Saturday, November 2, 2024

NEO: The trade war against Beijing is a war against Chinese Sovereignty: 02-11-2024 Saturday

 

The Trade War Against Beijing Is a War Against Chinese Sovereignty

Lama El Horr, November 02

There’s an old proverb: “If you want to drown your dog, accuse it of rabies”. With its strategy of sabotaging the Chinese economy, the United States has taken the ruse a step further: accusing China of having rabies isn’t enough, you have to give it the disease.

The Trade War Against Beijing Is a War Against Chinese Sovereignty

Since the Trump administration declared trade war on China, the United States and its EU allies have steadily intensified their policy of decoupling from Chinese economy, through the adoption of economic sanctions, tariff and non-tariff barriers, and bans on the export of certain “sensitive” products to China.

In parallel with this ostracism of certain sectors of the Chinese economy, the Western media repeatedly claim that the Chinese economy is in bad shape, and even on the brink of collapse. According to these birds of ill omen, the golden age of Chinese economic growth is over.

The real aim of the Western bloc is to limit China’s economic and commercial competitiveness

Fabricating self-fulfilling prophecies

Washington and its affiliates present China’s economic indicators as a succession of disasters resulting from the Chinese government’s misguided economic policies.

According to this narrative, China’s growth is at half-mast due to a misallocation of resources by the Chinese authorities. These errors of judgement are said to have led to a widespread domino effect: provincial indebtedness is becoming unsustainable, the real estate sector is collapsing, companies are making less profit, youth unemployment is soaring, consumer prices are falling, and so are wages and confidence. The volatility of China’s stock markets is also invoked to support the Western narrative. – And if we add to this the ageing of the population, then there is definitely reason to believe that the Chinese economy is in terminal decline.

Of course, behind this cataclysmic portrait lies the aim of undermining confidence: of domestic demand, of investors and of Beijing’s partners. For it should not be forgotten that this portrait pretends to ignore the avalanche of trade restrictions imposed on China by Washington and its satellite countries, which are bent on reducing, and in some cases banning, trade with Beijing. These maneuvers reveal that the real aim of the Western bloc is to limit China’s economic and commercial competitiveness – and, by extension, the development of its partners in the South.

At a time when the energy transition is the new hobbyhorse of the Western bloc, which sees it as a means of perpetuating its hegemony by imposing new rules of exchange, it’s hardly surprising that China’s spectacular progress in this field should incur the wrath of Washington. The imposition of particularly high tariffs on Chinese electric cars – 100% by the US and up to 45% by the EU – leaves no doubt as to Washington’s intentions: to undermine the dominant position of Chinese automotive companies, accusing them of unfair competition through subsidies and overcapacity. Lucid as to the fallacious pretext underpinning this masked protectionism, China has decided to take the matter to the WTO, whose rules of free competition are clearly being flouted.

The accusation that China uses forced labor on the Uyghur population of Xinjiang province serves the same purpose: to exclude entire sectors of Chinese industry from trade with the United States. One only has to consult the list of Chinese products included in the UFLPA to realize the geopolitical and geo-economic dimension of these laws adopted by Washington. By targeting strategic products such as cotton, PVC aluminum, silica-based products, tomatoes and seafood, the obvious aim is to keep out a competitor whose dominant position is undermining Washington and its allies.

This American law on forced labor – protectionism disguised as the defense of human rights – also enables Washington to cultivate the image of a dictatorial China, disrespectful of human dignity and mistreating its Muslim population. It goes without saying that Beijing’s considerable investment in the economic development of Xinjiang, which has proved to be the best antidote to terrorist and separatist movements directed from outside, deprives Washington of a formidable instrument of blackmail against Beijing. It also goes without saying that, in the context of the daily bloodshed in Gaza and Lebanon – carnage carried out by Israel, but sponsored and promoted by Washington and its European allies – these accusations against China have not a shred of credibility.

The Western diagnosis of China’s state of health also deliberately ignores the economic reorientations undertaken by Beijing. Like the great Chinese economic policies of the last thirty years, these reorientations are long, far-reaching processes of transformation, constantly being readjusted in line with internal and external circumstances. This is how we understand the concept of dual circulation, the priority given to the digital economy and China’s march towards technological sovereignty – not forgetting, of course, the global geopolitical architecture of the BRI. The “Decision” of the 3rd Plenum of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party set out in detail the priorities on which the country’s economic policies should be based.

