Before reading this article, I sincerely invite you to click "Follow", which is not only convenient for you to discuss and share, but also brings you a different sense of participation, thank you for your support.
In the tide of globalization, the economic and trade relations between countries are like intricate footsteps on a chessboard, and each step affects the direction of the overall situation.
Recently, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen concluded a visit to China.
This act, which was supposed to be a turning point in relations between the two countries, does not seem to have brought about the expected breakthrough.
After returning home, the U.S. import list was updated, but there was still no name for China, as were India and Vietnam.
The absence of these three countries, each of which has strong economic potential and market size, has attracted widespread attention and much speculation.
First, let's start with the U.S. import list.
This list is not just an ordinary piece of paper, it represents the attitude and strategy of the United States towards economic cooperation with countries around the world.
The fact that the countries on this list can participate in the U.S. government's multi-trillion dollar procurement program is a huge business opportunity for businesses in any country.
U.S. government procurement policy has long been seen as a sign of protectionism, despite the U.S. rhetoric about free trade.
However, in the field of government procurement, the actual operation is highly selective.
This selectivity is not only based on price competition, but also on political and security considerations.
For example, a U.S. government procurement officer can decide on a contract based on non-price factors, including technical advantages, speed of delivery, and even national security considerations.
For three Asian economies, China, India and Vietnam, their failure to appear on the latest list may have something to do with several factors.
The first is the political factor, and the tensions in Sino-US relations in recent years have been open.
From trade wars to technology restrictions, friction between the two sides has been there.
Although Yellen's trip appears to be aimed at détente, in reality, the U.S. strategic considerations are far from changing.
Secondly, the threshold of technology and standards is also a major consideration.
U.S. government procurement often requires suppliers to meet strict technical standards, which is not just about quality control, but more about long-term technical support and maintenance.
Although China has made rapid progress in some areas of technology, the risk still exists in the eyes of the U.S. government.
Then look at India and Vietnam, which are becoming increasingly important in global manufacturing.
However, in terms of specific policies and technology docking with the United States, it may not fully meet the requirements of the United States.
For example, Vietnam and India have been increasing their influence in Asia in recent years, which is of great significance to the United States in building a strategic balance in the Asia-Pacific region.
As a result, the U.S. is likely to use a variety of economic tools, including government procurement, to influence the foreign policy of these countries to ensure that they can support U.S. positions on key issues.
The absence of China, India, and Vietnam in the wake of this list update has been interpreted as a strategic consideration for the United States in balancing its global economic influence.
By restricting these countries' access to their own government procurement markets, the United States not only controls potential economic risks, but also restricts the further expansion of these countries' economic power to some extent.
However, this strategy has also sparked widespread controversy.
On the one hand, the U.S. move is seen as a sign of protectionism that runs counter to the principles of free trade it promotes.
On the other hand, such a policy could prompt China, India, and Vietnam to look for new economic partners on other international platforms, thereby reducing their dependence on the U.S. market.
What do you have to say about this? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comment section!