The third round of tariff negotiations between China and the United States will be held in Stockholm, Sweden, from July 27 to 30.
The current negotiations face multiple challenges: significant differences in core demands between China and the US; the US attempts to include non-tariff sensitive issues (such as Iran, Russian oil); China's firm opposition to unilateral sanctions and "decoupling and cutting the supply chain"; and the imminent deadline pressure.
However, China has already had sufficient experience in dealing with Trump-era strategies, and is more aware that independent and self-reliant R&D is the key. On July 15, Huang Renxun stated in Beijing that China has 50% of global AI researchers, and its technological progress is unstoppable. He warned that if the US does not participate in competition, China's technology ecosystem and leadership will reshape the global AI landscape.
Against this background, Observer.net interviewed Gao Zhikai, vice president of the Center for China and Globalization (CCG) and chair professor at Soochow University, to deeply analyze the underlying logic of the game.
Gao Zhikai pointed out that although US sanctions have accelerated China's independent innovation, the path of independent and self-reliant science and technology development is an inevitable choice for China as a major country, not a passive response; regarding negotiation leverage, he emphasized that China must grasp market initiative, rather than viewing "lifting sanctions" as the core demand; on building an innovation system, he called for restructuring the financial system, upgrading the AI strategy, and strengthening security protection to create a sustainable autonomous innovation ecosystem.
【Interview/Observer.net, Tang Xiaofu】
Observer.net: Since 2018, the US's technological sanctions against China have played what role in "forcing" China to accelerate independent innovation and breakthroughs in key technologies? What are the specific mechanisms and results?
Gao Zhikai: First, I think we should clarify the name of this so-called tariff war and trade war. We used to say "Sino-US trade war," but this name is inaccurate. In fact, it is a one-sided tariff war or trade war initiated by the US. After April 2, 2025, the Trump administration began to launch a trade war against more than 100 countries around the world, which can be defined as a tariff war against the world by the US, even a tariff war against humanity. Therefore, the first thing is to clarify this name.
Secondly, since the first term of Trump, the US has already launched a trade war against China. During Biden's four years in office, the measures did not ease, but instead became more severe. After Trump's second term started on January 20, 2025, especially after April 2, 2025, his government became increasingly aggressive in the trade and tariff war, one important manifestation being the increasing and increasingly complex high-tech product blockades against China. This blockade is essentially equivalent to an embargo. The word "embargo" in English is often associated with war actions, or used when the state of war has not been resolved. For example, during the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, the US once imposed embargoes on the Soviet Union. It can be seen that the measures taken by the US in the trade war against China are extremely extreme, similar to the large number of embargoes imposed by the Paris Coordination Committee on the Soviet Union, socialist bloc countries, and China.
Certainly, such extreme measures will inevitably force us to take the road of independent self-reliance, which is beyond doubt. However, it needs to be clear that our insistence on the independent and self-reliant path of science and technology development is not because of the US's sanctions, tariff war, or trade war. As a major country with thousands of years of history, China must follow the path of independent and self-reliant science and technology development, regardless of whether the US imposes sanctions, blockades, or embargoes on us. This point must be clarified first.
The US's extreme pressure on China aims to crush us, which undoubtedly accelerates our desire and necessity for innovation in independent and self-reliant development. However, these two should not be simply linked. Whether or not we face the US's extreme pressure, from the perspective of current, medium-term, and long-term development, as well as grand ideals, China must firmly walk the path of independent and self-reliant science and technology development.
The opportunities and challenges we face in different periods vary, and the focus of development may change accordingly. But in general, a major country like China cannot rely on other countries to master core technologies and walk its own path. After all, the future is unpredictable, and if a country can easily put us in a difficult situation, it is certainly not what our nation hopes to see. Therefore, independent and self-reliant development is our only choice, with no alternative.
Observer.net: Considering the "forced" effect of sanctions and the technological development momentum they bring, does China still need to make "the US lifting sanctions" the core negotiation leverage?
Gao Zhikai: First, let's talk about the various embargoes and sanctions that the US has imposed on China in the process of economic trade and tariff war. In my view, for services, products, equipment listed on the sanction list, the US no longer sells them to us, but at the same time, they always find some so-called reasons, even fabricate reasons to justify their behavior.
This leads to two losses for us. First, we can no longer obtain things that were previously available.
Second, when Americans deprive us of the right to obtain these services and products, they fabricate corresponding reasons, which brings another loss, the impact of which may not be less than the first. What is this loss? Americans demonize China, portraying it as violating international rules, opposing the US, and even saying that China is arming itself and preparing to declare war on the US, promoting the wrong idea that "there must be a war between China and the US."