National security vs. sovereignty

The economic restrictions imposed on China are said to be primarily motivated by “national security” concerns. These concerns would be sufficiently alarming to justify, in the eyes of the US and the EU, the exclusion of certain Chinese products, or even sectors, from trade with Washington and Brussels.

The US, for example, has consistently highlighted the danger posed by dual-use technologies such as 5G or high-tech semiconductors, which can be used for both civilian and military purposes. Thus, under pressure from the US, several EU countries had to give up on Chinese 5G. Similarly, high-tech semiconductor manufacturers have been forced by US injunction to ban exports of their products to China.

American concerns about “national security” also extend to seaports on all four continents. Beijing’s construction and/or management of strategic commercial ports, such as Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Bata in Equatorial Guinea and Chancay in Peru, is perceived by Washington as a potential threat, as these ports could eventually be used for military purposes.

Washington recently imposed sanctions on six new Chinese companies, accusing them of helping Iran “acquire weapons of mass destruction”, as well as contributing to the modernization of the Chinese army. – At the same time, the United States continues to compromise China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, having just signed a new $2 billion arms contract with Taiwan – violating, for the umpteenth time, the spirit of the three joint communiqués signed with Beijing.

These unilateral coercive measures reveal that China’s economic ascent, whose corollary is its military ascent, is perceived by the United States as a threat to its hegemony. The adoption of economic and trade barriers against Beijing aims to hinder China’s technological sovereignty, and to keep Beijing dependent on the American-dominated Western bloc. There is no doubt that these coercive measures are also intended to guarantee Washington a say in China-EU relations, and to prevent the EU from becoming too independent of Washington.

Faced with this reality, we must face up to the only valid question: what legitimacy can the notion of “national security”, put forward by the United States and its allies, have if it denies their geopolitical competitors the right to protect their borders and resources, to choose their own development path, and to improve the lives of their populations? This question goes beyond China: it also applies to Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and so many other states whose “national security” is mercilessly trampled underfoot by a handful of major powers.

In short, we have to call a spade a spade: the trade war against China is a war against Chinese sovereignty.

 

Lama El Horr, PhD, geopolitical analyst, is the founding editor of China Beyond the Wall, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook

What is hiding behind the US fragile sense of security. Global Times: 02-1102024

  

  •  

  •  

  •  

  • OPINION / EDITORIAL
    What is hiding behind the US’ fragile sense of security?: Global Times editorial
    Published: Nov 02, 2024 12:48 AM
    Illustration: Chen Xia/GT

    Illustration: Chen Xia/GT


    According to reports, the US-based Pamir Consulting has released a new report titled "Displays are the New Batteries," claiming that China's rise in the display manufacturing industry may bring "national security" concerns to the US. China's display industry has been in the US' crosshairs for a while. John Moolenaar, the newly appointed chairman of US House select committee on strategic competition with China, wrote to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in September, requesting that the Pentagon place two Chinese panel manufacturers on the DoD's blacklist as Chinese military companies. One of the authors of the new report was also the main black hand behind SMIC being placed on the US sanctions list. It seems that China's display industry is being sent to the assembly line of the US' suppressive policies in the name of "national security."

    It has to be said that from corn processing plants, cranes and TikTok to Chinese garlic and displays, the US has always given people a new understanding of the scope of its "national security" and sense of security. Some commentators said, "US security is like a basket, and things from all walks of life can be put into it." Others said, "The US may only feel safe if it dominates in all fields." In recent years, some Chinese industries have been inexplicably labeled as "threats to US security" after gaining relative competitive advantages. Perhaps it is not because US national security is weak. Behind this "fragile" sense of security, there is a hidden agenda of trade protectionism and industrial monopoly.

    One of the authors of the latest report on displays, in all apparent seriousness, stated that displays are increasingly important pieces of computerized military equipment, while the other author falsely claimed that the rise of China's display industry was due to government subsidies. "Securitization" is the typical approach to suppressing China's industries. With the hammer of "US national security" in the left hand and "Chinese government subsidies" in the right, every industry in China that rises will be targeted. Although the display manufacturing emerged in the US, Japan and South Korea had dominated it for many years. Why did the US never mention "security threats" when Japanese and Korean manufacturers led the global display industry, while some people started to hype "security threats" only after China showed its competitive advantages? Obviously, this is just an excuse for the US to contain and suppress China.

