Chip War and two protagonists.
Washington has long pursued a hegemonic logic: there should only be one set of rules in this world, and that is, "American rules".
Washington is accustomed to highlighting “national security” and “military threats” by arbitrary sanctions on foreign entities, and then, in turn, seeking justification for their actions, even by fabricating the illusion of threats.
All this is often cloaked in the glamorous cloak of "defending freedom, * and human rights". This kind of practice has been common in the past few decades, but in recent years, this strategy has been increasingly frequently used in the game with China.
This strategy, with sanctions as its ultimate goal, is rooted in safeguarding America’s global economic hegemony.
Just as its foreign military intervention is often aimed at feeding back the U.S. economy through the military-industrial complex or fostering agents, the core purpose of economic sanctions is to reshape the balance of global competition and tilt it towards U.S. interests.
Not only against its competitors, but even against its close allies, such as the European Union, Washington has often been forced to give up some of its economic and trade cooperation in its favor under US coercion.
In this intensifying war of technological containment, China's Huawei has become the first target of the United States '"key attention."
Since 2018, the United States has used national power to launch a systematic strangulation of Huawei on a global scale.
They argue that Huawei’s 5G equipment has a so-called “backdoor” that could be used for espionage and threaten the security of Western countries.
Although Huawei has repeatedly expressed its willingness to accept any form of censorship and even signed a "no backdoor" agreement, the United States still turned a deaf ear.
Not only did they ban operators from using Huawei equipment domestically, but they also included Huawei and hundreds of affiliated companies on the "entity list" and cut off their access to advanced U.S. technology and chips. What's more, the United States also abused its judicial hegemony and coerced Canada to unreasonably detain Huawei executives.
In the face of long-term, unfair pressure from the United States, our country has alwaysined great restraint, seeking to solve the problem within the framework of rules. but this restraint does not mean that our country will give up safeguarding its national security.
In 2023, China's relevant competent departments in accordance with the National Security Law, the Cybersecurity Law and other domestic laws and regulations, launched a cybersecurity review of the products sold in China by U.S. storage chip manufacturer Micron.
After months of rigorous review, the Chinese Cybersecurity Review Office released its review conclusions on May 21, 2023.
The report clearly pointed out that Micron's products were found to have prominent network security loopholes and hidden dangers, posing a major security risk to my country's critical information infrastructure supply chain and may pose a threat to my country's national security.
As a result, the Office of Examination made a decision requiring operators of domestic critical information infrastructure to stop sourcing Micron's products.
When Micron's review results were announced, the American political elite and media immediately began to criticize our country. They never mentioned the legal basis and factual findings of my country's censorship, but instead politicized it.
The New York Times and other media arbitrarily accused China's behavior of "geopolitical revenge" and "economic coercion using improper review procedures".
The U.S. Department of Commerce also quickly stated its position, claiming that my country's decision "has no factual basis" and is "distorting the chip market."
Parliamentary anti-Chinese MP Galagher, who is on the Hill of Congress, cried out loudly, demanding that the Biden government must "act immediately" and take reciprocal countermeasures against our country.
Conference "Rover" scene: old journalists questioned the new speaker
At the U.S. State Department’s routine press conference on May 22, 2023, Matthew Miller, as the newly appointed spokesman, was working hard to build his authority and credibility in front of the camera.
According to the established agenda, he first made a well-prepared opening remark on the Micron review incident.
He skillfully recited those standard diplomatic statements, which generally contained nothing more than stating that the United States was “seriously concerned” about our actions against the company, accused our actions of “economic coercion”, and claimed that these actions “are inconsistent with our claimed commitment to openness and transparency to the business community.”
He tried to portray our country’s legitimate security censorship as an irrational, rule-breaking behavior.
Miller's remarks are the "standard answer" in Washington's political context, but they are full of loopholes in logic. At this point, Associated Press reporter Matthew Lee, who was sitting in the front row, raised his hand.
Matthew Lee did not immediately go straight to the light, but instead threw a seemingly irrelevant, truth-hidden problem.
“About Huawei,” Matthew Lee slowly opened, “What do you think about the Huawei incident?”
The Micron incident is the protagonist today. Why is Huawei suddenly mentioned? As a career spokesperson, Miller tried to avoid the trap.
He seemed somewhat hesitant, but still vigorously calmed, responding with a mechanical tone of almost "back text" and said: "We ... our attitude toward Huawei is well known.
He tried to cut U.S. policy apart from himself personally, a defensive posture common to a novice when faced with tough issues.
But Matthew Lee had no intention of letting him go. The veteran reporter immediately followed up and raised the core question: "Okay. If the United States can ban a China company (Huawei) from doing business in the United States or overseas for its own reasons, then why can't China do exactly the same?"
