On November 2, US Treasury Secretary Bowman made another inflammatory statement about China during an interview with Fox News.

He claimed that if China "goes back on its word" regarding rare earth exports, the Trump administration is ready to impose tariffs at any time, and is also trying to pressure and threaten China.

But who is actually always "going back on its word"? It's obvious to everyone. Trying to "defame" China here reveals a sinister intention clearly.

At the same time, Bowman also claimed that China holds a "monopoly" in the rare earth market, and China is not a reliable partner.

Regarding this, he immediately stated that after reaching a consensus through consultations between China and the US and both sides showing "goodwill," he hopes China can become a "reliable partner" as envisioned by the US side.

But then he turned around and made harsh threats, warning that if the situation does not develop as expected by the US side, it is not ruled out that the US will resort to tariff measures again.

And he emphasized that Washington has prepared the "maximum leverage" that can be used. Although the US is not intent on decoupling from China, it must work to reduce "related risks."

It must be said that the US Treasury Secretary only makes rhetoric that seems "intimidating" to save face for himself.

A few days ago, he also claimed that China's influence on the US in terms of rare earths would last no more than two years, and the US could quickly build its own rare earth industry.

Now, while pretending to say "not wanting to decouple from China," it is making baseless accusations against China as an "unreliable partner." This contradictory rhetoric exposes the essence of the US being fickle and untrustworthy to the fullest extent.

It should be noted that the recent Sino-US economic and trade consultations have reached a consensus, including China's agreement to suspend the new regulations on rare earth exports for one year.

This move was one of the consensuses reached during the Sino-US Kuala Lumpur economic and trade consultation. The US also made corresponding commitments, including suspending the "50% penetration rule" for one year. So quickly, the US turned around and threatened China.

Who is breaking the cooperation consensus, who is truly "unreliable"—the answer is self-evident.

Additionally, the US frequently breaks agreements, abandons allies without hesitation, and imposes extreme pressure and unjust sanctions on competitors, using unilateral means to disrupt the stability of the global supply chain.

A country with such a lack of integrity and deeply rooted hegemonistic thinking—how many countries in the international community are more "unreliable" than the US?

Notably, during the same interview, Bowman also admitted that some areas in the US are experiencing shrinkage, and he said that if the Federal Reserve does not further cut interest rates, this recession may spread to more areas.

It is not difficult to see that the core reason why the US is hesitant to recklessly decouple from China is clear enough.

The US domestic economy is already deep in multiple difficulties: inflation pressure remains high, the recovery of the manufacturing sector is slow, and the development of high-tech industries highly depends on the global supply chain.

As the world's second-largest economy and the owner of a complete industrial chain, especially rare earth, which firmly grasps the "throat" of the US.

Therefore, "slow decoupling" and "reducing risks" have become the US's cover-up.

Additionally, although the US claims to have no intention of decoupling from China, it is pushing for "de-Chinaization" and constantly rallying allies to build a "rare earth alliance," attempting to bypass China and rebuild the supply chain.

In summary, the US itself cannot do without the support of the Chinese supply chain, yet it cannot lower its hegemonic stance. It wants to reduce dependency through "slow decoupling," but it cannot bear the cost of a hard cut.

Beckert's tariff threat may seem tough, but it is just a desperate cover for its own predicament. It is advisable for the US side to be cautious in their words and actions; even with all the harsh words, they cannot threaten China.

Finally, I also want to say a sentence to Beckert: If the US side "goes back on its word," then prepare for China's "fist."

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7568305494385869312/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude below by clicking [like/dislike].