    Is it really about national security? When faced with this question, Christophe Fouquet, CEO of ASML, the Dutch semiconductor equipment maker that is under US pressure, said that much of ASML's business with China is focused on mature technology that is less relevant to national security concerns. According to the logic of the US scholars' report, all electronic products could pose a "security risk." Should the consumer market of global trade, worth as much as trillions annually, be reevaluated under this US sense of security? Who will foot the bill for the ensuing disruption to industry and supply chains? The narrative of "fragile" security that the US has made up to suppress China ironically spreads a pervasive sense of insecurity worldwide.

    What is even more concerning is that this is not only an attempt to smear Chinese companies but also sends a disturbing signal that emerging nations and the Global South countries' right to development might be at risk. China's display industry rose from nothing to being the world top in terms of industry-wide output value not, as the report claims, due to "subsidies" but because Chinese companies have grown step-by-step through self-driven innovation and steady progress in a competitive market. If China has any relative advantages, it lies in factors like its vast market, strong industrial chain supporting capabilities, and the rise of a series of consumer electronics brands, which together have provided a strong foundation for the growth of China's display industry. The R&D intensity of top Chinese firms in the "technology and electrical hardware and equipment" sector has increased 646 percent over the past 10 years, compared with a 67 percent increase for US firms.

    When developing countries like China work hard to establish their own industrial advantages, the US has resorted to non-market competition, citing "national security" in nearly absurd terms to suppress them. This casts a shadow over global development. Today, it is China's display industry; which industry from which country will it be tomorrow? Must other nations cease development for the US to feel "secure"? Obviously, the general development aspirations of the international community do not agree with this logic of the US. With the economic integration and industrial linkage of countries, only by relying on innovation and cooperation to make the development pie bigger can we achieve common prosperity and security.

    COMMENTS: What makes US feel so fragile in security: NB: US just wants to prevent others from coming up to compete with US

      to compete 

    GTJN2QHRP  •
     13 hours ago
    1  

    Part of the problem is the unspoken fear that a lack of American industry puts the nation at risk because it makes it dependent on other nations. And, in American (and especially right wing) ideology, dependence equals weakness - which is a cardinal sin in America. There is ultimately only one answer: the U.S. must become industrially competitive again. But, Americans are not willing to make the sacrifices that that would require -- so we try to limit and tear down those who ARE competitive.
    GTSRFHA72  •
     15 hours ago
    1  

    There are many rising companies such as BYD and TEMU that are giving consumers value for money. US companies should reflect and compete fairly instead of hiding the apron of national security. As a consumer, I find it very disturbing that so many leading companies are blocked by fake national security concerns or tariffs, such as Huawei, SMIC, TikTok etc. US, Europe, India should accept that China is an important part of the global economy and constant changing of goalposts will not prevent China's rise.
    GT9M9LMK3  •
     18 hours ago
    1  

    First and foremost ASML is not a US company ..it's a Dutch company....it must be able to do business with China as it wishes....and the US is also giving subsidies to companies in the US that will come up with better Lithography machines made by the US....the US is also trying to knee cap ASML at the same time
    GT9M9LMK3  •
     18 hours ago
    1  

    The US specifically the white man of the US thought being innovative is exclusively thier God given talent given to them only...racism and superiority complex is what clouds their judgement..now Chinese people are innovating better products it pains them ......

    Monday, October 28, 2024

    Y-Tube: Mearsheimer on US - China : Hot war is possible : COMMENTS 28-10-2024

     

