US-China Relations Updates

The United States has been actively suppressing China since 2018, but the chances of the United States winning are very small, almost impossible. Many people may have reached this conclusion even before the United States started suppressing China. At that time, most people either lacked confidence or had a vague sense of confidence. However, now this confidence is very clear. The fundamental reason for the current situation is that China has become strong enough. Although its overall strength is weaker than that of the United States, it is no longer possible for the United States to defeat China. Following this logic, one can naturally come to the conclusion that the United States started too late to defeat China in 2018.

China became the world’s second-largest economy in 2010, and that same year, it also became the world’s largest manufacturing country. Two years later, in 2013, China became the country with the largest volume of merchandise trade in the world. Since 2014, consumption has become the primary driver of China’s economic growth, while the contribution of export surpluses to economic growth has significantly decreased. This laid a solid foundation for us to win the trade war later on. Our main driving force for economic growth lies in domestic consumption, not relying heavily on export surpluses, especially not relying on surpluses with the United States. This means that even if we fail in the trade war with the United States, we are not afraid, so we dare to take risks. Moreover, we have a greater chance of winning, so at the beginning of the trade war, the Global Times published an editorial titled “Even if China-U.S. trade goes to zero, China will not retreat!” This statement was quite confident and accurate. We dared to say this not only because we believed we could win, but also because even if we lost, it wouldn’t matter much. The sky wouldn’t fall. It can be said that around 2011, China had already become a formidable force and was prepared to deal with the potential risks of U.S. suppression.

In summary, even if the United States did not act against China in 2000, they should have done so by 2011. If they had not acted by then, it would not have been justifiable from the perspective of the United States. Furthermore, the United States had largely completed its counterterrorism mission by 2011, so the argument that counterterrorism delayed their suppression of China has some validity but is not entirely convincing.

Why, then, did the United States hesitate to act against China? Or rather, who supported China’s rise? Even from a layperson’s perspective, an answer can be derived, as exemplified by a line from the movie “A World Without Thieves,” spoken by actor Ge You: “They underestimated, they underestimated.” The question is, why did the United States underestimate China to such a degree? There are mainly two reasons for this:

Firstly, around 2011, China had already become a formidable force, but many American opinions believed that this was a facade. What does this mean? Wasn’t China already the second-largest economy in terms of GDP in 2010? Wasn’t China’s manufacturing value-added the highest in the world in 2010? However, Americans believed that China’s statistical data was falsified. Did China’s statistical data actually contain falsehoods? For a country like the United States, they have the capability to verify this data. I’m not saying they should investigate whether China’s statistical department falsified data, but they can verify it through other data sources. For example, how much oil does China import each year and at what growth rate? This data is not only published by China’s statistical department but also by many other institutions and countries. The United States can simply analyze the data on oil-exporting countries worldwide. If that’s not feasible, they can just collect and analyze data on oil tankers passing through the Strait of Malacca. This matter is not difficult at all.

Moreover, GDP growth should have resulted in people having more money, which in turn would lead to increased outbound tourism and more purchases abroad. They could verify this data as well. Even if they don’t believe China’s statistical department’s data, shouldn’t they trust data from other countries? Can’t they consolidate and analyze that data? Can’t they grasp the specific situation of Chinese people traveling abroad and making purchases? If it’s not possible, they can even send their intelligence agencies to gather such information. The United States, with its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), and Israel’s Mossad, constitutes the world’s four major intelligence agencies. Shouldn’t they be able to clarify such information? Moreover, within the United States, there are numerous Nobel laureates in economics who possess various analytical methods.

This is akin to our neighbor claiming to be wealthy, and although we may think they are bragging, we don’t actually know how much money they have. However, we can observe the type of house they live in, the level of its furnishings, the car they drive, the clothes they wear, and the restaurants they dine at. Can’t we deduce whether our neighbor is truly wealthy based on all this information? This is the first reason for the United States’ underestimation—China had already become a formidable force, but Americans believed it was all a facade.

The second reason is that even if Americans believe it’s true, they think that China cannot continue to develop at such a fast pace. What does this mean? China’s GDP growth rate has been higher than that of the United States for over 40 years. It’s like a race between two people, with the US in the lead and China behind, but China is running faster. Even someone without scientific knowledge knows that given enough time, China will definitely catch up to the US. However, there is a condition—China must continue to run faster than the US. In other words, if China’s speed slows down, it won’t be able to catch up.

So, can China maintain a faster pace than the US in the long term? Many Americans believe it’s not possible, so they weren’t worried even if they believed China was already a formidable force by 2011. They underestimated China’s ability to sustain its fast pace, and they found many reasons to support their belief. For example, they believe China is a totalitarian regime that deprives people of their rights and freedoms. They also think that the relationship between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people is tense, so China could collapse at any time. This is an important viewpoint of the “China collapse theory.”

In terms of the economy, they argue that China’s local government debt is high, and there’s a deep crisis due to the close ties between banks and state-owned enterprises. They claim that the state’s macroeconomic control stifles economic vitality, and so on. In the field of technology, they believe that China’s technological development mainly relies on theft and lacks innovation. They question how a country with insufficient innovation in technology can sustain long-term high-speed economic growth. However, many of their doubts can be disproven with reliable evidence.

For example, regarding the relationship between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people, their own research institution, the Pew Research Center, has been conducting surveys in China since 2010. The results consistently show that the satisfaction rate of Chinese citizens with the Chinese government is over 90%, which is remarkably high compared to Western countries where it’s difficult to exceed 60%. In the field of technology, it’s widely known that China’s patent share in the 5G sector is 34%, while the US only has 14%. This patent share is calculated based on the definition of the World Intellectual Property Organization.

Furthermore, China has been consistently ranked second in research and development investment for many years, second only to the United States. When assessing the speed of technological development, this is a widely recognized and important indicator. To be honest, I can understand some of the skepticism from the US regarding China’s economic development because China’s economic approach differs from that of the US and the West, particularly emphasizing government macro-control and the role of the state-owned economy. It’s understandable that they may not comprehend it fully. However, when it comes to the political and technological aspects I mentioned earlier, they persist in their misguided judgments despite the objective data available.

In summary, the US underestimated China for two reasons. Firstly, China had become a formidable force by around 2011, but Americans believed it was all a facade. However, even if we accept that, the US and the UK could easily discover the flaws in their own judgments, yet they still held onto their mistaken beliefs. Secondly, they believed that China’s high-speed development couldn’t be sustained due to various crises in politics, the economy, and other areas. But as I mentioned earlier, there are substantial facts in the political and technological fields that refute their judgments. I can’t fully understand why they persist in their mistaken beliefs, but Let me make a guess and introduce a person named Gordon Chang. That’s a genuine Chinese name, and he does have ancestral roots in Jiangsu Province, China. However, he is a true American. He was born in the United States in 1951 and later obtained a Juris Doctor degree from Cornell University. He then worked as a lawyer at a multinational law firm. He is well-known in China because in 2001, he wrote a very famous book called “The Coming Collapse of China.” I guess this book is highly regarded in American think tanks or government circles, and many people probably believe it to be true after reading it. This helps us understand the persistent views among Americans regarding China’s economy, politics, and technology that I mentioned earlier.

Actually，after 20 years，we can still hear voice of “China is going collapse soon”，only this time， people form US officials will follow that？