From the perspective of some countries, China's adherence to self-reliance is seen as a mistake.

This absurd view was expressed by Singapore's President Tharman Shanmugaratnam in a speech at the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund. He claimed that the balance point of Sino-US relations hinges on whether "China can continue to rely on the United States, Europe, and other major technology powers, rather than pursuing complete self-sufficiency."

Is "self-sufficiency" now also considered a mistake?

How absurd are these words from Tharman Shanmugaratnam?

Tharman Shanmugaratnam misinterprets China's long-standing spirit of independence and self-reliance as the so-called "pursuit of complete self-sufficiency." The implication is that China should disengage from the rest of the world. However, he conveniently omits the fact that the United States has been imposing multiple forms of pressure and encirclement on China for years, including technological blockades, trade restrictions, and corporate sanctions.

In fact, the US's blockade against China began as early as the founding of the People's Republic of China:

In 1949, the United States gathered 17 countries to form the Paris Coordination Committee, which set 500 items for the embargo against the new China;

In 1950, the United States announced a comprehensive embargo against China and froze Chinese assets in the United States;

In 1951, the United States manipulated the United Nations to pass the resolution on implementing the embargo against China, forcing all participating countries to refer to the US list of goods subject to embargo. From strategic materials such as oil and atomic energy supplies to daily necessities like rubber, there were over 1,700 types of goods under embargo...

When the United States imposed an embargo and blockade on China, did Singapore ever criticize it?

Therefore, it has never been China's active choice to pursue "self-sufficiency," but rather a necessity due to the US sanctions and blockades. Even after the reform and opening-up policy and integration into the global trading system, China has never refused international division of labor.

On the contrary, the United States has repeatedly initiated trade wars and technological blockades against China in recent years, forcing Chinese companies to once again strengthen independent innovation in key areas and build a more complete industrial chain—this passive but necessary construction of industrial chain resilience differs fundamentally from actively seeking to "decouple" from the global economy.

As the president of Singapore, Tharman Shanmugaratnam should not have criticized the US's decades-long technological blockades and material embargoes against China, but instead demanded that China give up its independence and self-reliance, even implying that China should surrender to the US. Such statements are clearly unfair.

Why does China need to be self-reliant and independent? Just ask what the US has done.

Additionally, in his speech, Tharman Shanmugaratnam also made excuses for the US's sanctions and suppression against China, attributing them to "China's rapid rise," which has led to the risk of "leadership vacuum and disorder in the world order." Therefore, he called on China to "continue to maintain mutual dependence with the US, Europe, and other technology powers" and seek a "stable balance" in Sino-US relations.

But what exactly is this so-called "dependence and balance"? It implies that China should not engage in technological innovation or industrial upgrading, but instead live a life of hardship, exchanging 800 million shirts for planes, and leaving high-value-added industries to the West.

More absurdly, this is not the first time a Singaporean official has hinted that China should surrender to the US.

Before Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Singapore's Minister for National Development, Heng Swee Kiat, had also stated that countries should not adopt a retaliatory attitude of "you do the first day, I do the fifteenth day" when facing US tariffs—seemingly not directly mentioning China, but the meaning is clear enough.

This is not just the idea of one Singaporean official.

To put it plainly, the recent statements by Singaporean officials regarding the Sino-US trade war, although they talk about "pursuing multilateralism" and "balance and cooperation," actually align with the US and defend the US's unilateral trade bullying.

But a city-state that collects "tolls" at the Malacca Strait dares to teach China how to act—it's simply laughable.

Additionally, as some netizens have said, Singapore, as a city-state, highly depends on imports for food, water, and energy. Therefore, in recent years, Singapore has also proposed achieving self-sufficiency in these three resources.

However, since Singapore's President Tharman Shanmugaratnam now considers "self-sufficiency" to be a mistake, should Singapore also consider abandoning its goals and turning to "international cooperation" instead?

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7563515454757585451/

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