    China is doing exactly what Mearsheimer is advising: grow economically powerful. China is avoiding militarism. China is simply modernizing its military in response to potential threats from the United States and Japan.
    15
    Very mature and intelligent young interviewer asking about very important issues
    5
    還說中國人不開放沒言論自由,都邀請他來說鬼故事了🤣🤣🤣我佩服中國年青人的胸襟,他說他的鬼故事一樣和他交流,來者不拒
    7
    Mearsheimer is wrong, and he is a propagandist of power politics. Jeffrey Sachs is right, and he is not a propagandist. Mearsheimer's understanding of China cannot compare with that of Jeffrey Sachs or Martin Jacques.
    14
    China has, indeed, behaved according to the dictates of power politics. But she has done so to a much smaller degree than the Americans and Europeans have. Even Prof. Mearsheimer cannot deny this. China has not invaded distant lands like the European colonial powers (Great Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal), as well as the United States, have. China did not follow the lead of the Mongols to invade territory all the way to the doorstep of Europe. China's foray into sea power (led by Zheng He) did not result in territorial conquest, whereas the Europeans' foray into oceanic voyages led to the colonization of the Americas, Africa, India, and parts of Southeast Asia. China saw opportunities for diplomacy, whereas the Europeans saw opportunities for conquest and exploitation. Even in the last 45 years, China has fought no wars. How many wars have the United States fought? There is no question that China is a generally peaceful nation, and the United States is not.
    4
    "China should want to dominate Asia just like we (USA) dominate the Western Hemisphere". This is where the professor's logic fails utterly.
    9
    Mearsheimer faults US and NATO expansion against Russia for the Ukraine/Russian War, according to his theory. He spoke out many years ago before the war, against the US and NATO stance. Using his theory, I agree essentially with his arguments and conclusions. His arguments and conclusions would apply to the case of United States/China/Taiwan. He should have similar stance in this case, why doesn’t he? I have been puzzled as to why Mearsheimer would suggest the US to focus efforts to contain/fight China (via proxy). I have now come to the conclusion that Mearsheimer is biased and bigoted for his contradictory conclusions regarding US involvements on Taiwan/China. In addition, Mearsheimer’s advice regarding Taiwan/China, if followed by politicians in Washington, would be very dangerous and irresponsible. Practically, his arguments are the same in both cases, but his conclusions for both cases are night and day.
    Show less
    12
    This girl is so cute.😊
    5
    Can I have my 18 mins back. I could told you everything Mearsheimer said. No real insight just a regurgitation of when you can read in daily news. Everyone is capable of hedging bets.
    3
    He makes it sound funny, but it's a life and death problem for the entire world. Except at the end of the day, I doubt US would get dragged into a hot war with China by a third party actor like Taiwan, Philippines, Japan, or Koreas.
    “Two Tigers cannot Hide in the Same Mountain” Chinese Proverb
    It is people like him and foolish politicians who listen to him that will destroy this world.
    Sun Tsu said "Defending without attacking is a taboo for military strategists". Ensuring Provocateurs suffer the same infrastructure damage in their home country will be best deterrence and will prevent war.
    nice camera setting
    04:56 “[in spite of tribute system] I believe [China engages in] power politics [proceeds to give zero (0) examples]”
    It does not have to be about power. It is about improving relations with every Nation with the view of achieving a better future. The belief that one has to be more powerful than other competing power is a fallacy. The idea behind having military supremacy is not Peace, but dominance. As beings with intelligence, we are supposed to be better than animals. If we are better than animals, then we should be able to break away from the practice of war. It is possible to achieve peace, but certain nations refuse to choose that path because having military supremacy is just too addictive. To achieve Peace, we can, for example, establish a Universal Law that: 1) Prohibits any Nation from using personal wealth or peoples' tax money for any military buildup. 2) Prohibits any company from hiring Science graduates for the purpose of getting them to develop or invent weapons of war. The practice of war has been an ancient method for settling conflicts; however, this practice is as outdated as spanking our children. It is time to break away from this practice. The average person is always looking forward to a better future; sadly, the superior military who is addicted to war, their vision of a better future is Mutually Assured Destruction.
    Show less
    When you're weak , you're bullied "Two bombs , One Satellite" project need upgrading and modernisation.
    The US can not have a hot war with China because they just too scared of China. 😂
    4
    I am tired of Mearsheimer and his zero sums games. A typical American, he assumes that every country thinks like the US does.
    Meresheimer is a US hegemonic/imperialist crusader disguised as a realist.
    The US can never war with China because they know they are weak when they facing China. 😂
    2
    Hagemony the world is the games
    Africa will become supreme superpower too.

    Southernglory1 : Mearsheimer is a white supremacist warmonger. He longs for US West to destroy China to secure White hegemony of the world led by satanic USA😊