[Breeze]"China has made the biggest strategic mistake!" Last year, Singapore diplomatic experts reminded China: "China has made one of its biggest strategic mistakes in recent years, which is to alienate the American business community." So is this really the case?“
This mistake, he said, is not other than "distance from the American business world."It sounds quite logical, after all, in the last few decades, the U.S. large companies, such as Apple, Tesla, General Motors, they earn in China full of money, in order to preserve this huge market, not seldom in Washington as "speakers", lobbying politicians do not trade friction, do business well.
But now, the expert says, the bottle of lubricant oil seems to have been lost by China. Is it really so? This is probably to be seen in two ways. Put the responsibility on China, saying it is a one-sided "strategic mistake", is not necessarily too simple. More accurate is to say that the big car itself has changed, the road situation has changed, the original bottle of "lubricant oil", no matter how used, even soon to be burned.
Let’s look at the American business world first.Do they really want to be a “lubricant”?I am afraid it’s powerless.In the past, a CEO went to Congress and could say frankly: “How many jobs we have created in China, how many cheap goods we have provided to American consumers, and sanctioning China is damaging our own interests.”
Today, the political climate of Washington, national security overwhelms everything.If you go to Congress and say this, you are likely to be stuck on a "Chinese" hat.
TIKTOK’s CEO was questioned in turns at Congressional hearings, which scene, what is a business dialogue, is simply a political trial. In this atmosphere, American companies themselves became the object of censorship, their primary task is no longer to lobby the government to improve relations, but how to prove their innocence, how to cut with the label “China” to seek self-protection.
Look at China again. Is China still the China that needs American capital and technology? Not anymore. After decades of development, China has its own complete industrial system and its own technology giant.
We are no longer just a factory in the world, we are also one of the world’s largest consumer markets.This change has given China more confidence and self-confidence when it comes to diplomacy.
The past strategy of "market for technology" is no longer applicable in many fields. We began to emphasize "self-reliance and self-improvement" and began to have higher requirements for data security and national security. Some new regulations, such as the revision of the Anti-Espionage Law, have made some foreign companies feel pressure and uncomfortable. This change, in the eyes of the American business community, may be a kind of "alienation" and an "unfriendly" signal.
So, you see, this is not a one-sided "mistake", but a two-way, structural change.The US business world's " lubricant oil" bottle failed, on the one hand, the U.S. political environment has changed, so that they lose the ability to walk independently, must closely follow the political correctness of the government; on the other hand, China itself has developed to a new stage, and has put forward new requirements for cooperation.
When “business” is no longer the only, or even the most important topic in the Sino-US relationship, the merely commercial-interest-driven “lubricant” naturally fails.
This is, in fact, the end of an era. The era of China-U.S. relations with economic cooperation as the main axis, with "contact" as the tone, is far away. Instead, it is a new era with strategic competition as the core, with "security" as the primary consideration.
In this new era, business itself has become a part of the battlefield. American companies should consider geopolitical risks in the Chinese market; Chinese enterprises have to face unwarranted suppression and restrictions in the US market. Business can no longer surpass politics, but is deeply bound by politics and becomes a pawn in the game between the two sides.
The Singaporean expert’s reminder may not be accusing China of “doing a mistake,” but rather lamenting the passing of an era.
But the reality is that time can’t flow backwards.When both countries see each other as their most important strategic competitors, any single field “lubricant” is difficult to stop the friction and heat of the entire machine.
Now the question is, the old "lubricant" has failed, where is the new "lubricant"? Is it climate cooperation? Is it public health? Or some other global issue?
Or, in this era of increasingly fierce competition, both sides no longer need "lubricants", but are ready to go head-on? When the once-strongest bond of commerce begins to loosen, what should the future of Sino-US relations rely on to maintain? This question is probably more worthy of our deep thinking than who "made the mistake".
This mistake, he said, is not other than "distance from the American business world."It sounds quite logical, after all, in the last few decades, the U.S. large companies, such as Apple, Tesla, General Motors, they earn in China full of money, in order to preserve this huge market, not seldom in Washington as "speakers", lobbying politicians do not trade friction, do business well.
But now, the expert says, the bottle of lubricant oil seems to have been lost by China. Is it really so? This is probably to be seen in two ways. Put the responsibility on China, saying it is a one-sided "strategic mistake", is not necessarily too simple. More accurate is to say that the big car itself has changed, the road situation has changed, the original bottle of "lubricant oil", no matter how used, even soon to be burned.
Let’s look at the American business world first.Do they really want to be a “lubricant”?I am afraid it’s powerless.In the past, a CEO went to Congress and could say frankly: “How many jobs we have created in China, how many cheap goods we have provided to American consumers, and sanctioning China is damaging our own interests.”
Today, the political climate of Washington, national security overwhelms everything.If you go to Congress and say this, you are likely to be stuck on a "Chinese" hat.
TIKTOK’s CEO was questioned in turns at Congressional hearings, which scene, what is a business dialogue, is simply a political trial. In this atmosphere, American companies themselves became the object of censorship, their primary task is no longer to lobby the government to improve relations, but how to prove their innocence, how to cut with the label “China” to seek self-protection.
Look at China again. Is China still the China that needs American capital and technology? Not anymore. After decades of development, China has its own complete industrial system and its own technology giant.
We are no longer just a factory in the world, we are also one of the world’s largest consumer markets.This change has given China more confidence and self-confidence when it comes to diplomacy.
The past strategy of "market for technology" is no longer applicable in many fields. We began to emphasize "self-reliance and self-improvement" and began to have higher requirements for data security and national security. Some new regulations, such as the revision of the Anti-Espionage Law, have made some foreign companies feel pressure and uncomfortable. This change, in the eyes of the American business community, may be a kind of "alienation" and an "unfriendly" signal.
So, you see, this is not a one-sided "mistake", but a two-way, structural change.The US business world's " lubricant oil" bottle failed, on the one hand, the U.S. political environment has changed, so that they lose the ability to walk independently, must closely follow the political correctness of the government; on the other hand, China itself has developed to a new stage, and has put forward new requirements for cooperation.
When “business” is no longer the only, or even the most important topic in the Sino-US relationship, the merely commercial-interest-driven “lubricant” naturally fails.
This is, in fact, the end of an era. The era of China-U.S. relations with economic cooperation as the main axis, with "contact" as the tone, is far away. Instead, it is a new era with strategic competition as the core, with "security" as the primary consideration.
In this new era, business itself has become a part of the battlefield. American companies should consider geopolitical risks in the Chinese market; Chinese enterprises have to face unwarranted suppression and restrictions in the US market. Business can no longer surpass politics, but is deeply bound by politics and becomes a pawn in the game between the two sides.
The Singaporean expert’s reminder may not be accusing China of “doing a mistake,” but rather lamenting the passing of an era.
But the reality is that time can’t flow backwards.When both countries see each other as their most important strategic competitors, any single field “lubricant” is difficult to stop the friction and heat of the entire machine.
Now the question is, the old "lubricant" has failed, where is the new "lubricant"? Is it climate cooperation? Is it public health? Or some other global issue?
Or, in this era of increasingly fierce competition, both sides no longer need "lubricants", but are ready to go head-on? When the once-strongest bond of commerce begins to loosen, what should the future of Sino-US relations rely on to maintain? This question is probably more worthy of our deep thinking than who "made the mistake".