China US economic and trade needs a 'cooperation list', not a 'coverage list' (bell ringing)

What China and the United States should extend is a mutually beneficial and win-win "cooperation list", rather than a artificially limited so-called "coverage list"

Recently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States has included foreign produced power inverters and advanced robotic equipment in the so-called "coverage list", and related new models of products will not be able to obtain certification authorization and cannot be sold in the US market. The US measures, under the banner of "non discrimination" or "national security", are essentially discriminatory treatment and suppression of Chinese companies and products, a typical unilateral bullying behavior, and a blatant distortion of market economy rules and fair competition principles.

For some time now, the FCC has repeatedly generalized the concept of national security, continuously introduced and upgraded restrictive measures, which not only seriously damages China's legitimate trade rights and interests, but also seriously undermines the foundation of China US economic and trade cooperation, and more seriously disrupts the stability of the global industrial and supply chains.

Using the so-called 'cover list' to implement targeted containment and suppression is a common tactic of the FCC. In 2021, the agency listed the telecommunications and video surveillance equipment of five Chinese companies under the pretext of "national security", setting a bad precedent for the abuse of regulatory tools. Since then, the US has continuously introduced restrictive rules and expanded the scope of suppression, and products such as drones and routers have been included in the control. In April of this year, the agency approved restrictive measures to cancel the qualifications of testing and certification institutions in countries that have not signed a "mutual recognition agreement" with the United States, artificially raising the compliance threshold for Chinese products. This further extends the scope of control to the fields of new energy and advanced intelligent manufacturing, and the intention to suppress China's technology and industry is clear.

The US move goes against the current trend of stabilizing and improving Sino US relations. In the past year, under the strategic guidance of the two heads of state, the China US economic and trade teams have maintained pragmatic communication and made positive progress, injecting valuable certainty into bilateral economic and trade cooperation and world economic recovery. In May of this year, the two heads of state jointly determined a new positioning for the constructive strategic stability relationship between China and the United States, which pointed out the direction for the development of bilateral relations. All levels and fields should move in the same direction. The Chinese side has always believed that competition among major powers is not surprising, but competition cannot define all of China US relations. Even if there is competition between China and the United States, it should be a benign competition of mutual learning, active competition of chasing after each other, and fair competition of abiding by rules. What both parties should extend is a mutually beneficial and win-win "cooperation list", rather than a artificially limited so-called "coverage list".

The repeated construction of walls and fortifications by the US is rooted in its adherence to zero sum game thinking and deep competition anxiety with China. Faced with the constantly improving international competitiveness of China's new energy equipment and advanced intelligent manufacturing industries, some people in the United States are not thinking about how to enhance their own competitiveness and win development advantages through fair competition. Instead, they insist on setting barriers and trying to slow down the development pace of other countries. History and reality have repeatedly proven that protectionism is not the right path for development, and administrative barriers cannot stop the pace of industrial and technological progress. Forcefully promoting "decoupling and chain disconnection" and building a "small courtyard high wall" will not only fail to stop the pace of China's industrial technology iteration and upgrading, but will also force the global industrial chain and supply chain to accelerate diversified layout, ultimately eroding the economic vitality and technological competitiveness of the United States itself. Wise people have long pointed out that placing administrative barriers above market laws and industrial competitiveness is tantamount to creating an inefficient "greenhouse" for local industries, ultimately causing American domestic enterprises to lose their innovation drive and consumers to bear the dual burden of high prices and outdated technology.

From a broader global perspective, the US approach is even more against the trend of economic globalization. In today's world, with deep economic integration and highly complementary industrial division of labor among countries, the formation and development of global industrial and supply chains is an inevitable result of market laws and an important opportunity for countries to share development. Power inverters and advanced robot equipment are key products supporting global green transformation and intelligent manufacturing upgrading, and free trade and technological cooperation benefit countries around the world. The artificial fragmentation of the market and the establishment of technological barriers by the US not only drives up the operating costs of the global industrial chain, impacts global industrial cooperation and technological innovation ecology, but also "burns" the global green transformation and intelligent industry development process, and damages the common interests of countries around the world.

Protectionism cannot enhance competitiveness, and building walls and barriers cannot exchange for safety. The Chinese side urges the US to face up to the voices of the two countries' industries, respect the laws of market economy and the principle of fair competition, immediately stop erroneous practices, and revoke relevant discriminatory restrictive measures. If the US persists in its unilateral actions, China will resolutely take countermeasures. We hope that the US will effectively implement the important consensus reached by the two heads of state, abandon zero sum game thinking, return to a rational and pragmatic track, work together with China towards the same goal, promote the healthy and stable development of China US economic and trade cooperation, and inject more positive energy into the constructive strategic stability relationship between China and the US.