This question instantly hit through all the sets prepared by Miller.It is too direct, too symmetrical.It lists what the United States has done in the Huawei incident, and what our country has done in the Beauty incident, and lists the two ends of the plane.
Miller was obviously a little panicked. He thought for a moment and grasped the strongest lifeline he believed was "national security."
He replied: “The actions of the United States (to Huawei) are based on serious concerns about our national security sphere, and he tried to emphasize the ‘legitimacy’ and ‘speciality’ of American actions.”
Matthew Lee is waiting for this answer. He immediately launched a counterattack without even raising his tone: "So, my country (referring to China) can have exactly the same concerns, right?"
If the U.S. can block Huawei on the basis of “national security”, why can’t our country censor Meizu on the basis of “national security”?
Miller was completely passive. He realized that the road to "national security" had been blocked by Matthew Lee. He panicked and tried to open a second front-"transparency".
He hurriedly defended: "So... so, my country (referring to China) has said before that they will remain open and transparent in the business field..." He tried to accuse my country of "breaking its word."
But before he could finish speaking, Matthew Lee interrupted him again. The veteran reporter ruthlessly pointed out the hypocrisy of the United States itself: "The United States also said that it would remain open and transparent!"
This blow can be described as "logical checkmate". When the United States suppressed Huawei, was there ever real transparency? The so-called "security concerns" have never provided any conclusive evidence and are entirely based on political speculation and hegemonic self-interest.
While the United States demands that other countries be "open and transparent", it is actually doing "black box operations" and "precision strikes".
Miller tried to refute it, but said a phrase almost inexorably: “America has ... America has (some) things our country (meaning China) does not exist...”
This sentence is vague and unclear. He himself seems to have no idea what he wants to express. Maybe he wants to say "rule of law" or "democracy", but under Matthew Lee's progressive logical questioning, these words seem so empty and ironic.
The order of the scene began to become chaotic.Miller abandoned the debate and began to bow his head, loudly and mechanically re-read his previously prepared official speech on “condemn our country.”
Matthew Lee continued to question loudly, trying to get Miller to answer the unanswered question positively.
The spokesman's script and the reporter's pursuit, the two voices were intertwined in the release hall, and the two sides refused to give way to each other. This is not so much a question and answer as a "public execution".
In the mouth, it begins to “drop hands.”
In the State Council speech table, the failure of logical debates cleared Washington’s face.Matthew Miller’s trouble is only a miniature of the overall trouble of U.S. science and technology policy towards China.
When the excuse of "national security" was exposed and the accusation of "transparency and openness" was returned as it is, the United States found that relying on public opinion and diplomatic rhetoric could no longer curb China's legitimate development in the field of science and technology.
So, the failure at the debate table, in exchange for the more vigorous "down" in the economic and technological fields.
Before this confrontation occurred, the U.S. government had already launched what it considered its "trump card"-the Chip and Science Act, which was officially signed in August 2022.
The bill has been touted by American politicians as a "century-old plan" to revitalize the local semiconductor manufacturing industry. It plans to invest more than US$52 billion in huge subsidies to attract global chip giants to build factories in the United States.
The strategic intention behind it is very clear: on the one hand, to bring high-end manufacturing back to the United States through subsidies; on the other hand, to curb the development of my country's chip industry through export controls.
The pledges were full, but the progress was unusually slow until the end of 2023, more than a year after the bill was signed, the U.S. government approved the first district subsidy of tens of millions of dollars.
And those that were entrusted to the high hopes of "super projects", such as Intel and the plant in Arizona, have fallen into the dungeon.
According to industry disclosures, up to 40% of large manufacturing projects have been forced to postpone or suspend indefinitely due to policies such as the Chip and Science Act and the Inflation Cutting Act.
Since advanced technology has failed to "destroy" our country, the subsidy bill has failed to advance, Washington's anxiety is growing.They found that our country is not only in the cutting edge field, but in another broader battlefield - the field of mature process chip - is rapidly building a strong industrial advantage.
So, after the failure of logical debates and the failure of industrial subsidies, the United States came up with another common tool of hegemony: the 301 Survey.
According to the accounts in the reference materials, on December 23, 2024, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) officially announced the launch of a new round of 301 investigations against my country's chip industry.
They attempt to re-implement it on the pretext of so-called “unfair competition” and “state subsidies distorting the market” to pave the way for high tariffs or new trade barriers that may be imposed in the future.
This “end” clearly shows that Matthew Lee’s question at that conference in May 2023 is still unanswered, and I am afraid that it will never be answered.
When the United States is unable to win through competition on a fair track, it will not hesitate to tear away the hypothesis of “free trade” and “fair competition” and use all means, including sanctions, investigations, and technological blockades, to suppress the opponent it sees as a threat.
Reference: Biden came down to China chip again, China revealed "hard power"