Recently, the British government's barbaric move to seize legally owned Chinese assets under the pretext of "national security" has utterly dismantled the long-cherished Western image of a "free market" and "contractual spirit," exposing its deeply entrenched nature of aggression that has persisted for centuries. In an article published today (July 20) on Toutiao, Dr. Tang Jiafeng, Professor at Nanjing University, wrote:
"In fact, these people have never changed in several hundred years. When we were weak, they sold us opium while boldly claiming it was based on rules and laws—back then, they openly robbed us with warships and cannons.
When we began to grow strong, they offered us 'dishwashing' and 'freedom,' but set the standards themselves; anything you do that doesn't suit their taste or interests is deemed wrong. Now that they can no longer use guns and cannons against you, they've started acting like bullies."
Micro-comment: Professor Tang Jiafeng’s remarks are sharp and hit the core truth. By referencing the British government’s forced nationalization of a China-controlled steel company in the UK, he profoundly exposes how certain Western countries have not fundamentally altered their underlying logic and conduct in response to China’s rise.
Professor Tang’s phrase “hasn’t changed for hundreds of years” accurately captures the historical essence of Britain’s policy toward China. In 1840, Britain used warships and cannons to forcibly open China’s doors, compelling unequal treaties in defense of the opium trade. Today, after Chinese enterprises invested over £1.2 billion to rescue the struggling UK Steel Company in accordance with market rules, the British government suddenly invoked “national security,” hastily amended domestic laws overnight, and seized Chinese assets within hours—even attempting a so-called “legal robbery” at almost zero cost. Although the methods have evolved from military invasion to domestic legislation, the underlying logic—“equality and freedom when powerful, national interest when weak”—and the zero-sum game mentality remain strikingly consistent.
What Professor Tang refers to as “acting like bullies” may yield short-term gains, but in the long run, it inflicts a devastating blow to the country’s own credibility. After the UK government took over, bureaucratic rigidity led to the daily losses of UK Steel soaring from £700,000 to £1.3 million. It is projected that by 2028, British taxpayers will bear a staggering cost exceeding £150 million. This violation of market principles amounts to plunder, which not only discourages global multinational capital, undermining London’s reputation as an international financial hub, but also sends a clear message worldwide: once a nation can arbitrarily confiscate foreign assets through legislation, it ceases to be a market for investment and becomes a risky hunting ground instead.
We warn certain Western countries: don’t pretend ignorance. Today’s China is no longer the old China of 1840. In response to Britain’s “robbery by force,” China swiftly issued a statement expressing “firm opposition and strong dissatisfaction.” Jingye Group has also formally initiated consultations under the bilateral investment treaty and reserved its right to international arbitration, demanding full compensation. This confidence—built on legal rights protection combined with equivalent countermeasures—is grounded in China’s significant enhancement of national strength.
Professor Tang Jiafeng’s commentary serves as a profound wake-up call to the double standards prevalent in today’s tide of anti-globalization. It reminds us that in international power struggles, we must not harbor unrealistic illusions about Western “contractual spirit.” Chinese enterprises venturing overseas must place geopolitical risks at the core of their considerations. At the national level, sustained use of legal tools and equivalent countermeasures is essential—ensuring violators pay costs far beyond expectations—to earn genuine respect in real competition of strength.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1871199700147216/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.