With the so-called “extreme pressure”, the US has not achieved the expected goal by tactical adventurous actions carried out by continually overweighting and neglecting tricks in negotiations.
The threat of escalation of tariff penalties issued by the US before the eleventh round of high-level Sino-US economic and trade consultations not only created a very negative impact on the negotiations, but also forced China to carry out corresponding counter-measures in a very formal and clear manner.
This round of Chinese counter-measures not only caused the US stock market to evaporate 8.5 trillion yuan in the next 24 hours, but also from May 14th at 5:35 am US time to May 18 at 20:37 US time. The official media accounts of the top decision-makers of the United States have always maintained a “silent” state on issues related to Sino-US trade frictions.
In addition, the US originally intended to replicate the idea of suppressing the “ZTE” incident, and it also suffered a rather significant setback: the US government high-profile announcement that the supply chain security in related areas was threatened and entered a state of emergency, and the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security will be Huawei and 70. The listing of related companies in the “list of entities” failed to reproduce the scene of “one-shot fatality” against ZTE in 2018. Instead, it allowed Huawei to show its “prepared tires” plan.
24 hours after the high-profile threat, the US Department of Commerce issued a message to urgently extend the time window for some US customers to purchase equipment from Huawei. It even more distorted the fragility behind the US’s toughness and the essence of various extreme pressures.
There are indications that in the Sino-US economic and trade frictions, the stage in which the US side voluntarily launched an active attack is passing; with the embargo of the tariff pressure transmission mechanism taking effect, Sino-US economic and trade frictions have entered into “talking and talking, talking and talking. It’s a relatively high probability event to talk about the stage of the fight.
At this stage, a firm will, a consistent understanding, a full ideological preparation for the twists and turns of the road, a firm confidence in the bright future, and a full psychological preparation for the cost of the struggle are key factors influencing the development of the situation.
People familiar with Chinese history will not forget that when the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression entered the stage of strategic stalemate, the adjustment of the Japanese strategy was to substantially strengthen political inducement in order to seek internal disintegration of Chinese resistance.
History has sometimes shown some sort of amazing similarity. When the US’s extreme pressure does not achieve its desired results, and the Chinese side demonstrates the ability to respond effectively, some misconceptions that may have dangerous consequences appear quietly on the Internet:
First, the United States is a big force, and China will lose. It is better to admit defeat than to admit defeat.
This kind of argument has emerged in 2018. The general view is that China exports more than 500 billion U.S. dollars to the U.S., and the U.S. exports to China just over 100 billion U.S. dollars. Everyone raises taxes and China’s chips are much smaller than the United States. In the field, the United States has mastered the core technology, and China is subject to people; China can’t beat it, and it’s hard to beat it. Although it is humiliating, “but there is no way”.
What deserves special attention is that after the relevant speeches still describe the disadvantages of China, they tell the main young college students that this matter has nothing to do with you. It is no longer the “most dangerous moment for the Chinese nation” and does not need to be “for China.” It’s rising and studying.”
This argument is not new. During the War of Resistance Against Japan, the reason for those who advocated peace with Japan was that “China cannot win this war. It is more advantageous to negotiate peace before it fails completely.” “. If you think about it carefully, you can’t help but feel heartfelt.
Second, losing to the United States in a trade war is conducive to promoting benign changes within China.
The benign change of this kind of argument is that China should replicate the practice of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries in the 1980s and 1990s in the economic and political system, and hope that the US can destroy China’s state-owned economy and destroy it through extreme pressure. China’s political system and ideology have thus achieved some of its long-standing ideals and goals.
Individuals who have a special emotional preference for liberal ideology also hold this view, and try to explain the US bottom line asking price disclosed by the Wall Street Journal in May 1818 from the most benevolent point of view, and believe that the US asking price is logically rigorous. It is reasonable in the goal and morally correct.
From the perspective of constructivism, the political identity of such statements and those who agree to such statements has a relatively significant negative perception of the current China, and a relatively significant positive perception of the current United States. To a certain extent, it can be found in the view of Steve Bannon, the former chief strategic adviser of the White House.
