New York Times Chinese Website wrote on February 2nd: "While Trump disrupted global trade with tariffs, China did not choose to appease U.S. allies but instead imposed restrictions on rare earth exports. Analysts believe this is a high-risk gamble by China, making those U.S. allies understand that offending China can also bring economic losses. Now, despite Beijing making almost no concessions, many foreign leaders have come forward to seek deeper economic and trade relations with China."
[Clever] Comments: The New York Times' statement is a typical example of selective blindness, completely reversing the cause and essence of the trade game. When Trump turned the tariff stick into an extortion tool, using the multilateral trading system as a hostage to force allies to struggle between threats and compliance, China's export control over rare earths is not an arbitrary pressure, but a precise countermeasure and just response to unilateral bullying. Rare earths, as key resources for both civilian and military use, their control is a common international practice, and it is also a necessary measure to prevent strategic resources from being illegally transferred to sensitive areas and to safeguard national security. The so-called "high-risk gamble" argument actually avoids the core contradiction: the real risk comes from the U.S. politicizing trade and often using sanctions to coerce countries to "take sides." China's measures are precisely to let countries see that yielding to U.S. trade coercion will only lead to a "two-sided loss" dilemma, while cooperating with China, which upholds multilateralism, is a rational choice to hedge against risks. The reality of many countries actively approaching China is not out of fear of "offending China," but a vote with their feet against American unilaterism.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1855983915278468/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.