Wary! The United States uses this "isolation pier" to encircle China

On August 24, the latest U.S. export controls to China went into effect, and Washington added seven Chinese aerospace-related entities to its export control list on the grounds of "national security" and foreign policy issues. This is the latest move by the Biden administration to "decouple technology" from China. Unlike former US President Trump, Biden played the "ideological card" after taking office, characterized the competition between the United States and China as a "contest between democracy and authoritarianism", integrated ideology into the science and technology war against China, economic and trade wars, and public opinion wars, and tried to create one "ideological isolation" after another to contain and contain China. However, what will really be trapped is not a continuously open China, but the United States, which is difficult to remove.

Ideologize "techno-nationalism"

Deutsche Welle said that after defining China as the number one strategic rival of the United States, Washington's global strategic deployment revolved around China. Less than a month into office in February 2021, Biden shouted to representatives of other participating countries at the Munich Security Conference, saying that "we must jointly prepare for long-term strategic competition with China." He called on other "democracies" to participate in this important work, saying that the continuity and development of Washington's relations with its allies and partners stemmed from the "democratic values" shared with these countries.

In what Biden calls "important work," ideologizing tech issues is an integral part. Wu Xinbo, dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, said in an interview with the Global Times reporter on the 24th that compared with the Trump administration, the Biden administration pays more attention to scientific and technological competition, and believes that science and technology is the key to maintaining the military and economic superiority of the United States. According to a report released in April by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "technocracy," which defines the technological field as the "battlefield" of inter-state struggles, has prevailed in Washington. U.S. "technological nationalism" toward China includes so-called "defensive" and "offensive" measures, of which import and export controls, entry-exit investment restrictions, telecommunications and electronic product licensing systems, financial sanctions, and technology trading rules belong to the former, while actions to enhance the United States' own technological strength belong to the latter.

The United States implements "technological nationalism" against China in order to "decouple" China, and export control tools such as the "Entity List" and legal documents such as the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 are "sharp weapons" for the United States to build technical barriers to China and implement "scientific and technological decoupling".

According to the New York Times and other US media reports, before the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the United States put Chinese companies and institutions on the "entity list" much faster than the other countries. As of Aug. 23, Washington had added about 600 Chinese entities to the list, more than 110 of which had been added since Biden took office. The BBC reported that the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, passed in June last year, restricts cooperation between China and the United States in emerging and foundational technologies such as advanced materials, artificial intelligence technologies, and quantum computing. This year's Bipartisan Innovation Act goes a step further, incorporating the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act passed by the Senate in June last year with the Chip and Science Act passed by the House of Representatives in February this year, and is Biden's main China policy plan at the congressional level after Biden took office. Some U.S. lawmakers have disclosed that the bill will regulate overseas investment by U.S. companies involved in high-tech fields to ensure that U.S. supply chains are "not affected by relevant countries, including China." Some research institutions predict that under the bill, as many as 43 percent of U.S. investment in China may be censored.

In addition to restricting cooperation between U.S. companies and China, the United States has also created so-called "technology alliances" to co-opt or coerce other countries not to cooperate with China in cutting-edge scientific research fields, in an attempt to weave a network of technology blockades against China. In the Asia-Pacific region, the United States attempts to unite Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to establish a "Chip Quad Alliance" and pass the Chip and Science Act of 2022, hoping to cut off the connection between China's chip industry and the world. On both sides of the Atlantic, the United States and Europe have established the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Commission (TTC), which plans to strengthen coordination in export controls and investment reviews of key technologies and products to prevent "critical technologies from flowing into China."

Link supply chains to values

"We cannot rely on foreign countries that are not in line with our national interests and values." On February 24, 2021, about a month after Biden took office, he signed an executive order requiring relevant government departments to complete risk assessments of four key products such as rare earths and supply chains in six key industries, including defense, within a certain period of time. "Nihon Keizai Shimbun" said that the Newly appointed Biden administration has begun to adjust the supply chain of important components of pillar industries, and although Biden's executive order does not mention China, it is actually aimed at China.

Wu Xinbo told the Global Times that the United States now wants to reshape the global supply chain through values and geopolitical factors, excluding countries that do not conform to Washington values and are incompatible with the geopolitical interests of the United States, such as China, from the supply chain. In addition to the TCC and the Chip and Science Act of 2022, the so-called Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) launched by the United States in the Asia-Pacific region is also a measure to achieve these goals. The United States hopes to use IPEF to strengthen cooperation with Japan and Southeast Asian countries in trade and supply chains, and to build an economic alliance with the strategic goal of "de-Chineseization". In addition, the "Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership" program launched by the United States, coupled with the "Rebuild a Better World" initiative launched last June, are Washington's measures to counter China around the world.

Wu Xinbo said that at the multilateral level, the United States also plans to squeeze China in the global economic field through reforms to international institutions such as the WTO and the marginalization of existing mechanisms such as the G20. Media reports show that in the United States, while restricting domestic enterprises from investing in China, Washington has "driven" Chinese enterprises out of the US market through censorship and so on, so as to achieve "trade decoupling" from China. The aforementioned U.S. Bipartisan Innovation Act restricts U.S. companies from investing in China. According to Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao, in the past two years, the United States has continuously threatened Chinese stocks with "delisting" with the help of the Foreign Company Accountability Act, and has now included more than 160 Chinese companies listed in the United States in the pre-delisting list. The United States is reluctant to let Chinese companies raise funds in the U.S. market.

