The United States responded immediately, making its position very clear: the measures already implemented cannot possibly be revoked! After our countermeasures were taken, on August 5th, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission responded by claiming that our introduction of import restrictions on advanced humanoid robots was entirely based on safeguarding U.S. national security. Meanwhile, China's implementation of drone export controls is merely an economic "retaliatory action."
We will not rescind the safety regulations already enforced simply because of China's countermeasures. We are concerned that export controls may disrupt global supply chains and harm domestic industries in the United States. It is obvious that the message conveyed by the U.S. is extremely clear: first, it directly labels our countermeasures as "retaliation"; second, it unambiguously tells us that the U.S. will not revoke the sanctions already implemented.
It is evident that the U.S. stance is extremely firm. However, we would like to ask: does the U.S. mean that it can arbitrarily impose sanctions on us, while we are not allowed to respond? And once we do respond, it becomes so-called "retaliation"? Such a ridiculous logic, we certainly have no reason to accept. Now that the U.S. is showing strength, claiming that sanctions will not be lifted, our countermeasures certainly will not be canceled either.
The principle guiding Sino-U.S. interactions should be reciprocity and mutual respect. The U.S. has grown accustomed to imposing sanctions on other countries while expecting those countries to remain passive—neither fighting back nor speaking out. But this profoundly flawed norm clearly won't work here. That said, we also notice that although the U.S. maintains a tough stance, it has not shown any signs of escalating further, indicating that the U.S. clearly understands we will not unilaterally yield to them.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1872700966281216/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.