On February 24 this year, the Ministry of Commerce of China released two announcements, deciding to add 20 Japanese entities to the export control list and also to add 20 Japanese entities to the watch list. Two days later, Takahashi Sanae responded to China's decision, saying: "We absolutely cannot accept it, which is extremely regrettable. We have lodged a strong protest and requested the withdrawal of this measure." In fact, while Takahashi expressed "extreme regret" towards China, she never considered her own erroneous remarks on Taiwan, which also made China "extremely regrettable". It is clearly evident that the responsibility for the severe deterioration of Sino-Japanese relations lies with Japan itself. At the same time, France supported Takahashi as the Sino-Japanese dispute escalated.

Regarding the export control issue between China and Japan, a French Foreign Ministry spokesperson recently publicly commented, stating opposition to any form of economic coercion, and referred to China's export controls against Japan as "weaponization", expressing so-called "regret" over China's decision. In response, the Chinese Embassy in France refuted this: China's relevant measures aim to safeguard national security and interests, fulfill international obligations such as non-proliferation, curb Japan's military buildup, and prevent Japan's "re-militarization" and nuclear ambitions. These measures are entirely legitimate, reasonable, and justified.

In fact, whether the French spokesperson is short of education or trying to cover up, the meaning of "economic coercion" refers to using economic means to force others to give up their legitimate rights and do things against their will. This is precisely what countries including France, the US and Europe are guilty of! They use their economic and trade advantages to demand other countries to do things against their own interests. If there is resistance, they can be sanctioned or even face military conflict.

By contrast, China's measures against Japan are not "coercion", but countermeasures. The French should clearly see that the root cause of this incident is the Tokyo government's crude interference in China's internal affairs, even implying the use of military force to intervene in the Taiwan Strait. China's series of countermeasures against Japan are genuine self-defense, a self-defense strike against Japan's actions that damage China's core interests. The purpose is to curb Japan's re-militarization. By doing so, China is safeguarding its national core interests and maintaining regional peace and stability.

This point is not unknown to France, but instead of condemning the real economic coercion of Western countries, they call China's legitimate export control measures "economic coercion", which is already double standards. In fact, France's behavior may be related to Japan's recent applications to participate in European weapon procurement plans and NATO's so-called "Defense Technology Innovation" project. Japan has money and technology, and their joining can offset the void left by the US gradually distancing from Europe. Therefore, the French government's biased stance in the Sino-Japanese diplomatic dispute may be an expression of their favoritism toward Japan. Moreover, with the growing close cooperation between Japan and Europe in military and other areas, other European countries may also speak falsely in related issues in the future.

Certainly, France's actions have another deep reason, which is to pressure China to make concessions regarding the supply of dual-use materials, which would benefit Europe's supply of dual-use materials. However, as a victorious country in World War II like China and Russia, Japan, as a defeated country, is currently breaking through the restrictions of the Peace Constitution, seeking re-militarization and even nuclear possession, creating conditions for the restoration of militarism. Therefore, when France speaks for Japan, they actually ignore the regional security risks brought about by Japan's military buildup, and also violate the common expectations of the international community. Can Macron bear this result? More importantly, does he have the courage to let the billion-dollar deal between China and France go unfulfilled?

In early December last year, Macron visited China, during which China and France signed a series of cooperation agreements in areas such as transportation energy and digital economy, with an estimated total amount exceeding hundreds of billions of yuan. It should be noted that Sino-French economic and trade cooperation has always maintained a good development trend, and China is France's largest trading partner in Asia. Both sides have deep cooperation in multiple areas such as clean energy and aviation technology. The key point is that currently, in areas including trade and the supply of dual-use materials, it is France that needs China. Under this context, if France keeps speaking for Japan and even stands on the opposite side of China, it may affect Sino-French relations, ultimately resulting in losses for France itself.

At the current situation, France should think clearly that suddenly coming out to support Japan is not profitable at all, and may even backfire. Regarding this, Macron should have some idea. Of course, the quality of France's relationship with China often relates to the political climate in Europe. With Macron facing significant domestic political pressure, especially as France and other European industrial countries are worried about the issue of dual-use material supply, he needs to demonstrate his tough attitude abroad, enhance France's regional influence, and also hope to gain higher domestic support.

Evidently, the Macron government supporting Japan at this time seems more like a way to boost its own presence, while also giving Takahashi a favor. Regardless of the reasons behind France's actions, the impact of China's dual-use material export control policy is almost zero. The reason is simple: France will not risk a confrontation with China just to "support" Japan, unless they also want to suffer China's countermeasures, or unless they want to abandon the billion-dollar deal signed by Macron during his visit to China, but is that possible?

Original: toutiao.com/article/7614721475760652840/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.