But claiming that the United States should "take risks" and shouting slogans? Director of the Central Intelligence Agency claims to be foolish in decoupling from China and cutting off links | Risks | United States
Environmental Video/Production by Li Linzhi
According to Reuters, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, William Burns, made a statement on relations with China during a speech in Oxfordshire, UK on July 1st. He said that considering the interdependence of the US and China economies, it would be foolish for the US to "decouple" from China. At the same time, he also claimed that the United States should "de risk" and achieve supply chain diversification. Recently, the United States and the West have frequently hyped up the theory of "de risk" towards China. China has stated that "de risk" is still "decoupling and breaking the chain", essentially "de Sinicization", and ultimately "de opportunity, de cooperation, de stability, and de development". This not only fails to solve the problems of the United States itself, but also backfires on itself.
Burns made the above remarks during his speech at the Dickley Foundation in the UK that day. According to the transcript published on the foundation's website, Burns gave a speech on "World Change and the Role of Intelligence", in which he mentioned China 19 times.
According to Reuters, Burns declared in his speech that "China is the only country that intends to reshape the international order while continuously enhancing its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological capabilities.". Similar statements have been made multiple times by senior officials in the Biden administration. Burns also stated in his speech that "in today's world, no country wants to be at the mercy of 'cartels' in key minerals and technology.". "The solution to this problem is not to 'decouple' from an economy like China, which would be foolish, but to wisely achieve 'risk reduction' and diversification by ensuring a flexible supply chain, protecting our technological advantages, and investing in industrial capacity."
Burns, according to the data chart, about a month ago, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made similar remarks. On May 31, after attending the ministerial meeting of the "US EU Trade and Technology Council", Antony Blinken also told reporters that the US and Europe did not seek confrontation, cold war or "decoupling" from China, but focused on "risk elimination". On June 1st, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning stated at a press conference that China is firmly promoting high-level opening-up to the outside world and providing a market-oriented, legal, and international business environment for enterprises from all countries. China adheres to mutual respect, mutual benefit and win-win cooperation, and conducts economic, trade, science and technology investment cooperation with other countries. China firmly upholds international fairness and justice, and promotes the resolution of differences through dialogue and consultation. This kind of China is not a risk, it is an opportunity.
Recently, the United States and the West have frequently hyped up the theory of "de risk" towards China. On the evening of June 19, 2023, Yang Tao, Director General of the Department of American Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, briefed the Chinese and foreign media on Antony Blinken's visit to China and answered questions. Regarding "risk reduction", Yang Tao said that the first thing to clarify is, what is risk? Where does the risk come from? Why has China injected stability, certainty, and positive energy into the world become a risk? No matter how it is packaged, the US's "risk reduction" is still "decoupling and chain breaking". Essentially, it is "de sinicization", ultimately leading to a lack of opportunities, cooperation, stability, and development. This not only fails to solve the US's own problems, but also backfires on itself, dragging down the world. China and the United States should start from the well-being of humanity, jointly lead global cooperation, and address global risks.
"Removing risks from trade with China carries risks," the Australian Financial Review published an article on May 30th, stating that the annual buzzword competition has come to an end. In the geopolitical category, in less than two months, the term "de risk" has gone from unheard of to ubiquitous. One reason why Western leaders are so quick to accept "de risk" is that it frees them from the dilemma of wording. The previous notion of decoupling between the Western economy and China was often criticized as impossible and extreme. "Risk reduction" sounds more cautious and targeted. On May 23rd, the German magazine Der Spiegel stated that "de risk-taking" is indeed a beautiful slogan. And "de risk" first needs to reach consensus on what the "risk" from China is and how to respond. It has been proven that this is a complex issue, and if there is a conclusion from the recent G7 summit, it seems that Western society has agreed that decoupling is not the best answer.
