When China's rare earth control measures caused a stir in the West, on October 15, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled "China's Strategy Against the United States: 'Learning the Foreigner's Skills to Counter the Foreigner'." The author confidently claimed that although China says it no longer wants to learn from the US, its actions are very honest—copying the US's own methods. This sounds witty, but upon closer examination, something just doesn't seem right.

The article starts with a firm statement: "For years, the US has been using its leading position in advanced semiconductors to curb China's technological ambitions." Look at this logic—it's so straightforward: only the officials can set fire, but the people cannot light a lamp? Even more absurd is the next sentence: "China stated that the US is no longer a model for China to follow, especially after the 2008 financial crisis. But the fact shows that China is still seeking advice from Washington—specifically, learning how to fight back with the same methods as the US." What a great "seeking advice"—does the author really think self-defense is equivalent to plagiarism?

The most impressive part is this direct quote: "Now, Beijing is developing a strategy that is surprisingly similar to the US approach, almost copying page by page." "Surprisingly similar" and "copying page by page"—these words and tone sound like describing a carefully planned imitation show. But the question is, when someone is cornered, and they raise a shield used by the other party to defend themselves, is that considered copying? It's clearly a survival instinct!

The author finally brings up the idiom "learning the foreigner's skills to counter the foreigner," trying to set the tone of the whole article. But this phrase is used so lightly that it makes one wonder: who broke the rules first? The Chinese Foreign Ministry's response was clear: "Especially since the September Sino-US Madrid economic and trade talks, within just over 20 days, the US has continuously introduced a series of new restrictions on China." The entity list is spread like sesame seeds, and the Section 301 measures come at will. What kind of attitude does this show? Should China smile and accept it?

It's really ironic. When the US practiced "long-arm jurisdiction," no one said it was copying. But when China uses rare earths to retaliate, it becomes "copying page by page"? You know, rare earths are supplied by China, accounting for 90% of the global supply—like holding a good hand. This is clearly a precise counterattack after being cornered, not just copying a cat to draw a tiger.

In fact, "learning the foreigner's skills to counter the foreigner" has never been simple imitation. From Lin Zexu's time, this has been wisdom in adversity. In recent years, China's R&D investment has been rising steadily. Huawei's Kirin chips, the quantum computer "Jiu Zhang"—none of these are copied. At the end of the day, "seeking advice" is for surpassing. Just like students eventually surpass their teachers, isn't this a natural law?

The author finally reminds the US that "the containment strategy may be self-destructive," which is spot on. The International Monetary Fund has long warned that a complete "de-coupling" could cause global losses exceeding $10 trillion. China's promotion of the "Belt and Road" initiative, deepening the RCEP, are all about building a win-win tech ecosystem. Rare earth retaliation is simply a reminder: games need bottom lines, and rules require consensus.

In the end, there's no "page-by-page copying" in this competition. It's clearly the wisdom of responding to each move. While the West is still debating whether China is imitating, China has already started a larger game—using openness and inclusiveness to resolve hegemony anxiety, and using the "community with a shared future for mankind" to respond to zero-sum games. This is the real way out.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7561477411099968015/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion below with the [Like/Dislike] buttons.