Therefore, we cannot only see the level where the US imposes sanctions on us, making it impossible for us to buy certain things. More importantly, the US sees China as an enemy, demonizes us, and defines us as evil, wicked, and disrespectful of international rules. This is like they are giving us two strikes: one is depriving us of the right to obtain what we need, and the other is depicting us as devils.
Therefore, we must conduct a comprehensive and multi-dimensional review of the US's actions, from inside out, top to bottom, left to right. Otherwise, when they deprive us of some things, we may only think that these things are very important, realize that they are forcing us to be independent and self-reliant, but ignore their other major impact - painting us as devils. So, we must have a comprehensive consideration of this.
Of course, in recent months, we have also noticed that the US has somewhat relaxed some of the embargoes it imposed on us, especially on chips and some GPUs. Let me share my observations and analysis.
First, the US clearly states that it now decides to open up the sale of some memory cards, why? Because Huawei's AI chips have reached the required level in efficiency and quality. For companies like NVIDIA, if they do not allow them to sell related products to China, Huawei's artificial intelligence chips will occupy the Chinese market, even go global, which would undoubtedly cut off their back door.
Therefore, the US's agreement for companies like NVIDIA to sell these technologies to China is not a change in its position toward China, nor is it a sudden shift in its hostility toward China, but rather due to its own small calculations. Originally, it wanted to achieve the goal of knocking us down and stepping on us, while demonizing us. However, due to the hard work of the Chinese people and the vigorous innovation of many enterprises, significant progress has been made in new productive forces, which forced the US to think about whether to make changes, allowing them to act opportunistically, thinking that they should still make money.
Therefore, this change in the US has not changed its fundamental position of being anti-China and hostile toward China. We must not be too naive, nor should we be sentimental, thinking that this change stems from a fundamental and substantial change in the US's understanding of Sino-US relations. This is the first point.
On July 16, Huang Renxun, founder and CEO of NVIDIA, delivered a speech at the opening ceremony of the Third China Supply Chain Expo.
Second, I think that between China and the US, we should actively create topics and explain our rules to the US. I suggest that if the US decides not to sell certain products to China for various reasons in the future, there should be a tacit understanding between China and the US: If you, the US, don't sell to me, that is your mistake first. Now I want to buy, but you don't sell, so I must find other ways, walk the path of independent and self-reliant development, and develop products that can replace yours. But I need to make it clear in advance: If you don't sell me anything, whether it's high-tech products, energy products, or food products, if the US makes a wrong decision and doesn't sell to China, then the Chinese market's doors will be closed to you.
This means that in the future, whether you sell or not, whether I buy or not, and whether related products can enter the Chinese market, the power to decide should be in our hands, so that we can grasp the initiative. Otherwise, the US will become very arbitrary, selling when it wants and not selling when it doesn't, constantly messing with us. We are not mice to be manipulated at will; we should have our own independent national dignity and prestige.
So my suggestion is that if the US or any other country says they won't sell certain products to China, we should make it clear in advance: You didn't sell to me first, which led to me not being able to buy. When you eventually want to sell to me, I won't automatically and unconditionally open the door and market, but will have a consideration process. We need to figure out whether you were wrong when you didn't sell to me. If you were wrong, we need to have a discussion and handle it. Only in this way can we form a greater deterrent against a country like the US.
In the Sino-US tariff war, which is the tariff war initiated by the US, the US once raised the tariffs on China's exports to the US to 145%, and China retaliated by raising the tariffs on the US's exports to China to 125%. Under such high tariffs, many US products lost their competitiveness in the Chinese market. Currently, China and the US have held talks in Geneva and London, and will hold the third round of talks in Stockholm next, which is a normal communication. However, until now, China has not resumed purchasing US oil and gas products, nor has it quickly resumed purchasing US agricultural products.
Why is this the case? Because such products often require long-term contracts, and it is not feasible to sell today and stop selling tomorrow, which is obviously a hassle for us. Therefore, when the US raised the tariffs to such a high level, China had to seek alternatives, contact other suppliers, and when negotiating with these suppliers, it is likely that long-term contracts would be signed. Therefore, even if the US now says that the talks are progressing well and the tariffs can be appropriately reduced, we will not be like a pendulum without autonomy, being moved at will.
I think everyone should report to the relevant departments and propose suggestions, with only one purpose: the US, don't think you are the master of the entire world, the entire human race, or the entire universe. You are in a highly interactive world, and the import and export of products should follow the principle of free trade, and the government should not interfere arbitrarily. Otherwise, in the end, it may not only violate the fundamental interests of the American people but also infringe upon the fundamental interests of the Chinese people. If Americans could understand the legal and trade consequences of their wrongdoing—such as the possibility of losing the Chinese market and finding it difficult to re-enter—it might be different.