Demonize before fighting a battle of public opinion

Ideological differences have always been an important reason for the United States to attack China public opinion. Since the Cold War, the United States has been demonizing the socialist system and opposing it to the capitalist system. In the public opinion war against China, the US media have always been the "vanguard." The Global Times reporter found that the US media often habitually brought distrust of the Chinese government in reports involving China, and even sometimes criticized China's policies from the perspective of the "presumption of guilt". This ideological critique of China has erupted intensively during the Russian-Ukrainian military conflict and the COVID-19 pandemic.

In reports involving the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the US media ignored China's official position, described China as an "insider" and "supporter" of Russia's military operations, and smeared and denigrated China. During the epidemic, the voice of the Chinese government rarely appeared in US media reports, and more often quoted anonymous people to accuse China of "depriving human rights.".

In addition to the US media, the US Government has also increased its propaganda for public opinion in China. The U.S. Department of State provides Chinese translations of memoranda of government meetings and important speeches on its website, and assigns staff to write Chinese articles about the United States.

In the context of China's definition as the largest "strategic competitor" by the United States, many U.S. departments have also established Institutions related to China, recruited troops, and increased intelligence collection for China. According to the Axios News Network reported on July 29, the House of Representatives proposed a bipartisan "Expanding China Education and Language Expertise Act" on the same day, requiring the State Council to hire more People who understand China and calling on the US government to make further investment in "relevant languages, cultures and regions" to effectively compete strategically with China. The U.S. State Department said in June that it plans to launch a "China Group" to address the "most important geopolitical threat" to the United States in the 21st century. Last February, Biden announced the formation of the Defense Department's China Task Force to assess Defense Department policies, programs, and processes on "Challenges Posed by China" and to advise the defense secretary on action. In October of the same year, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) created a new center dedicated to gathering intelligence about China and combating so-called Chinese "espionage."

The United States seems to be ready for fierce competition with China at all levels, but the "background" of this competition is cold war-style confrontation, and today's world is no longer what it was in the Cold War, and the United States has obviously misjudged the situation.

"You can't fall into the ideological trap of the United States"

U.S. Secretary of State Blinken claimed in a Speech on China Policy on May 26 that the United States does not seek to "divide the world into rigid ideological camps" and does not seek to "decouple" from China. However, the US action against China is at odds with the statements of Blinken and Biden. Why is the Biden administration so keen to engage in ideological warfare against China?

Wu Xinbo told the Global Times reporter that this is first of all because the Democratic Party is accustomed to promoting ideology and values; Second, if the Biden administration wants to pass bills against China, it needs to put these bills at the level of Sino-US strategic competition, "ideological war" and "value war", so as to win domestic political support and promote the passage of these bills; Third, in terms of co-opting allies, some Of the United States' European and Asian allies value economic ties with China and are unwilling to cooperate with the United States' China strategy, so Washington must emphasize that competition between the United States and China is a competition of values and two systems, so as to require allies and partners not to "see profit and forget righteousness." It is also believed that defining U.S.-China competition as a "contest between democracy and authoritarianism" is reminiscent of the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, a historical analogy that resonates with the populace and politicians in Western countries.

How should China respond to the ideological attacks of the United States? Li Haidong, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign Affairs University, said that an effective way is to shape an international situation favorable to China, which means that we need to contact most of the world's countries and widely express our intentions to the world to avoid distorted interpretations of China's intentions by the United States. In addition, in diplomacy, China must not only do a good job as a developing country, but also do a good job of us and European allies, so that they can objectively understand China's international status and their own interests and relations with China, which requires skill and patience.

Wu Xinbo stressed that China cannot fall into the "ideological trap" of the United States, and should show the world that the essence of the US strategic competition with China is to safeguard Washington's hegemonic position, not the dispute between the two ideologies and systems, and let the world see who governs China and the United States better. The US "Foreign Policy" magazine also reported that many people disagree with the Biden administration's characterization of US-China competition, and condemn Washington's approach will divide the world.

In addition to wooing Western countries through ideology, US political leaders have also frequently visited Africa this year. Washington held summits with ASEAN and Latin American countries in May and June. The United States claims that it will not ask countries in Africa and Latin America to choose sides between China and the United States, but in practice, it reveals the opposite meaning everywhere. Some commentators have said that one of the characteristics of the Biden administration's competition with China is pseudo-multilateralism under the packaging of fanatical ideological bias, that is, to compete with China by intensifying regional disputes and contradictions.

To what extent can these countries follow the United States in containing China's development? Wu Xinbo said that based on the traditional transatlantic alliance relationship and the common values of Europe and the United States, on the issue of China, european countries have a more obvious tendency to cooperate with the United States, such as sanctions against China on the Xinjiang issue. However, these European countries and China do not have major geopolitical conflicts, and in order to protect their own interests, they will keep a certain distance from the US China strategy. For ASEAN countries, China is far more economically important than the United States, so they will not take sides under pressure from the United States. Relations between Africa and Latin America with China have continued to deepen in recent years. The United States has developed relations with ASEAN and African countries, mainly to suppress China, not to promote bilateral cooperation, so countries in these regions have little interest in cooperating with the US China policy. (Reporters Zheng Ke, Aoki, Li Jing)