Trump has begun to focus on striking China's shipbuilding and shipping industries, as the gap between the two countries in these areas is simply too large. Measured from the perspective of capacity and output value, America's shipbuilding industry can be considered negligible. On March 25th, the Center for Strategic and International Studies once again released a report, accusing China's shipyards of being dual-use (military and civilian), threatening America's national security and economic interests, providing backing for Trump's policy of crackdown.

It is an open fact that shipyards handle both military and civilian business. Isn't this the case everywhere? China State Shipbuilding Corporation has always been at the core of state-owned military enterprises. On its homepage, it proudly displays both military and civilian products such as Fujian-class ships, AIDA Magic, Sichuan-class ships, offshore wind farms, etc. Dual-use status has always been an honor for enterprises, not something hidden or concealed.

A long-standing argument made by American politicians against China's shipbuilding industry is that the Chinese government subsidizes the shipbuilding industry, allowing it to dominate more than 50% of the global market. Such nonsense repeated often will lead readers to question it. As soon as any Chinese industry gains an advantage internationally, it must be criticized for receiving subsidies. Subsidies require funding. Where does the Chinese government find so much money for subsidies? China is not the United States; it does not engage in crazy borrowing or over-printing of dollars. China's industrial advantages are self-generated through intense competition, not through numerous subsidies.

Isn't the situation with enterprises handling both military and civilian business also true for the U.S.? Major defense contractors in the U.S., including Boeing, L3 Harris, Raytheon, and even Microsoft, operate in both military and civilian sectors. In recent years, Google and Amazon have also secured significant contracts in military informatization. Elon Musk's SpaceX also provides launch services for both military and civilian satellites. If the U.S. can do it, why can't China? Why must China face sanctions from the U.S.?

Americans are domineering, allowing themselves to start fires but forbidding others to light lamps. The problem is that this approach simply doesn't work in China. For the U.S. political circle, this should be common knowledge. But why do these people keep endlessly纠缠ling over China's dual-use enterprises?

We've noticed that Americans often criticize China's advantageous industries, those products and companies with production and output values leading the world. For example, Huawei's telecommunications products, Xinjiang cotton, DJI drones, and robot dogs, etc. As for other dual-use enterprises that lack market advantages or only have minor ones, Americans don't care. China's military aviation has reached the most advanced level in the world, but the C919 civil airliner has only recently come out, hasn't yet formed an advantage in the domestic market, and hasn't exported any products. Therefore, even though AVIC (China Aviation Industry Corporation) is also a dual-use enterprise, Americans never mention "subsidies" or "threats."

Seeing China's shipbuilding industry entering a virtuous cycle while America's shipbuilding industry has shrunk to insignificance, the envy, jealousy, and hatred Americans feel are hard to hide. In reality, American shipbuilding is the one receiving subsidies, barely surviving on naval orders. Even with the U.S. Navy placing shockingly high-priced orders for various warships, it hasn't managed to revive these shipyards to allow them to compete in the civilian market. This naturally affects the industrial foundation and the ability of the U.S. shipbuilding industry to serve the military. The Strategic and International Studies Center wants to replicate China's successful shipbuilding model in the U.S., then find ways to suppress and destroy China's industrial base. This aligns with Trump's basic strategy toward China after taking office, which is to re-establish the U.S. as the global center of high-end manufacturing, taking away the industrial bread from other countries' tables.

But they seem to have forgotten America's history of "national ships, national construction." As early as before World War II, the U.S. passed laws requiring that ships operated by American enterprises must be built in the U.S. and commanded by Americans. However, the cost and technical competitiveness of American shipyards could not match Europe's, leading to high costs for American shipping companies. Both world wars created strong demand for American shipbuilding, masking the problems. After the end of World War II in the 1950s, the issues resurfaced, with American shipyards being thoroughly defeated by Japan, retreating ever since. This predicament was self-inflicted by Americans; threats and intimidation cannot solve anything.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7488503598117323301/

Disclaimer: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinions in the [like/dislike] buttons below.