In recent days, a few number of American media played up the
so-called "China's technological threat", saying that the United
States should "never loosen high-tech export control on China".
Some people claimed, with due certainty, that China's economic
catching up had posed a potential threat to the US, and would
endanger its economic dominance comprehensively if China could
still achieve breakthroughs in the high-tech field. They also
raised doubt about the notion of "stakeholder" raised by US Deputy
State Secretary Robert Zoellick.
Such a "noise", though incapable of reversing the current trend
of general stability in the China-US relations, should be dispelled
so that the ties can continue to develop towards the direction of
constructive cooperation, said Yuan Peng, vice director of the
Institute of American Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary
International Relations, in an article on People's Daily,
May 22.
The above-mentioned "noise" remarks are obviously incorrect and
flawed, the article pointed out.
First, they run against basic facts. To ease the China-US trade
imbalance, China has not only stressed on "no pursuit of huge trade
surplus" and the shift of growth pattern, but displayed sincerity
through actions by lodging big orders of procurement in the US,
promoting the RMB exchange rate formation mechanism, enhancing
enforcement in IPR protection and so on. Turning a blind eye to
these active efforts shows apparently an irresponsible
attitude.
Second, they run against basic logics. The US, on the one hand,
hopes that China will increase sharply its purchase in the US, but
on the other hand keeps on setting limits and refusing to sell its
"treasures" and "secrets" to China. The logic of some Americans is
that the trade imbalance has little to do with US high-tech
blockade to China because it only takes a small percentage.
Following such logic, will China say the trade deficit is a
structural problem and therefore has little to do with whether
China strengthens IPR protection? In a word, such mentality is just
like "tyrant terms" in a commercial transaction, the ultimate
purpose being not solving problem but maximizing one's own profits
and absolute interests.
Third, tyrannical mentality is behind the noise. When Mr. Robert
Zoellick said "We need to urge China to become a responsible
stakeholder in the international system", he intended to find a way
of constructive cooperation for future US-China relations. But such
a positive concept has been used by some Americans as a magic tool
to raise unilateral demands on China and limit its domestic and
overseas behaviors, entirely regardless of in-depth cooperation
between the two countries on many international and regional
issues.
During his recent visit to the US, President Hu Jintao stressed repeatedly that the two
sides should not only be "stakeholders", but also "partners of
constructive cooperation". "Constructive cooperation" needs efforts
from both countries instead of only one, or neglect of the other
side's sincerity. Currently, the China-US exchanges and cooperation
in various fields are in full swing, and interactive mechanisms
including leaders' meeting, strategic dialogue and the annual
session of the Joint Committee on Commerce and Trade are being
continuously improved. However, there will be hidden hazards for
the general stability if such fallacies are not refuted or checked.
This is a job that requires efforts from both sides.
(People's Daily May 23, 2006)
