【By Observer Net Columnist Shen Yi】

Recently, the U.S. "proposed to ban the import of Chinese cooking oil" has caused a stir in public opinion. The most dramatic detail is that this so-called cooking oil ban actually targets not real cooking oil, but "used cooking oil" (UCO), commonly known as "gutter oil", which turns the entire incident from an initially anticipated crisis into a farce.

In Sino-U.S. trade, soybeans have long been a focal point and a bargaining chip. American farmers have long relied on China as their main export destination, while China was once a major buyer of American soybeans. However, recently, China has repeatedly adjusted its import structure, significantly reducing or even halting imports of soybeans from the United States, which has had a substantial impact on U.S. farmers.

According to media reports, U.S. insiders said that the U.S. is considering listing Chinese cooking oil (including used cooking oil) as one of the trade retaliation targets to respond to China's "cold treatment" of U.S. soybean imports. Bloomberg pointed out that U.S. officials blurred the boundary between "cooking oil" and "used cooking oil" during discussions. Reuters also reported that the U.S. "will terminate part of its trade relations with China, including cooking oil" as an option. Commentators joked that this is like "cutting the bread ingredients when hungry, and treating the bread as a bomb" - a rather bizarre idea.

In fact, the U.S. has long relied on the import of used cooking oil from China. Using used cooking oil as a raw material for biofuels, under the U.S. green energy and carbon reduction policy framework, it enjoys policy subsidies and tax incentives, making it highly attractive. Media generally believe that this so-called "cooking oil ban" by the U.S. is more of a strategic attempt at "reciprocation with oil" rather than a traditional trade sanction on cooking oil.

However, the irony lies in the wrong selection of the policy "target" and illogical reasoning: if the U.S. does not import Chinese used cooking oil, its biofuel industry may face increased costs and shortages of raw materials; in other words, if the U.S. really doesn't "need" this "waste oil" from China, why has it long relied on importing it? This contradiction immediately exposes the incoherence in the decision-making logic.

Firstly, bluntly speaking, the U.S. equating "used cooking oil" with "cooking oil" is a basic common sense mistake. In everyday language, cooking oil is used for cooking and seasoning, while used cooking oil is the residue after cooking, processed for industrial use or as a raw material for biofuels. The U.S. failure to distinguish them in speech reflects a lack of accurate understanding of the supply chain in policy thinking.

Even worse, the U.S. stated, "We can produce our own cooking oil and don't need to buy it from China." On the surface, this sounds strong, but in reality, it has many loopholes: the U.S. itself almost never imports edible cooking oil from China, its real imports are used oil, mainly for developing green energy. Saying "we don't need Chinese cooking oil" is actually equivalent to "we won't buy gutter oil from China" - a self-defeating diplomatic move.

Secondly, even if this ban were implemented, its impact would be extremely limited. Multiple media outlets pointed out that the export of used cooking oil from China to the U.S. has already declined sharply in recent times. Bloomberg reported that China's exports of used oil to the U.S. had already dropped significantly earlier this year. Reuters also noted that if the U.S. truly terminated the import of used oil, the actual economic impact on both the U.S. and China would not be significant. Or more directly, the U.S.'s "gutter oil diplomacy" seems to be a strong move, but it has already been dismantled before it even lands.

Thirdly, the U.S.'s random punches not only fail to solve the soybean issue, but also negatively affect the U.S. biofuel industry. American farmers, especially soybean growers, have long had high expectations for the Chinese market. Now, with China halting imports and turning to other sources, it has led to a large inventory pressure and falling prices for U.S. soybeans. This has forced the U.S. government to make statements under domestic pressure. The U.S. choosing to target "Chinese cooking oil" is essentially to show strength to the domestic soybean interest groups. However, if the U.S. truly bans the import of used oil, its biofuel industry will suffer. Used oil plays an important role in the U.S. green fuel policy, and its price is closely related to the subsidy policy. A ban on these raw materials could shake the supply base of the U.S. new energy industry. It's a case of "those who harm others will inevitably harm themselves, those who hurt others will inevitably hurt themselves". There have already been voices in the U.S. pointing out that such policies lack industrial considerations.

A grand "ban on importing Chinese cooking oil" political performance ultimately turned into a farcical play of "exchanging gutter oil for soybeans," showing people the anxiety and disarray of the U.S. when facing China's counter-strategy, as well as the inevitable failure of unilateral trade bullying measures.

This article is exclusive to Observer Net. The content is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal liability will be pursued. Follow Observer Net WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7561447379442942500/

Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author. Welcome to express your attitude through the 【Up/Down】 buttons below.