From "decoupling" from China to "de risk" - The "risk control" lies of the "political fraudsters" in the United States at the bottom: economy | risk | politics

Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, July 5th (Xinhua) - In the era of economic globalization, there are occasional counter current obstacles; Under the main theme of win-win cooperation, there is often noise and noise.

"We do not seek to 'decouple' from China, but rather seek to 'de risk'. When the 'decoupling theory' encounters bankruptcy, some politicians in the United States and the West have recently talked about the so-called 'de risk' towards China, selling new rhetoric on their policies towards China.". "Decoupling" is a blatant anti China political instigation, while "de risk" hides a malicious intent, attempting to package and contain China's political intentions with economic concepts that have been exchanged and generalized.

The essence of the so-called "risk reduction" in the United States and the West is to achieve selective "decoupling" through customized "risks", both coveting China's dividends and attempting to curb China's development. Its purpose is to lure more countries into the water, alleviate internal competition panic by provoking opposition, promoting fragmentation, and obstructing development, and maintain self-interest and hegemony; The consequences will be to disrupt the security and stability of global industrial and supply chains, undermine the foundation of normal international economic exchanges and cooperation, and hinder the development of the world economy and human progress.

Exchanging Concepts: The "Rebirth of the Dead" in the "Decoupling Theory"

In just a few months, "risk reduction" has transformed from an economic term to a geopolitical buzzword, backed by the tireless efforts of American and Western politicians to shine and wave flags.

In May of this year, the Group of Seven (G7) held a summit in Japan, formally unifying its policy approach towards China as "risk reduction" in the form of a joint communiqu é, claiming that Western countries "do not seek decoupling" and hope to enhance economic resilience through "risk reduction" and "diversification".

Before and after the summit, US officials significantly increased their efforts to promote the concept of "risk reduction". In mid to late April, US Treasury Secretary Yellen and Presidential National Security Assistant Sullivan delivered speeches on US China relations on multiple occasions, emphasizing the bottom line of "maintaining national security" and downplaying and concealing the intention of "decoupling" in their language. In Sullivan's words, "risk reduction" 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 Antony 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", seemingly softening their stance and starting to consider issues from the "economic" level. However, upon closer examination of the conceptual essence, ideological direction, and behavioral essence, "de risk" is actually the "resurrection" of "decoupling theory". Under the guise of dignity, there has been no substantial change in the direction of US and Western policies towards China.

——From decoupling to de risk, the politicization trend of economic issues between the United States and the West towards China has not changed, and ideological considerations have always been a stumbling block in their normal economic exchanges with China.

Before being adopted by Western countries, "de risk" specifically referred to the offside jurisdiction of financial institutions, which had been criticized by institutions such as the United States, the European Union, and the World Bank. As a derogatory term, it has long been placed in the dark corners of Western economic textbooks.

Until April this year, the US Treasury Department's report still described "de risk" as the indiscriminate termination or restriction of business relationships by financial institutions due to concerns about counter-terrorism and money laundering sanctions, believing that this approach poses a challenge to promoting US foreign policy and reducing barriers related to "de risk" is not only a priority for the US but also for the international community.

Flipping your hands is like clouds, covering your hands is like rain. In recent months, under the promotion and hype of some Western politicians, the "de risk" classified by the World Bank as "business decision-making" has begun to be given more political connotations, forming a replacement for the Western "decoupling theory" towards China. The dominance of risk prevention has risen from enterprises to the national level, and "commercial decision-making" has evolved into "political decision-making.". European Commission President von der Leyen said that "risk elimination" includes both eliminating "economic risks" and reducing "diplomatic risks".

——From "decoupling" to "de risk", the so-called "minefield" of economic exchanges between the United States and the West and China has not changed, and "de risk" is actually a "decoupling" of "breaking down 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 obtain from China, such as new energy technologies and important mineral supplies; One type is what China obtains from the West, such as semiconductor technology.

It can be said that the so-called "risk reduction" in the United States and the West covers both the demand and supply sides, fearing that the demand side will be blocked by China and the supply side will not be able to be blocked by China in the future. These are no different from promoting decoupling from China, completely ignoring interdependence as an inevitable result of economic globalization, and simply equating normal economic and trade exchanges with China with insecurity.

Gordon Flake, CEO of the Perth US Asia Center at the University of Western Australia, believes that in a situation where decoupling from China as a whole is considered absurd, the West is turning towards decoupling from specific industries, companies, and even products and technologies. According to an article published on the World Press Syndicate website, the US and the West are pushing for "decoupling" from China in different ways.

——From "decoupling" to "de risk", the policy orientation of the United States and the West in promoting protectionism has not changed, and "de risk" has given "mercantilism" a more dignified excuse.

