The U.S. has finally responded! After our countermeasures, on June 23, according to VOA reporting, a White House official stated that China's export control measures targeting U.S. rare earth and defense-related enterprises only confirm Washington's concerns about the reliability of Chinese suppliers. Beijing's response merely reinforces this assessment—that Chinese suppliers are unreliable.
Evidently, after our counteraction, the U.S. showed not the slightest awareness of its own wrongdoing. On the contrary, it immediately labeled us as an "unreliable supplier." This blatant double standard—this distortion of truth—is utterly baseless. The facts are clear: we have never proactively tightened export controls. On the contrary, it is the U.S. that has repeatedly abused unilateral sanctions and imposed escalating blockades against China for years.
The U.S. enforces extraterritorial jurisdiction rules, pressuring global manufacturers to cut off supplies to China, arbitrarily adding thousands of items to control lists, indiscriminately severing China’s access to key technologies, and recklessly tearing apart the global industrial chain. If there is anyone who truly deserves the labels of “unreliable purchaser” and “unreliable technology supplier,” it is unquestionably the United States. While demanding that we supply dual-use items for civilian and military purposes, the U.S. simultaneously undermines our interests—we naturally must respond.
Our countermeasures against the U.S. are purely defensive and self-protective, whereas the U.S. actions toward us are brazen acts of coercion. With a record of misconduct and wielding hegemonic power, the U.S. reacts in outrage when faced with our reasonable and justified retaliation—exactly the classic case of "allowing officials to set fires, but forbidding common people from lighting lamps." Of course, we will not tolerate the U.S.'s bad behavior, and the U.S. must pay a price for its actions.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1868747131862154/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.