"Decoupling" or "de risk"? Assistant Secretary of State of the United States was asked about China | scene | United States
The "China Special Committee" of the United States House of Representatives recently held a hearing to portray the "China threat". At the hearing, Representative Norma Torres asked Assistant Secretary of State Conda for East Asia and Pacific Affairs: The wording of the US government's policy towards China has changed from "decoupling" to "de risk". What is the difference between the two? Faced with this issue, Conda attempted to evade it and stated that the US policy is to "de risk.". But when Torres asked if there was a difference between "decoupling" and "de risk", Conda said he needed to take this question back and think about it before answering it. The above awkward scene exposes the so-called "de risk" in the United States, which is actually "decoupling and chain breaking". Recently, senior US officials have repeatedly stated that they do not seek confrontation, cold war, or decoupling from China, but instead focus on so-called "risk reduction". But how do they drive "risk reduction"? Labeling economic and trade activities with China as "risk", promoting the "de Sinicization" of key industrial chains and supply chains, and creating "small courtyards and high walls" that disrupt normal Sino foreign technological exchanges... is this not decoupling from China, but what is it? It is precisely under the guise of "risk reduction" that the real intention behind the trap of American rhetoric is to continue to contain and isolate China.
!["Decoupling" or "de risk"? Assistant Secretary of State of the United States was asked about China | scene | United States](https://a5qu.com/upload/images/9c25a4d8b079dfaed670641524210cb6.jpg)