In April, Sullivan advocated for "risk reduction" during a speech at the Brookings Institution, claiming that the United States would "confidently" promote industrial policies while building "small courtyards and high walls" to protect its advanced technology.

In the view of Gary Clyde Hufball, a senior researcher at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in the United States, the United States neglects economic costs and attempts to impose a "technological blockade" on China under the pretext of so-called "national security". Whether the wording is "decoupling" or "de risk", it is a sign of the United States' shift towards the wrong path of "new mercantilism" and the deepening of protectionism.

The Straits Times of Singapore believes that the industrial policy of the United States promoting the return of manufacturing is intensifying protectionist tendencies. Its inflation reduction bill and chip and science bill, which cost hundreds of billions of dollars respectively, are prompting countries such as the European Union, Japan, and South Korea to follow up on subsidies for green technology and semiconductor industries. If these protectionist practices are washed away in the name of "risk reduction", they may further erode the basic rules of the World Trade Organization.

Inadequate Strength: The Source of Panic in the United States and the West

Some people in the United States and the West exaggerate the concept of "de risk" towards China, but the essence is still "de sinicization", with the fundamental purpose of blocking China's economic ties with the world and maintaining its own hegemony. Changing the guise and creating new rhetoric to continue curbing China's development, exposing the inability of the United States and the West to decouple from China, the panic mentality in competition with China, and narrow biases towards different development paths.

——"Risk reduction" is a discourse trap for avoiding the bankruptcy of decoupling theory.

From official documents to public statements, Western politicians have repeatedly emphasized for months that they do not seek decoupling, which indirectly proves the bankruptcy of decoupling theory. During his previous visit to China, Antony Blinken said that a complete decoupling between the United States and China would be "disastrous". European Commission Vice President Borrell said at the Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore, "Our daily trade volume with China is 2.7 billion euros! Do we want to 'decouple'? Don't even think about it. If we do this, it will create a global crisis."

In the years since the proposal of the decoupling theory, China's economic and trade relations with major trading partners, including Western countries, have continued to deepen. According to official data from the United States and the European Union, the total amount of goods trade between the United States, China, and Europe in 2022 reached 690.6 billion US dollars and 856.3 billion euros respectively, both reaching new highs.

The decoupling theory has been criticized by reality, prompting the United States to seek new guises. "Risk reduction" is in line with the human nature of seeking benefits and avoiding harm. Although it may seem objective, it actually harbors a malicious intent. On the one hand, it caters to the general psychology of the international community's desire to avoid risks, attempting to attract more countries to "fall into the trap" through "risk reduction"; On the other hand, using "risk reduction" to label China as the "source of risk". Behind this rhetoric is the selfish and hegemonic mentality of the United States, which both hopes to profit from China and is unwilling to give up on containing China.

Ji Beici, Executive Director of the China Issues Analysis Center at the Policy Research Institute of the Asian Association in the United States, said that "de risk" is simply describing what the US and the West are doing in more subtle terms.

——"Risk reduction" is a cover up for "malicious competition".

In the past few decades, there has been a sharp contrast in the economic development momentum between China and the United States. The United States regards China as a "risk" due to its erroneous perception of China, using the template of national strength leading to hegemony to mirror China, and misjudging China based on 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 goods trading country, and the second largest consumer market. From the perspective of quality and condition, China's technological research and innovation capabilities continue to strengthen, its value chain position continues to climb, and its gap with the United States in areas such as 5G technology and green energy technology continues to narrow, even surpassing.

In this process, the U.S. economy has experienced industrial hollowing out, the Internet foam, the subprime mortgage crisis, and a surge in debt, and is now facing more recession risks. As China plays an important engine of global economic growth, the inherent "competition panic" in the United States continues to grow, and suppressing China has become its main means.

Renowned American international political scholar Graham Allison believes that more than 20 years ago, the United States "had difficulty seeing China in the rearview mirror", but now China is closely following, running or surpassing in certain fields, causing panic in the United States and treating China as a "comprehensive competitor".

"The United States always tends to blame others." Stephen Perry, the chairman of the 48 British conglomerate clubs, believes that for the United States, explaining China's rapid development by "demonizing" China seems easier than facing reality and fair competition.

——"Risk reduction" is the arrogance and prejudice against emerging development paradigms.

The key to China's economic success lies in adopting a development model that is in line with its own national conditions, can withstand practical tests, and is different from the West. Viewing China as a "risk" reflects the arrogant attitude of the United States as a "lighthouse nation", only recognizing so-called rules and values that are beneficial to itself, without concealing its prejudice against emerging forces.

Academician Fu Xiaolan of the British Academy of Social Sciences believes that China's innovative development path, driven by both the government and the market, has continuously injected new impetus into China's economic development over the past decade and set an example for other countries.