Third, it is believed that Sino-US economic and trade frictions must be resolved by “professionals” who agree with American standards. Ordinary Chinese should not pay too much attention to this issue.
The basic premise of the actor with this view is that “patriotism is in need of qualification”, and “this country does not turn to the general public to love”, so only the professional elite who conforms to the values of liberalism and innately recognize the United States over the identity of China Only when they are qualified to pay attention to and discuss the issue of Sino-US trade frictions are eligible to submit relevant programs.
The formation of these views is not overnight. From an international perspective, this is the result of the long-term promotion of American values and liberalism in the world during the Cold War and the post-Cold War period in the 1940s and the present. It is an external part of the US soft power that has a profound effect on some Chinese people. reaction.
From the perspective of China itself, the impacts and collisions in the process of integrating reform and opening up into the world have caused some people to become confused and even wrong. In the report of the 19th National Congress, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that a great cause requires a great struggle. It is a great struggle to withstand the US trade hegemonism and properly resolve Sino-US economic and trade frictions; it is also a great struggle to overcome the above misconceptions and correctly understand China and the world today.
To overcome the above misunderstanding, we need to start from three aspects:
First, guided by historical materialism and dialectical materialism, we systematically and comprehensively and dialectically view the overall strength of China and the United States, and profoundly and accurately grasp the core and essence of Sino-US trade friction.
Sino-US economic and trade frictions have occurred in the era of globalization. China and the United States have formed a division of labor based on comparative advantages. This is an objective prerequisite.
The idea of mechanically using the amount of imports and exports to calculate the outcome is based on the international trade practice of the pre-global era, which is essentially different from the present, and the conclusions drawn from this are inconsistent with the facts.
The abstraction of the discussion of the discussion of actual trade with an abstract discussion of technological advancement means that the specific production process is simplified into the upstream and downstream relationships in the technical system, abstractly talking about which party has an innovative advantage, When it comes to specific industrial capabilities and manufacturing systems, the conclusions drawn have thus created a huge distortion.
The simple idea of equating the so-called “hiding with the light” with the unconditional, bottomless, and borderless concessions of the United States is a typical manifestation of historical nihilism.
Second, consciously use China’s national interests rather than the national interests of the United States as a standard to understand and understand Sino-US economic and trade frictions.
The United States is a superpower that is psychologically close to a substantial recession. The absolute security of its pursuit of self-centeredness and the so-called idealized economic order preferred by the current US government are essentially inconsistent with the requirements of this era. Divide.
On the contrary, whether it is theory or practice, China’s strategy of building a community of human destiny is more in line with the direction of global development.
Therefore, we should consciously use China’s national interests rather than the national interests of the United States as the criteria for judging and selecting analytical frameworks, and build correct interest perceptions so that we can stand firm when China’s economic and trade frictions enter a stalemate stage. heel.
Third, establish a correct view of justice and interests, and avoid the exquisite self-interest that “does not hang high.”
As a typical post-modernized country, one of China’s most important comparative advantages is the collectivism of the collectivism of “the world is rising and falling, and the husband is responsible.”
In today’s world, although the wave of globalization is an unstoppable trend, in the process of defending the distribution of global interests in different countries, the most effective form of organization is still a sovereign state; and the essence of Sino-US economic and trade friction is to maintain The hegemonic state, which has its own overwhelming advantage in the distribution of its dominant position, faces the hegemonic decline that is essentially induced by its endogenous innovation and lack of motivation. It seeks to transfer by looking for external imaginary enemies.
For China, if everyone insists that the trade war has nothing to do with it and only has a fundamentally wrong and outdated concept related to “trained professional technicians”, then we may only lose this strategic game and be profound. Experience the ancient saying that “there is no egg under the nest.”
As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation cannot be achieved easily and by drums and drums. It is necessary to carry out a great struggle with many new historical features. Sino-US economic and trade friction is one of the most representative stages of this great struggle. We need to maintain the spirit of struggle, strengthen the spirit of struggle, overcome misconceptions, and march forward toward the goal of finally winning Sino-US economic and trade frictions.