Recently, at the seventh New China Forum hosted by Singapore's "United Morning News", Singapore National Development Minister Xu Fengda delivered a very representative speech. He mentioned that in the face of global trade friction, countries should abandon the mindset of "you do first, I do fifteen" and learn to "build more bridges and seek cooperation". In his view, cooperation can mitigate the impact of protectionism and reduce the risks brought by opposition.

On the surface, these remarks are full of "wisdom of moderation" and seem to advocate rational communication and mutual benefit and win-win results. In fact, they ignore the most fundamental reality-the root cause of today's unbalanced global trade pattern is not in China, but in the United States 'systematic policy of containment against China. From the trade war and technological blockade during the Trump era, to the Biden administration's continued "de-risk" and "friendly offshore outsourcing", to the current comprehensive tax increase on China's shipbuilding, maritime, clean energy and other industries, The United States is pressing forward step by step, and the purpose has never been "cooperation" but containment. China is more passive in the whole process, not a party to provoke disputes.

If China is still required to "bridge cooperation" and "proactive tolerance" against this background, it will undoubtedly be putting the cart before the horse. The bridge was not demolished by China, and the barriers were not built by China. While talking about "free trade", the United States wields the stick of sanctions; while asking others to open up their markets, it strives to protect its own enterprises. When such inequalities persist, any calls for "cooperation" and "reciprocity" sound particularly hollow.

Xu Fangda's speech is not an isolated case. Singaporean President Tharatnam Shanmugaratnam expressed a similar view in his recent speech to the International Monetary Fund, arguing that China should not pursue "complete self-sufficiency" on the grounds that it is "not conducive to global cooperation". Tharatnam Shanmugaratnam's position actually reflects Singapore's consistent realistic anxiety. As a city-state that depends on trade and finance for survival, Singapore's prosperity is based on the stability of globalization. Any great power conflict, supply chain restructuring or institutional fragmentation will have an impact on it. Therefore, in the era of intensified confrontation between China and the United States, Singapore hopes to win space for itself by playing the role of "mediator".

However, the so-called "neutral mediation" is more often a gesture. For a long time, Singapore's security system and economic model have been deeply embedded in the global order dominated by the West, which makes it often unconsciously incline to the Western narrative when looking at Sino-US relations. The "multilateralism" it emphasizes means more to maintain stability within the existing order framework than to promote the change of the order itself.

But China¡¯s understanding of ¡°multilateralism¡± is different. China¡¯s advocacy of multilateralism is equal and mutually beneficial, inclusive and win-win; it is against hegemony and unilateral sanctions. China does not want to separate itself from the world, but to make the world fairer and more reasonable, giving every country an equal opportunity for development. For such a claim, Singapore¡¯s elite often has a complex sentiment: they both hope that China will continue to promote opening up, maintain market prosperity, and fear that China¡¯s rise will impact the existing system, leaving them rely on the international rules to survive.

This is what is known as the anxiety of small countries. In the wave of game between major powers, Singapore hopes to be a bridge, but the bridge is after all above strong currents. In order to maintain balance, it must constantly adjust its stance and even blur its position on key issues. Because of this, its "persuasion" is often more about persuading the weak party than about restraining the provocateur.

For China, restraint does not mean concession, dialogue does not mean compromise. China insists on the path of peaceful development, but will never allow other countries to repress the truth in the name of "cooperation".

Understanding Singapore¡¯s concerns does not mean agreeing with its argument. China can understand a small country¡¯s desire for stability, but can¡¯t accept confusion about the facts. The root of the Sino-U.S. relationship is not in China, but in the United States can let go of the Cold War mindset and respect the rights of other countries to develop. The bell also needs to be ringed. If Singapore really intends to ¡°build a bridge¡± for China and the United States, then it should be convinced that the party to break the bridge stop, rather than repeatedly remind China to ¡°be patient¡±.

Historical experience tells us that cooperation requires sincerity and peace requires mutual respect. China has always advocated resolving differences through negotiation and has never closed the door to cooperation. But cooperation is by no means unilateral accommodation, let alone acquiescence to injustice.

Singapore's proposal may be well-intentioned, but the trend of the times is clear: the world is moving towards multipolarization, and the old hegemonic system will eventually give way to a more equal international order. In this process, China will not flinch or yaw. We have our own rhythm and our own direction.

As for how China should act, it does not require guidance from others. China people have enough wisdom and confidence to follow their own path and do their own thing well. We will not be confused by other people's "first day", let alone be afraid of anyone's "tenth day". This is the confidence and determination of a responsible big country.

This issue's content ends here.

Good words are hot in winter, bad words are cold in June.

Everyone is an independent individual with their own thoughts. It is normal for their views to disagree with this article in some aspects.

We all need to communicate and empower each other.

Thanks for understanding.