When the US said that NVIDIA's graphics cards could be sold to China, there is a voice worth thinking about: Why did they not sell before, but now want to sell? Now that Huawei can produce related products, should we encourage Chinese users to use Huawei's AI chips instead of immediately buying American AI chips? Are there other ulterior motives here, which must be carefully checked, not just in the chip field, but in all aspects.
In short, the free trade and normal trade between China and the US need to be jointly maintained and protected by both sides. The US should not develop the bad habit of frequently disrupting Sino-US free trade. I am worried that in the long run, the Chinese market will gradually lose confidence and interest in many US products. At that time, no matter what the US government thinks, the US exporters will definitely not agree, and the American people will also suffer greatly. The US blocking Chinese products from entering the US market harms not only the interests of Chinese exporters but also actually violates the fundamental interests of the American people. We must dare to set rules for the US. Only in this way can Sino-US relations be in a more balanced, positive, and constructive state.
Observer.net: How to build a sustainable, beyond the "forced" model of science and technology self-innovation system, achieving more "DeepSeek moments" of China?
Gao Zhikai: China's "DeepSeek moment" is a crucial moment. Why do I say this? I think that by January 2025, DeepSeek emerged, and at that time, I had two points of view.
First, the emergence of DeepSeek indicates that AI is not equal to "American Intelligence" (American smart). AI is artificial intelligence, and any country in the world has the right to participate in the AI revolution. It should not allow any country to monopolize the peak of AI, thereby having the power to decide who can participate and who is excluded, let alone using the peak of AI as a tool to bully other countries, which is absolutely unacceptable. Therefore, I think DeepSeek has made an important contribution, playing a turning point role in the full participation of the whole human race in AI development.
Second, DeepSeek's contribution also lies in completely exposing the US's so-called closed AI development model. The US currently has a big company in the AI field called OpenAI, but in fact, its "open AI" is false, essentially a closed-source AI company. While DeepSeek adheres to the open-source concept, it can collaborate with companies, governments, and business institutions around the world. Other entities can use its platform to carry out their own AI work. This open AI development model, I believe, is the inevitable trend of future AI development, which will also push companies like OpenAI to a crossroads: either gradually move towards an open AI development path, or risk losing everything.
Looking back at the cases in the high-tech field in recent decades, similar situations are not rare. Therefore, DeepSeek's significant contribution is to make the whole human race realize that AI is not equal to American intelligence, and the development trend of AI should be open source. Since China has DeepSeek, a company that has emerged and stood out in the context of the US raising the "superior whip," we are sure to have new breakthroughs in other important technological fields. This is beyond doubt.
Liang Wenfeng, founder of DeepSeek
This is how I see it. Whether it is artificial intelligence or other high-tech fields, their development is not in a vacuum. Human scientific progress often requires some preconditions to achieve major breakthroughs. For example, a solid economic foundation and a large amount of funding support are needed, as well as sufficient talent reserves and a broad market potential. At the same time, it also needs the inevitability of the times—sometimes wars catalyze the birth of new technologies, sometimes when a country's economy reaches a critical stage, in order to improve productivity and improve all aspects, it urgently needs science and technology as a catalyst to promote greater breakthroughs.
Not to mention the past, the British Industrial Revolution is a typical example. When the British seized an important opportunity and applied technology to various fields of life and the economy, they achieved a major breakthrough and became a world hegemon. Similarly, after the American Civil War, in the late 19th century, the US integrated various domestic factors and rose to become the largest economy in the world, maintaining this status for over a century. In addition, the US also achieved key breakthroughs during the two World Wars, laying a solid foundation for subsequent decades of technological development.
Therefore, let's look at the stage China is in today. I think that the four modernizations proposed in 1978—industrialization, agriculturalization, national defense, and scientific and technological modernization—have been initially realized, and now we are moving towards a higher quality development stage. New productive forces should be an important driving force. We have a vast market—the 1.4 billion population, and each year, the scale of undergraduate, postgraduate, and doctoral graduates ranks among the top in the world. We have a government and ruling party committed to economic development and improving people's livelihood. China's digital economy has reached world-leading levels, with massive data generated by every person every moment. These mean that China is in a rare advantage position in the world.
This position determines that we not only need to participate in the great revolution of artificial intelligence, but we will also lead this revolution. Therefore, my view is that regardless of whether the US participates or not, we must move in this direction, and we must have enough confidence in ourselves. We welcome the US's cooperation; if it does not cooperate, we will firmly walk our own path, raise our own flag, climb our own peak, and achieve greater achievements. The key difference between China and the US is that we are willing to share our achievements with the whole human race, never seeking self-interest or making other countries submit. This is the starting point of China's "peaceful world." From this perspective, the development prospects of China in the next five, ten, twenty-five years... are worth looking forward to.
