for many years. "But as we turn our attention to ‘ Security issues ’ These advantages are quietly disappearing. "
The latest poll released by the European Association for Foreign Relations in early June shows that most respondents from 11 EU countries do not agree with the EU’s policy of "de-risk", 46% think China is an "ally or necessary partner", and only about 30% think China is a "competitor or rival".
— — Decoupling China in the name of "removing risks" and ignoring the deep integration between China and the world will bring risks to world development and human progress.
Economic globalization is an inevitable trend of world development, and countries are closely linked through division of labor and cooperation. You have me and I have you. China occupies an important position in this system, accounting for about 18% of the total economic output, and its average contribution rate to world economic growth during the decade from 2012 to 2021 exceeded 30%; The scale of manufacturing industry ranks first in the world for 13 consecutive years, and it is the country with the most complete industrial categories and the most complete industrial system in the world, providing the world with a large number of high-quality and cheap industrial raw materials and finished products. At the same time, China has the largest and most growing middle-income group in the world and has become a major emerging high-end market in the world.
According to the calculation of purchasing power parity, developing countries will account for about 60% of the global economy by 2035, and most of them will take China as their largest trading partner.
Non-cooperation is the biggest risk. The attempt by the United States and the West to exclude China from the international economic system will not only greatly weaken the momentum of global economic growth, but also undermine global trade rules, tear apart the global economic and scientific and technological system, and cause great losses to the world. The Straits Times commented that the negative impact of "de-risk" will go far beyond the United States, the European Union and China, and also affect other trading partners. "De-risk" is putting all parties concerned at risk.
— — The fact of "decoupling" China in the name of "de-risk" reflects the consistent routine of the US side to reverse black and white, trying to cover up that it is the biggest risk and the source of global chaos.
By virtue of its advantages in the global economy and finance, the United States has been reckless for a long time, bringing disasters to other countries and even the world economy many times. The history of the world economic crisis in recent years is largely "the history of American insurrection".
In the Asian financial crisis in 1997, American hedge funds used the financial system defects of Asian economies to "attack" the stock market and foreign exchange market crazily, and they made a lot of money, but the bubbles in many economies burst one after another, and their development was seriously affected.
In 2008, during the international financial crisis, American financial capital engaged in subprime loans in order to gain high profits. Credit rating agencies, known as "gatekeepers" of the financial market, stuck the aura of "authority" and "justice" and labeled "toxic" assets in the United States as "high quality", misleading global investors. Eventually, the crisis broke out and spread, hitting the world economy hard.
After the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic, the United States and the West frantically printed money to stimulate the economy, causing severe inflation. In response to inflation, they raised interest rates aggressively, which led to the sharp depreciation of currencies in many countries, the surge in debt burden, a large outflow of funds, and the economy was in trouble.
China, on the other hand, has injected confidence and impetus into the recovery of the global economy after the epidemic with the sustained recovery of domestic consumption, efficient industrial system and orderly opening up.
Tesla, Siemens, Volkswagen, Citigroup … … Just as some politicians in the United States and the West are clamoring for "de-risk", a number of well-known multinational companies have sent executives to visit China to promote capital increase, production expansion and business opportunities. In the eyes of multinational companies and most countries, the development of China is not a risk, but a huge opportunity; Exchanges and cooperation with China have never been a risk, but a win-win situation and progress.
No matter how it is packaged, the so-called "de-risk" of some politicians in the United States and the West will eventually lead to opportunities, cooperation, stability and development. "De-risk" will also end in failure like "decoupling theory". Those politicians who are addicted to China’s paranoia and cannot extricate themselves will eventually be satirized by reality. History will eventually prove that political lies can’t deceive the world, nor can they stop the surging tide of globalization. (Note writers: Wei Jianhua, Xu Chao, Liu Zan; Participating reporters: Deng Qian, Yu Maofeng, Song Ying, Zhu Ruiqing, Xiong Maoling, Huang Zemin, Shan Weiyi, Wang Zhongyi, Liu Pinran)
