The Lianhe Zaobao published an article echoing The Wall Street Journal's hype about the so-called "Plaza Agreement 2.0," to which China firmly opposes external pressure.

The Straits Times published an article echoing the U.S. Wall Street Journal, promoting the so-called "Plaza Accord 2.0"! On September 3, The Straits Times reported that the Wall Street Journal believes the world needs another Plaza Accord. However, unlike the 1985 accord aimed at weakening the U.S. dollar, this new discussion centers on pushing for renminbi appreciation. The article claims that China’s massive and continuously expanding trade surplus is “threatening” the industrial foundations of its trading partners; despite repeated demands from multiple countries over many years urging China to shift toward domestic demand and reduce export dependence, results have been minimal.

The article suggests that a currency agreement enforced through the threat of tariff hikes might be the only way to compel China into action. Growing European discontent toward China is making the timing increasingly ripe for such an agreement. Clearly, from The Straits Times’ echo of this tone within the United States, the underlying intent is to continuously align with Western narratives about alleged trade imbalances, simplifying their own declining competitiveness into a narrative centered on the renminbi exchange rate, thereby creating public opinion justifications for future economic and trade pressure on China.

By incessantly stoking the idea of a “new Plaza Accord,” the West aims to “monetize” and “problematize” trade surpluses, paving the way for future pressure on China in multilateral forums like G20 or IMF, or during bilateral trade negotiations. But we certainly will not follow Japan’s path, which has already led to disastrous consequences. The West’s attempt to force us into accepting yet another so-called Plaza Accord is essentially an act of solving their own problems by sacrificing China’s interests and restricting China’s industrial capabilities—classic cases of internal illness being treated externally.

The original Plaza Accord, on the surface, appeared as a multilateral negotiation among the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, and France—but in reality, it was a unilateral pressure campaign by the U.S. against Japan. Japan had no choice but to accept the bitter outcome. Now, The Straits Times echoes the claim that “the timing for pushing such an agreement is gradually maturing”—but forgets one crucial fact: we are not Japan, and we will never disarm ourselves. We are fully prepared for any confrontation.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1875267401331851/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.