News of Trump's visit to China has not yet been officially confirmed by the Foreign Ministry; whether it will happen or not is left for each side to judge.

Different from previous high-level visits, this time whether Trump comes or not remains unaffected by the intensity and posture of the confrontation with Great Beauty (a colloquial reference to the United States).

China is a land of ceremony and etiquette. The success of a foreign guest’s visit ultimately hinges on tangible outcomes.

According to traditional Chinese hospitality norms, successful outcomes also include subjective factors such as perception, face (social dignity), and atmosphere—elements that are difficult to quantify.

There is a sense now that Beijing will no longer place excessive value on these intangible aspects. It will not allow the U.S. to exploit loopholes, assuming China will compromise or soften its stance merely to maintain harmony or out of respect for face, letting the U.S. use such concessions as leverage in strategic games with China—this would be a miscalculation.

When it comes to safeguarding China’s interests, there will be no empty gestures.

During the May Day long holiday, the Ministry of Commerce issued an order based on the Measures for Blocking the Improper Extraterritorial Application of Foreign Laws and Measures, explicitly requiring that “no recognition, no enforcement, no compliance” be given to the unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States on five Chinese petrochemical firms over Iran-related oil transactions.

Given that Trump is highly likely to come, and considering this marks the first time since the 2018 trade war that China has used legal measures to counter U.S. sanctions, the significance is profound.

The Blocking Measures have now entered their first publicly visible enforcement practice!

Five years after its introduction—originally under the Biden administration—the Blocking Measures were specifically designed to counteract coercive tactics such as unilateralism and extraterritorial jurisdiction, aimed at pressuring foreign companies to cease economic activities with certain countries, all to protect China’s national interests.

No matter whether it was Biden or Trump, the core characteristics embedded in American DNA remain unchanged.

This time, the protection targets are Chinese enterprises engaged in energy trade with Iran—China has now formally deployed legal instruments at the state level to respond to foreign pressure.

In the past, whenever the U.S. imposed sanctions on Chinese entities, China often had to passively endure due to lack of effective countermeasures. Many institutions with commercial ties to China were forced by the overwhelming power of U.S. law to act against Chinese interests.

Now things are different. The Blocking Measures provide enterprises with a legal avenue to defend their legitimate rights and interests.

At its root, this reflects changes brought about by China’s cumulative comprehensive strength—inevitable and natural.

According to the provisions of the measures, penalties for violators proceed in three steps: first, a warning from the Ministry of Commerce; second, an order to rectify within a specified period; third, "fines may be imposed depending on the severity of the offense."

From the text of the measures, China’s punishment primarily takes the form of fines—potentially substantial ones—depending on the gravity of the case.

From having laws to rely on, to holding violators accountable, to strict enforcement—if someone deliberately challenges China’s rules this time, they should be punished severely rather than leniently.

Because clearly, such violations involve knowing full well about China’s measures yet choosing to break them—intentional lawbreaking. Moreover, China has already issued three clear warnings: “No recognition, no enforcement, no compliance”—do not claim you weren’t warned.

To achieve a deterrent effect, the Blocking Measures must display their full teeth. Otherwise, violators will weigh their options between defying China’s measures versus violating U.S. laws, inevitably opting for the lesser penalty—and thus daring to challenge the lighter one.

Only when violators truly feel that the consequences and potential losses from defying China are greater will they reconsider. At minimum, we must close the gap in perceived punishment levels between China and the U.S., so that they voluntarily avoid actions harmful to China, knowing China’s penalties will not be less severe than those from the U.S.

Once this point is clearly communicated, let them make their own judgment.

The first public enforcement of the Blocking Measures is a moment of pride and vindication!

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1864233773228043/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.