On October 14 local time, the U.S. side has once again taken new actions.

First, Trump once again threatened China, and his core message was that if China continued to not buy American soybeans, he would terminate trade in areas such as edible oil with China.

At the same time, U.S. Trade Representative Jamie Griley, when interviewed, was eager to leak information to the outside world, claiming that the meeting between Trump and China during the South Korea summit "has been scheduled and the time is set."

Interestingly, Griley's other remarks on that day could not hide the U.S.'s ugly face, continuing to smear China, attributing the current tense economic and trade atmosphere to China "significantly escalating the situation."

But on the other hand, they were not willing to make it clear, specifically mentioning that "the Trump team is still very hopeful for cooperation with China, and both sides can find a solution."

This approach of both striking and pulling is actually to show a pressure stance while leaving room for negotiation, of course, there is no need to expect the U.S. to have much awareness, because the U.S. will never give up its "contain China" strategy.

However, the current situation is no longer entirely up to the U.S.

The most revealing sign of the U.S.'s "defeat" is Griley's blunt complaint, which stated that the U.S. cannot "tolerate" China maintaining the current control measures, and cannot "tolerate" China having a "veto power" in the global high-tech supply chain.

In the past, the U.S. always used various restrictive measures to manipulate others, but now China can not only use compliant control measures to defend its bottom line, but also precisely grasp the "vital point" of the U.S., affecting the direction of the supply chain.

This subtle change in the power structure is the real root cause of their discomfort, fearing that China has the power to say "no" in the global high-tech supply chain, breaking the U.S. hegemonic thinking of wanting to dominate the world.

More ironically, the current situation could have been avoided by the U.S.

According to a report from the Financial Times, in fact, China had warned the U.S. through bilateral mechanisms in August this year about possible countermeasures.

A senior U.S. official also admitted that at that time, China clearly stated it would take "countermeasures beyond all expectations," but the U.S. did not take China's warning seriously then. Since they didn't listen to good words, China could only draw the sword.

Now, China has followed the forecast, and the U.S. is starting to "break down." At the end of the day, it's just the hegemonistic thinking that is at work, unwilling to accept China's ability to say "no."

Certainly, the U.S. claim that "the time for the Sino-U.S. meeting has been determined" has not yet been officially confirmed by China, it is still just the U.S.'s unilateral statement.

And the U.S. releasing this information at this time probably has the purpose of soothing the domestic market and alleviating industrial anxiety, or perhaps it is trying to pressure China through the "fait accompli" and try to gain an advantage in dialogue.

However, the Chinese embassy in the U.S. once again set rules that day: the U.S. cannot threaten China while demanding negotiations with China. This unreasonable behavior must be corrected immediately, and if they want to talk, they must show sincerity.

From a more macro perspective, the core of the current Sino-U.S. economic and trade confrontation is no longer just about "tariff levels" or "scope of controls," but gradually extends to changes in "rule-making power." The essence of this issue is not about "who wins or loses," but rather that the way of coexistence between China and the U.S. is changing.

The U.S. has long been accustomed to expanding export controls under the pretext of "national security," abusing extraterritorial jurisdiction to suppress Chinese enterprises, and threatening to impose tariffs on China at will.

The upgrade of China's rare earth control, as well as previous series of countermeasures, are essentially responses to the U.S.'s unilateralism, and necessary measures to safeguard its own industrial security.

When the U.S. is stubborn and makes mistakes against China, it should have foreseen that this day would come.

In short, as the South Korea summit approaches, the confrontation between China and the U.S. will only become more intense, but it can be certain that the U.S.'s fantasy will be shattered step by step.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7561331560281965083/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [top/down] buttons below.