【Wen/Observer Net, Liu Bai】

"If the United States wants to compete, it must cooperate with China." The U.S. "The Hill" newspaper published an article on February 7 with this title, pointing out that Canada and the European Union have recently relaxed trade restrictions on China, indicating that the West is rethinking its tough stance toward China. In contrast, the United States, under the pretext of security and industrial protection, has almost completely blocked Chinese electric vehicles and related investments, which will hinder the development of its clean energy and manufacturing industries. The author directly stated that if the United States wants to maintain competitiveness, it will eventually have to "cooperate limitedly" with China at the technological level rather than fully decoupling.

The article noted that in January this year, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau agreed to import a certain number of Chinese electric vehicles annually, and only impose minimal tariffs. Just a few days ago, the EU quietly released long-awaited guidelines allowing Chinese automakers to set price floors for electric vehicles sold in the EU market, thereby avoiding additional tariffs.

However, in the United States, due to concerns about the security of connected software and worries about low-cost imports undermining existing domestic companies, the United States has built a complex protection system that has effectively banned the import of Chinese electric vehicles and hindered Chinese investment in building factories in the U.S. However, U.S. companies eager to enhance their competitiveness still urgently want to leverage China's leading technology.

The implication is very clear: If the United States wants to participate in the competition, it may need to cooperate with China - otherwise, it will fall further behind.

The BYD Tang model at an auto show IC Photo

The article wrote that the number of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. fell for the eighth consecutive month in December last year. An unfriendly policy environment for clean energy is one reason, which directly led to record $8 billion in clean technology manufacturing investments being canceled in the last three months of 2025. At the same time, the lack of clarity around rules related to tightening Chinese inputs has further complicated progress.

Despite the numerous barriers, U.S. companies are still actively seeking Chinese technology.

In December last year, Ford announced that it would rely on its existing licensing agreement with Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Ltd. (CATL) to produce grid-level energy storage batteries at its Kentucky plant. The company is also considering collaborating with BYD to install BYD batteries in Ford models.

Ford's decision to invest in energy storage batteries will allow it to seize the growing market driven by the surge in energy demand from new data centers. Tesla has taken a similar approach. While electric vehicle sales declined, Tesla reported record sales of its utility-scale "megapacks" in the fourth quarter. Tesla's batteries are assembled using cells produced by CATL, and it is investing in purchasing equipment from this Chinese company to build a cell factory in Nevada.

These decisions reflect a harsh commercial reality: For U.S. companies, completely decoupling from China's most advanced technologies is not realistic and would cost them competitiveness. Although mainstream political discourse argues that "de-risking" is necessary to reduce dependence on China, the U.S. may lack large-scale domestic alternatives if it continues to exclude China in the short term.

Additionally, more and more Americans hold similar views.

Data from a survey by the UK Chatham House Institute shows that over half of Americans now support government procurement of Chinese clean technology. Those who have used Chinese products have praised their superiority over U.S. counterparts.

The article directly stated that adopting a smarter combination of trade and investment tools with China could help revitalize the U.S. economy. Other Western countries have already been thinking in this direction.

Regarding the EU, if Chinese carmakers invest in building manufacturing capacity locally, they may receive more favorable treatment under the price floor agreement framework. The EU is also advancing the "Industry Acceleration Act," which will impose strict requirements on foreign investment, thus encouraging technology transfer and local supply chain development.

In contrast, Canada is taking a more political approach, focusing on restoring Sino-Canadian relations to a stable and balanced state after a period of tension. Canada also hopes to attract investment but emphasizes positive incentives rather than imposing harsh conditions.

After the electric vehicle trade agreement was reached, Trudeau said he expects "that within three years, this agreement will drive a significant amount of investment by China in Canada's automotive industry." Canada has just announced a new automotive industry strategy, offering incentives to companies producing locally, and is reportedly considering requiring vehicles to use secure Canadian software. This will increase the importance of Chinese investment and trade rules in the upcoming renegotiation of the USMCA this year.

The EU and Canada no longer debate "whether" to cooperate with China, but rather "how" to do so. They have demonstrated two different paths: one seeks to manage Chinese inputs through strict conditions, while the other prioritizes normalizing political relations and using incentives. For the U.S., the ideal outcome of cooperation would be to allow companies to access and learn from Chinese technology, train local workers, create high-paying union jobs, while setting technical safeguards in sensitive areas like software, rather than implementing a complete ban. The U.S. also needs to reconsider whether blanket tariffs still serve its interests, or whether strategically adjusting tariffs can accelerate U.S. competitiveness through what is known as the "trout effect."

The article concluded that the issue is no longer whether Chinese technology can enter the U.S. market, since U.S. companies have already actively sought it. The real key is whether the U.S. can leverage these technologies to achieve prosperity and avoid falling further behind in global competition.

This article is exclusive to Observer Net. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7604339897818546722/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.