The United States clearly does not take this seriously and insists on viewing it as a challenge and security threat that does not conform to American values. Yellen's recent speech on US China economic relations clearly stated that the United States will uphold national security interests and human rights, even if targeted measures may have negative impacts on the economy.

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in his book "Great Diplomacy" that Americans believe they have an obligation to promote American values to the world. "No country, like the United States, neither allows foreign intervention in domestic affairs nor unilaterally assumes that American values are universally applicable.".

The United States uses values to draw lines, generalizes national security concepts, abuses export control measures, artificially interferes with normal economic and trade exchanges, and attempts to undermine China's development momentum, which goes against the United States' consistent market economy and fair competition principles.

Thieves shout to catch thieves: the true risk of "taking risks"

In a market economy, all economic activities carry risks. The United States and the West cannot correctly understand the meaning of risk, but distort and render normal economic relations with China as so-called "risk", and call it "risk control", which may ultimately lead to "risk loss of control".

——The act of decoupling from China under the guise of "risk reduction" and ignoring the fact that 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." Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt questioned "risk reduction", "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 dual benefits of improving efficiency and developing markets from investing in China for many years, but as we turn our attention to 'security issues', these advantages are quietly disappearing.

A latest poll released by the European Association for Foreign Relations in early June showed that the majority of respondents from 11 EU countries do not agree with the EU's "risk-free" policy, with 46% believing that China is an "ally or necessary partner", and only about 30% believing that China is a "competitor or competitor".

——The act of decoupling from China under the guise of "risk reduction" 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 in world development, and countries are closely connected through division of labor and cooperation, with each other having their own interests. China holds an important position in this system, accounting for approximately 18% of the total economic output. The average contribution rate to world economic growth from 2012 to 2021 exceeded 30%; The manufacturing industry has ranked first in the world for 13 consecutive years, and 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 affordable industrial raw materials and finished products. At the same time, China has the largest and most growing middle-income group in the world, becoming a major emerging high-end market.

The World Large Enterprise Research Association in the United States predicts that by 2035, developing countries will account for about 60% of the global economy based on purchasing power parity, with most countries considering China as their largest trading partner.

Not cooperating 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 driving force of global economic growth, but also undermine global trade rules, tear apart the global economic and technological system, and cause huge losses to the world. The Singapore Straits Times commented that the negative impact of "de risk" will far exceed that of the United States, the European Union, and China, and also affect other trading partners. "Risk reduction" is putting all relevant parties at risk.

——The practice of decoupling from China under the guise of "risk reduction" reflects the consistent practice of the United States in reversing black and white, attempting to conceal that it is the greatest risk and global source of turmoil.

The United States, relying on its advantages in the global economy and finance, has been acting recklessly for a long time, causing disasters to other countries and even the world economy multiple times. The history of the world economic crisis in recent years is largely a history of American turmoil.

In 1997, during the Asian financial crisis, American hedge funds used the defects of the financial system of Asian economies to "snipe" the stock market and foreign exchange market crazily. They made a lot of money, but many economies' foam burst one after another and their development was severely impacted.

In the 2008 international financial crisis, American financial capital launched a large-scale subprime lending campaign to seize high profits. Credit rating agencies, known as the "gatekeepers" of the financial market, wore the aura of "authority" and "fairness", labeling American "toxic" assets as "high-quality" and misleading global investors. The ultimate crisis erupted and continued to spread, severely impacting the world economy.

After the outbreak of the COVID-19, the United States and the West printed money crazily to stimulate the economy, causing sharp inflation. In response to inflation, they raised interest rates aggressively, leading to a sharp devaluation of many currencies, a sharp increase in the debt burden, a large outflow of funds, and the economy in trouble.

China, on the other hand, injects confidence and momentum into the post pandemic recovery of the global economy through sustained recovery of domestic consumption, efficient operation of the industrial system, and orderly expansion of opening up.

Tesla, Siemens, Volkswagen, Citigroup... Just as some politicians in the United States and the West are clamoring to "reduce risks," a group of well-known multinational companies are sending executives to China to promote capital increase, production expansion, and business opportunities. In the eyes of multinational corporations and the vast majority of countries, China's development is not a risk, but a huge opportunity; Interacting and cooperating with China has never been a risk, but rather a win-win situation and progress.

No matter how it is packaged, what some politicians in the United States and the West call "de risk" will ultimately lead to de opportunity, de cooperation, de stability, and de development. "Risk reduction" will also end in failure, just like "decoupling theory". Politicians who are addicted to China's paranoia and unable to extricate themselves will eventually be ridiculed by reality. History will eventually prove that political lies cannot deceive the world, nor can they stop the surging tide of globalization.

-END-

Manga: Yu Aicen

Produced by the International Department of Xinhua News Agency