Overseas online review: The cover of "risk reduction" cannot hide the "black hand" of the United States. Oppose | Risk | The United States
[Editor's note]
Recently, the international community's opposition to "risk reduction" has been increasing. Der Spiegel, a German magazine, recently published a commentary titled "If we take risks, it will lead to chaos", pointing out that "taking risks" in our policy towards China itself can cause significant risks. The international community is becoming increasingly clear about the essence and harm of "risk reduction". This is the first article in the "Risk Reduction is the True Risk" series of reviews launched by Overseas Network.
————————————
According to Reuters, US President Biden is about to issue a long hyped executive order attempting to restrict investment in cutting-edge technologies such as semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence in China. This once again makes it clear to the world that the US's rhetoric of "not seeking to decouple from China" is just an old trick of "saying one thing and doing another.". The confusing guise of "risk reduction" cannot hide the "black hand" of the United States in containing China.
The term "de risk" was first used in Europe by European Commission President von der Leyen in a speech in March this year. Afterwards, high-ranking US officials frequently used the term "de risk" in various occasions. Why has the United States shifted from "decoupling theory" to "de risk" in just a few months? One important reason is that the United States' previous strong efforts to decouple from China have completely failed, so it has had to create new language traps through a relatively neutral part of speech, relatively vague meaning, and relatively strong subjective interpretive "de risk" approach. Through the rhetoric of "risk reduction", the United States' plan is to appease domestic and foreign anti decoupling forces, and make the implementation of the US containment strategy towards China more refined, covert, and smooth. Simply put, "de risk" is not about not decoupling, but about selectively decoupling, precisely decoupling the areas targeted by the United States. "De risk" may seem to have shed the irrationality of "decoupling", but in essence, there is not much difference between the two. "De risk" is just the armor of "decoupling".
The essence of "risk reduction" is still to contain and suppress China's development, and the United States attempts to implement "de sinicization" under the name of "risk reduction". Like the decoupling theory, the United States currently frequently uses "de risk" as a means to strengthen the "China threat" by abusing the concept of "national security", thereby alienating or even cutting off China's relations with other countries in the world. Taking the high-tech sector as an example, in August 2022, the US government's Chip and Science Act was officially enacted, requiring semiconductor companies receiving federal financial assistance not to engage in substantial expansion in China. Subsequently, in October, the export controls on chips to China were tightened, which was described by The New York Times as "equivalent to launching an economic war against China.". It is not enough to fight alone. The United States has also formed a so-called "chip quadrilateral alliance", threatening and luring other countries and regions to form a "chip containment" against China, attempting to "divide" the global chip production and supply chain in two. The United States is gradually pressing to suppress the development of China's high-tech industry, making the "high wall" increasingly high and expanding the scope of "small courtyards". Gary Clyde Hufball, a senior researcher at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in the United States, believes that the United States neglects economic costs and attempts to impose a "technological blockade" on China under the pretext of "national security". Whether it is "decoupling" or "de risk" in wording, it is a sign of the United States' shift towards the wrong path of "new mercantilism" and the deepening of protectionism.
There is a saying in English that a person holding a hammer looks like a nail in everything they see. The United States attempts to maintain world hegemony forever and dominate international rules, so looking at others is like a challenge, a threat, and a nail. At the end of the day, the root of the US hype about "risk reduction" lies in a serious deviation in its perception and positioning towards China. It stubbornly uses the template of "a strong country must dominate" to mirror China, misjudges China based on the trajectory of traditional Western powers, and shapes China into a "hypothetical enemy" and "real risk". It attempts to isolate China by wooing allies in order to strengthen its hegemonic position. Former Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Commission, Graham Fuller, wrote that the United States has always been obsessed with maintaining its status as the "world's only superpower" and has spared no effort to prevent China's influence in the world in order to prove that it can still command the world.
Blowing out someone else's lamp does not make oneself brighter; Blocking someone else's path will not allow oneself to travel further. The United States, under the guise of "risk reduction", is inevitably going against the development orientation of deepening cooperation and mutual benefit among countries under the tide of economic globalization. Just as decoupling ends in failure, de risk will inevitably be swept into the garbage heap of history.
