Regarding the re-dialogue and exchange of Sino-US economies, US Trade Representative Dai Qi proposed at the end of October that the Sino-US economy should be "re-linked".
How to parse this passage?
First of all, after the situation of the last Sino-US high-level dialogue on economic and trade, although the two sides had an honest, friendly and focused conversation during the meeting, because the US side has not set an effective example on the Chinese side's proposal on "when to lift sanctions", the final outcome is still fruitless.
However, Sino-US economic and trade exchanges have reached a record high in the three quarters of this year, and they can vaguely break through the $700 billion mark before the end of the year.
This shows that the Sino-US economy and trade are not "derailed" as we say.
As for Dai Qi's argument of "re-linking" after the meeting, the implication is to show that "the United States hopes to let China's economy and trade follow the US model."
In fact, the issue of "whether to decouple or not" is no longer the focus of concern under the background of the deterioration of Sino-US relations today, after all, the United States has never stopped in its means of economic and trade suppression, sanctions, and smear on China.
For example, during the High-level Sino-US Economic and Trade Dialogue, another Chinese company was brutally blackmailed by the United States, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) still used "national security" as a reason to cancel the operating license of Chinese telecommunications companies in the United States.
This just confirms that at the end of 2020, the Us New York Stock Exchange announced the "delisting procedure" of China Telecom, Mobile, and China Unicom in turn.
The behavior of the Americans is truly disappointing!
Therefore, if we want to improve the "deteriorating situation of Sino-US relations", the only way is to cancel sanctions on trade with China!
In addition, since the Biden administration took office at the beginning of this year, it has not been determined whether the trade policy toward China will continue Trump's decision or break the situation and adopt a new trade policy with China.
This is a fruitless annoyance for Washington.
Quoting an article published at Australia's East Asia Forum on October 31, the headline prominently pointed out: Washington is still looking for trade policy with China, and the author of the article is William Reinsch.
The article describes U.S. Trade Representative Dai Qi's explanation of the issue.
It turned out that as early as October 4, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington had the honor of inviting Dai Qi to reveal an update on the Biden administration's determination to make trade policy toward China.
However, it is understood that Dai Qi did not elaborate at the time, but diverted the direction of the discussion - discussing the future impact on China and how she will work.
At that time, many people could not understand what Dai Qi expressed, and the only thing that had some "value" was that Dai Qi said that the United States had many tools to deal with China.
Moreover, Dai Qi also stressed that he does not have much hope in persuading China to change its trade policy, because this is obviously a small way to win.
In response to this, the author can't help but complain: Why does the United States think it has the strength to change China's trade policy? Dai Qi's remarks fully show that in Sino-US economic and trade exchanges, the United States still believes that it is standing on a high place and can point fingers at China.
And Dai Qi is right in saying that China is unlikely to follow the path of the United States, first, the United States is not qualified at all, and second, the United States is delusional to rely on persuading China to change its trade policy and let the United States exercise hegemonic control over China's trade.
Sooner or later, the United States will dispel this ambition!
Returning to the original topic, the Biden administration's trade policy toward China has not moved for a long time, but it still does not reduce the suppression and sanctions against Chinese enterprises, which is enough to show that the first stage of Biden's trade policy toward China is still a continuation of the Trump administration's style.
This is a very ironic move, because Biden has liked to ask, both on economic and trade issues with China and to the outside world: How is his policy different from the Trump administration?
In addition, the Article by the Australian Media also put forward a good way to use the US trade policy toward China———— to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Cross-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP)
We all know that it is precisely because of the product of former President Trump's global "withdrawal from the group" that all countries around the world have caused a lot of resentment and psychological resistance to the United States.
CPTPP is a platform for mutual achievement, mutual benefit and win-win economic and trade development in the trans-Pacific region, aiming to promote the establishment and maintenance of free trade in the entire Asia-Pacific region.
Last month, China formally applied to join the CPTPP, hoping to pass and become a member of the agreement as soon as possible.
In doing so, China is mainly to enhance its international influence on the one hand, and on the other hand, to carry forward China's economic and trade policies in the Asia-Pacific economic and trade circle and achieve win-win cooperation between China and the Asia-Pacific economic and trade circle!
Therefore, William, the author of the Article in Australian Media, believes that the United States should also join the CPTPP, using the agreement as a link to be able to think out a new economic and trade policy toward China faster.
However, judging from the current behavior of the Biden administration, Biden's decision to continue to boycott CPTPP is still due to political reasons.
Speaking of this political factor, it is indeed ridiculous to the extreme, and what is really hidden behind it is nothing more than the naked ambition to compete with China!
The United States and China still have many outstanding issues, but some US government officials have always believed that being in a "competitive situation" with China is the best choice.
This will lead to a rift between China and the United States will become bigger and bigger!
At the same time, William, an Australian media author, also pointed out specifically: the United States does not have a trade policy for the region, such as sending aircraft carriers to the South China Sea every few months, which does not represent trade policy at all!
This sentence shows that the United States may not have had the heart to establish a trade policy with China from the beginning, but instead adopted a kind of "military diplomacy" and sent warships to cruise China's territorial waters at three or two ends.
Regarding this kind of behavior, the author only wants to say: The "military diplomacy" of the United States will not bring about any achievements, but will also attract a series of strong counterattacks from missile weapons!
The so-called military intimidation has long been unable to frighten China, and the same is true of the means of economic sanctions.
China and the United States are both world powers, and both have different and inseparable ties between them.
Objectively speaking: the United States blindly engages in economic and trade sanctions, and ultimately drops a stone on its own feet, such as suppressing domestic Chinese enterprises, which not only leads to a decline in employment and an increase in unemployment, but also under the epidemic, the economic model has also been greatly impacted.
Although China is the world's second largest economy, it at least has the ability to drive economic effects, and this ability will be a "life-saving medicine" for the current debt crisis and supply chain crisis in the United States!
From a macroscopic point of view: The situation of the Sino-US game will affect the entire international community, and why does the United States not understand the easy-to-understand truth of "unity is profitable, fighting is hurting"?