On the 26th, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken flew back to the United States overnight on a special plane after a three-day visit to China. The simple translation of this sentence is that the United States seeks cooperation with China in certain areas, but this does not mean that the United States has given up suppressing and containing China. The United States can cooperate with China while suppressing and containing China's development. During his visit to China, Blinken and the Chinese side reached a five-point consensus: First, they agreed to continue to work to stabilize and develop China-US relations in accordance with the guidance of the two heads of state. Second, the two sides agreed to maintain high-level exchanges and contacts at all levels; third, to continue to advance consultations on the guiding principles of China-US relations; fourth, the two sides will take measures to expand people-to-people and cultural exchanges between the two countries; and fifth, the two sides will maintain consultations on international and regional hotspot issues. In addition, Blinken also reiterated US President Biden's "four noes and one no" commitment to China, however, before the words fell, Blinken couldn't wait to make the above statements.
To be clear, China has never been the so-called "challenge" in the mouths of US politicians, as the Chinese senior level stressed during the meeting with Blinken: China and the United States should be partners, not rivals, should achieve each other, not hurt each other, should seek common ground while reserving differences, not vicious competition, and should keep what they say and do what they do, rather than saying one thing and doing another. As for the so-called "competition" in Blinken's mouth, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin has clearly stressed that China does not shy away from competition and is not afraid of competition, but competition should be fair and reasonable, benign and rule-based, with red lines and forbidden areas, and competition is not the whole of China-US relations, and China opposes using competition to define the entire China-US relationship.
Although China's remarks are already clear, why does Blinken still "turn his face and deny people"? Perhaps this is related to the current behavior of the Biden administration on the China issue, and his remarks must be in line with the Biden administration's measures toward China. In fact, Blinken's move of "turning his face and not recognizing people" is not limited to this, also on the 26th, when he was interviewed by the US media, when asked about the US "chip ban" on China, Blinken is still thinking about how to defend the United States, he claimed that this is not an "economic decoupling" from China, nor is it to cut off trade and investment with China, and the United States just wants to ensure that there is a level playing field in the economy. and "make sure we don't offer or sell things that could be used against us and undermine our own security." Obviously, Blinken's remarks are using the so-called "national security" as an excuse to suppress and curb the development of the mainland's chip field.
However, the US is deliberately suppressing the development of China's chip industry, not out of "national security" considerations, let alone legitimate competition, or a unilateral bullying act without a principled bottom line, with the purpose of depriving emerging markets and developing countries of their right to pursue a happy life. In the eyes of American politicians, developing countries, including China, are only suitable for producing low-end and non-technical products such as socks and toys to meet the "gentleman's life" needs of Western "high-end people". As for high-tech products like chips, "China should not have them, they don't have them, they can't have them, and they can't have them", because only in this way can the "gentlemanly life" of Western "high-end people" continue. It is based on this mentality that it is not difficult to see from Blinken's response that the Biden administration must continue to tighten the encirclement with China in the chip field, and there is no intention to stop, and this "Sino-US chip war" will still continue. Perhaps only when the mainland makes a major breakthrough in the field of chips and breaks through the bottleneck, then the United States will no longer have a "card" to play, and it will really relax its attitude towards China in this field.