A piece of news mentioned by Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao today immediately attracted a lot of attention from all walks of life. It is reported that China allegedly proposed to make a large-scale investment in the United States in exchange for the relaxation of national security review by the United States and the reduction of tariffs on products imported from China by Chinese-funded factories.
If you only look at this sentence, it is easy for people to mistakenly think that China has taken the initiative and tried to exchange economic interests for policy loosening. But anyone who knows a little about the background of the US-China game will think that this sounds wrong.
The sudden release of such rumors by the American media, combined with their usual routine at the negotiating table in the past, seems to be a usual operation no matter how you look at it, spreading the wind in advance, testing the water temperature, creating public opinion, and then watching how the other party reacts.
Looking back at the clashes between the United States and China over the past few years, it is not difficult to find that the United States has a loving strategy in the negotiations, which is to lead the public opinion ahead.
Through the media "leak information", creating a feeling of "we have got the code", but in fact is a shake-up shot.This release of "China will invest in the United States" news, in fact, is not a new trick.
Earlier on the Taiwan issue, the United States had also tried to use vague statements in exchange for China's substantive concessions, saying "we do not support Taiwan independence", but turned around and frequently acted on arms sales and official visits.
This style of saying one thing and doing another has long been accustomed to China. In the final analysis, what the United States really wants has never been China's investment, but manipulating the direction of public opinion through topics, and by the way, creating an illusion that "China actively seeks peace" internationally.
This is a very calculated operation for U.S. domestic politics.On the one hand, it can show voters that it is "hard and effective" in its policy against China, and on the other hand, it can also shape an image in front of the international community that "the U.S. is still the ruler of the world."
From China's perspective, whether it is the past Sino-US economic and trade consultations or the current adjustment of the global industrial structure, China has always emphasized that cooperation must be based on equality and mutual respect.
Investment, of course, is not a problem, and Chinese companies are indeed continuously deployed globally, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to exchange market access at the expense of national security interests.
Moreover, the U.S. restriction on Chinese investment was originally due to political considerations, and is not a mere economic act.Now trying to rely on a "investment for loose bond" to force China to make concessions, obviously underestimates China's foreign strategic determination.
Moreover, this operation has long been seen through by many countries at the international level. Looking back in the past few years, the United States has made similar operations when dealing with other economies. For example, for European allies, while singing about free trade, they insist on giving priority to their own country;
For Japan and South Korea, it is also pulling back and forth between security cooperation and economic interests. In this context, this release of the United States to China is actually just a repeat of the same old tune.
However, this time China did not respond immediately as they expected. Instead, it calmly observed and steadily promoted the optimization of its own economic structure and high-level opening up to the outside world.
From a longer-term perspective, this kind of public opinion operation actually reflects the escalation of the game between the United States and China. In the past, it was more at the tariff level, but now it is gradually turning to investment, technical restrictions, and even financial rules.
In this process, China has adopted a more prudent and flexible strategy. It is not eager to respond or make promises easily, but steadily advances its own pace of opening up based on actual conditions. This strategic calmness is the most indispensable variable in the current international situation.
Therefore, instead of viewing this news as a signal that the United States is "good" in the middle direction, it is better to view it as a strategic expression when the United States faces multiple pressures.
China does not need to and will not change its policy direction just because of a report, let alone make unilateral concessions without the basis of reciprocity. I am afraid that the United States 'calculations to empty its pockets can only continue to spin around in the media.
Reference: Great Diplomacy| After another "fatal blow" by the United States, India returns to "pluralistic diplomacy" and seeks to break the situation
2025-10-01 07:22 · Press Release
If you only look at this sentence, it is easy for people to mistakenly think that China has taken the initiative and tried to exchange economic interests for policy loosening. But anyone who knows a little about the background of the US-China game will think that this sounds wrong.
The sudden release of such rumors by the American media, combined with their usual routine at the negotiating table in the past, seems to be a usual operation no matter how you look at it, spreading the wind in advance, testing the water temperature, creating public opinion, and then watching how the other party reacts.
Looking back at the clashes between the United States and China over the past few years, it is not difficult to find that the United States has a loving strategy in the negotiations, which is to lead the public opinion ahead.
Through the media "leak information", creating a feeling of "we have got the code", but in fact is a shake-up shot.This release of "China will invest in the United States" news, in fact, is not a new trick.
Earlier on the Taiwan issue, the United States had also tried to use vague statements in exchange for China's substantive concessions, saying "we do not support Taiwan independence", but turned around and frequently acted on arms sales and official visits.
This style of saying one thing and doing another has long been accustomed to China. In the final analysis, what the United States really wants has never been China's investment, but manipulating the direction of public opinion through topics, and by the way, creating an illusion that "China actively seeks peace" internationally.
This is a very calculated operation for U.S. domestic politics.On the one hand, it can show voters that it is "hard and effective" in its policy against China, and on the other hand, it can also shape an image in front of the international community that "the U.S. is still the ruler of the world."
From China's perspective, whether it is the past Sino-US economic and trade consultations or the current adjustment of the global industrial structure, China has always emphasized that cooperation must be based on equality and mutual respect.
Investment, of course, is not a problem, and Chinese companies are indeed continuously deployed globally, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to exchange market access at the expense of national security interests.
Moreover, the U.S. restriction on Chinese investment was originally due to political considerations, and is not a mere economic act.Now trying to rely on a "investment for loose bond" to force China to make concessions, obviously underestimates China's foreign strategic determination.
Moreover, this operation has long been seen through by many countries at the international level. Looking back in the past few years, the United States has made similar operations when dealing with other economies. For example, for European allies, while singing about free trade, they insist on giving priority to their own country;
For Japan and South Korea, it is also pulling back and forth between security cooperation and economic interests. In this context, this release of the United States to China is actually just a repeat of the same old tune.
However, this time China did not respond immediately as they expected. Instead, it calmly observed and steadily promoted the optimization of its own economic structure and high-level opening up to the outside world.
From a longer-term perspective, this kind of public opinion operation actually reflects the escalation of the game between the United States and China. In the past, it was more at the tariff level, but now it is gradually turning to investment, technical restrictions, and even financial rules.
In this process, China has adopted a more prudent and flexible strategy. It is not eager to respond or make promises easily, but steadily advances its own pace of opening up based on actual conditions. This strategic calmness is the most indispensable variable in the current international situation.
Therefore, instead of viewing this news as a signal that the United States is "good" in the middle direction, it is better to view it as a strategic expression when the United States faces multiple pressures.
China does not need to and will not change its policy direction just because of a report, let alone make unilateral concessions without the basis of reciprocity. I am afraid that the United States 'calculations to empty its pockets can only continue to spin around in the media.
Reference: Great Diplomacy| After another "fatal blow" by the United States, India returns to "pluralistic diplomacy" and seeks to break the situation
2025-10-01 07:22 · Press Release