This photo taken on August 4, 2022 shows the White House and a stop sign in Washington, DC, United States. (Xinhua/Liu Jie)
The so-called “de-risking” is essentially a “de-sininization” and “reversal of globalization”.
The international community has issued strong warnings about the global risks posed by “de-risking” rhetoric.
BEIJING, June 3 (Xinhua) — Despite its much-touted rhetoric of so-called “seeking risk reduction and diversification,” the United States has actually accelerated its “detachment from China” plan.
By bringing in more allies, Washington is now attempting to create a parallel system to lock China out of areas such as the world economy and trade and advanced technology.
Washington’s plan, aimed at fooling the world of its ostensible purpose of “risk reduction,” could well pose enormous risks to the deeply integrated global economy and supply chains, leading to further division and unresolved losses around the world.
Following the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Hiroshima, Japan, on May 27, the United States convened what it called an “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF)” and called on the trade ministers of 14 countries to form a council to coordinate the Supply chain activities and a so-called “Crisis Response Network” to give “IPEF” countries early warning of possible supply disruptions.
A protester holds a placard at Funairi Daiichi Park in Hiroshima to protest the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Hiroshima, Japan, May 19, 2023. (Xinhua/Zhang Xiaoyu)
Four days later, the US-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC) held its fourth ministerial meeting, where America and the EU agreed to increase cooperation “to address non-market policies, practices and economic coercion.”
Through these multilateral meetings, the United States attempted to frame China as the supposed “potential risk” in order to “mitigate” China and actually contain it.
The so-called “de-risking” strategy, as Foreign Affairs magazine pointed out, aims to achieve three major goals for China’s containment — curtailing China’s capabilities in strategic sectors that impact national security, such as high-tech Semiconductors and other advanced technologies; reducing Beijing’s influence on the West by eroding Chinese dominance in the market for certain key commodities, including critical minerals; and limit the influence of the Chinese market in the world. The core of “de-risking” is creating “a small courtyard with high fences” against China and a more sophisticated attempt to “decouple economies or sever supply chains” with the goal of excluding and suppressing China.
The international community has issued strong warnings about the global risks posed by “de-risking” rhetoric. Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has pointed out that “de-risking” rather than “decoupling” from China will also lead to a more fragmented and “decoupled” global economy, arguing that a fragmented global economy would split the world into competing regions blocs and there would be less trade, investment and the spread of ideas, all of which are vital to the world’s economic progress.
So, is it actually feasible for the United States to promote “de-Sininization” in the name of “risk reduction”? The answer is definitely no. There are at least three hurdles that the US is struggling to overcome.
First, it is difficult to change the mutually beneficial market structure for Chinese and US companies. After all, it is in the nature of companies to make a profit and they do not blindly follow government directives that go against the rules of the market. Second, the lack of “Made in China” products would mean higher prices and higher inflation for consumers. Finally, while Washington plans to get its allies to work together to contain China, it is not in the interest of most countries, including European nations, and the cost would be prohibitive.
The so-called “de-risking” is essentially a “de-sininization” and “reversal of globalization”.
China is the second largest economy in the world, a major trading partner of more than 140 countries and regions, and the largest manufacturing country. The world cannot do without China. By ignoring this reality, the United States is forcing other countries to take sides, which not only seriously disrupts the world market, but also threatens the stability of the global manufacturing and supply chain.
Moreover, as China has developed ever closer economic ties with the rest of the world, the cost of “de-risking” or “decoupling” from China is actually far greater than some countries expect and can afford. More importantly, for much of the world, China is not a risk, but a source of opportunity.
Aerial photo taken on April 16, 2023 shows a China-Europe freight train carrying Chinese-brand vehicles at the Harbin International Container Center in Harbin, capital of northeast China’s Heilongjiang Province. (Xinhua/Zhang Tao)
Over the past four decades of reform and opening-up, China has built tremendous advantages in terms of infrastructure, market size, talent pool and industrial clusters. China has been a magnet for global trading forces.
During his visit to China at the end of May, Tesla founder Elon Musk praised the country’s vitality and potential, expressed confidence in the Chinese market and expressed his willingness to deepen cooperation.
Echoing Musk, other international business tycoons such as Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, and Laxman Narasimhan, new global CEO of US coffee giant Starbucks, have also expressed hopes of expanding business in the world’s second largest economy.
Under no circumstances should cunning puns by Washington’s China hawks be used to break market rules, cut industrial ties, or block exchanges between China and other countries, much less hinder China’s peaceful development. Any attempt to alienate China from the rest of the world is doomed to fail.
Comments are closed.