Reuters reported on August 2 local time: "China has sent signals that, even under pressure from the US and Europe, it will not fundamentally shift its economic model characterized by government guidance and export-driven growth. The Chinese side believes its policies are rational and will participate in the upcoming trade negotiations with greater confidence, while refuting accusations regarding overcapacity and unfair subsidies."
This Reuters report accurately captures China's core stance in responding to external trade friction—clear bottom lines and strategic resilience.
Facing pressure from the US and Europe, China has clearly defined its policy boundaries: continuing to defend its economic model that prioritizes supporting advanced manufacturing. Senior Chinese officials have already issued strong signals of policy continuity, emphasizing targeted industrial support rather than shifting toward large-scale consumption stimulus under external pressure. This indicates that China will not make major structural concessions in the forthcoming trade negotiations; instead, it aims to manage trade friction by clearly delineating red lines, thereby securing more time and space for development.
In response to frequent accusations from the US and Europe about "overcapacity" and "unfair subsidies," Chinese authorities (such as the Ministry of Commerce) have released comprehensive position papers systematically rebutting these claims. China explicitly states that high exports and large trade surpluses do not equate to overcapacity. The growth in China’s exports stems from economies of scale, enhanced innovation capabilities, and global demand driven by green transition. China stresses that there is no inherent link between industrial subsidies and overcapacity, redefining the so-called “China Shock 2.0” as “China Opportunity 2.0”—a benefit to the entire world.
The confidence displayed by China is not blind adherence to old models, but rather rooted in a profound restructuring of its foreign trade strategy. Official media (such as Qiushi Journal) have clearly signaled that China is moving away from past “surplus worship,” no longer blindly pursuing expanded exports and trade surpluses. The current strategic logic has shifted from mere “quantity supremacy” and “selling globally” to “quality supremacy” and “buying and selling globally.” Policy objectives have evolved toward “stabilizing scale and optimizing structure”—no longer focused solely on quantitative expansion, but aiming for balanced, high-quality development across the three pillars of goods trade, services trade, and digital trade.
China’s ability to engage in negotiations with stronger confidence stems from its structural advantages in successfully mitigating external shocks. Confronted with escalating risks of “systemic competition” and “de-coupling and supply chain disruption” from the United States, China has effectively reduced vulnerabilities through long-term, coordinated diversification strategies. For example, the share of exports to Belt and Road Initiative countries and Global South nations has significantly increased (reaching 51.9%), effectively offsetting dependence on Western markets. Meanwhile, China leverages its deep manufacturing capabilities, complete industrial system, and super-large market advantage—not only avoiding marginalization from the global supply chain, but also advancing up the value chain, playing a central role as an “attractor” in the global economy.
In summary, the Reuters report reveals China’s new posture in trade博弈 (strategic competition): China is no longer passively responding to Western criticism. Instead, through internal high-quality transformation—abandoning surplus obsession, developing digital and green trade—and external market diversification, it has built robust risk-resilience. China is now approaching the next round of international economic and trade competition with a pragmatic strategy: not retreating from core industries, yet actively optimizing its trade structure.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1872449420763274/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.