Under such a big trend, every enterprise, individual, family, institution, and government department in China should make up their mind: Today should be better than yesterday, and tomorrow should be better than today. Always maintain a positive, upward, and sunny attitude. Among these, the most fundamental driver of our progress is new productive forces, continuous technological breakthroughs.
Facing this trend, I hope the US government and all sectors can recognize and acknowledge that China's innovation is an unstoppable trend. Attempting to suppress China through tariff wars, trade wars, and bullying actions is bound to be a wrong calculation. But the premise is that China will never lag behind. Our entrepreneurs and research teams must always maintain a sense of urgency—time waits for no one, every second counts. Only in this way, after pushing further by five, ten, fifteen, twenty-five, fifty years, we can see the Chinese nation truly standing tall among the nations of the world and standing at the center of the world stage. And this day, we majority of people will have the opportunity to witness.
Observer.net: What technical advice do you have for building such a science and technology self-innovation system?
Gao Zhikai: Regarding this question, my opinion is as follows. In the early stages of reform and opening up, the central government and the State Council proposed the four modernizations, which provided a clear direction for development. From 1978 to now, over forty years, we have built short-, medium-, and long-term development plans through mechanisms such as five-year plans. Especially after China joined the WTO in 2000, and particularly since 2012, we have gained a clear understanding of our own needs, resource endowments, and weaknesses, and accurately grasped the changes in the world, forming a development roadmap suitable for national conditions.
Today, China has ranked among the world's leading countries in many fields, but there are still shortcomings and defects. Taking the financial field as an example, despite the overall size of China's financial market ranking among the world's top, direct financing markets such as stock markets, private equity (PE), and venture capital (VC) still have obvious shortcomings. Compared with the mature capital markets and securities markets in the US, we must humbly recognize the gap and seek significant progress in these areas.
The reason for emphasizing this is that the core of new productive forces is high technology, and high technology development cannot be separated from financial support. Therefore, China's securities market, stock market, and the entire financial system need to undergo major adjustments, and the fund allocation mechanism also needs to be systematically reconstructed from banks, insurance to securities. The goal is to establish a fast mechanism for raising huge amounts of funds, injecting power into the development of new productive forces, while ensuring the steady development of traditional fields.
Another key judgment is that artificial intelligence will completely reshape China and the world. China is already among the world's leading countries in the field of artificial intelligence, but the US has set "artificial intelligence global dominance" as a national strategy, clearly intending to hinder China's catch-up. In this context, we must elevate the development of artificial intelligence to a higher strategic level.
The 2024 World Artificial Intelligence Conference
I am currently in Shanghai, and the upcoming World Artificial Intelligence Conference will be upgraded from a regional meeting to a national platform, gathering people from all walks of life at home and abroad, which is of great significance. But more importantly, we need to maintain a sense of urgency: compared to the development of artificial intelligence in the US and China, China has unique advantages, and the US also has its "killer锏." We need to thoroughly study and digest the US's strengths in key areas such as data, algorithms, semiconductors, and AI storage chips, and formulate a more explicit and urgent roadmap to ensure our rapid development and not falling behind our opponents.
At the same time, we need to have both offense and defense. The US is not pursuing fairness in the artificial intelligence competition, but has developed a "Donya Harding syndrome"—trying to disrupt China's artificial intelligence development process through "knee-breaking" methods. Therefore, we must clearly define offensive and defensive strategies. For example, it is reported that the US will deploy a large number of artificial intelligence databases in caves from the Cold War era, and even plan to build databases on the seabed or in orbiting satellites, with the core aim of ensuring absolute safety of the database during both peace and war. This "development and prevention together" approach is worth our study.
Compared to domestic efforts, some local government-built artificial intelligence data centers have good hardware and services but lack sufficient security considerations: some are located near train stations, others are in open areas, lacking effective protection. In the event of conflict, these databases may become the primary target of hostile forces. For example, the Zhangjiakou artificial intelligence database serving Beijing, if destroyed, would cause the entire artificial intelligence chain to break, directly affecting Beijing. Therefore, in the development of artificial intelligence, we must incorporate long-term planning and security protection into a comprehensive consideration, placing database security at the forefront of the strategy, referring to the US's standard of "impregnable" database protection, and taking immediate action without delay.
This article is an exclusive article by Observer.net. The content of the article is purely the personal views of the author and does not represent the views of the platform. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow Observer.net on WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7531260841178513962/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and welcomes your opinions below 【Top/Down】 buttons.