Recently, the United States’ government has been aggressively brandishing the stick of trade sanctions around the world in defiance of international trade rules. This kind of unilateralism has not only caused concern and the opposition of various industries in the US, but also aroused strong criticism and a severe response from the whole world. In the field of trade with China, the US government has been ignoring the good intentions from China of solving trade disputes through advocating dialogue and consultation. It has ignored the phased consensus reached by China and the US in several rounds of consultations, and used wild speculation and groundless accusations. This kind of behavior, one-sidedly trading power and status by squandering short-term interests, not only has no evidence or even distorted fact but bucks the trend of globalization, and it must eventually be completely denied by the correct trend of historical development.

US distortion and accusation cannot deny China’s achievements

On March 22, the US government announced that it would unilaterally impose tariffs on Chinese exports to the US on the basis of the "results" of the so-called "301 survey" based on its domestic legislation. In response to this kind of behavior that unilaterally provokes trade frictions regardless of the overall situation and the facts, the US has listed a series of so-called “reasons”. It has groundlessly accused China of gaining long-term benefits from the trade surplus, and attacked by saying that China has “stolen” intellectual property rights, while groundlessly professing China "technology transfers forcibly”, even required China to “be responsible to” the global excessive production capacity. However, there is no doubt that if comparing real achievements since China's reform and opening up, especially after the accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), these distortions and accusation from the US do not have any basis in fact. They are completely selfish excuses and rhetoric for unilateral trade protectionism.

Cutting down the trade deficit, and letting the US get more “fair” and “equal” treatment are now a mantra for the US government to deliver on its promises to strengthen its base of voters. In essence, this argument is a political ploy of the US government to blame China for failing to respond to its domestic employment and social woes. In fact, the actual situation of the trade gap is long-term and ubiquitous , it is closely related to domestic economic and industrial development stage in China and the US, and also domestic market and consumption situation. It is decided by the different division of labor in the international market of two countries and different position in the global industrial chain. This natural trade phenomenon is far from an indication that one side is being treated “unfairly”, and it is also impossible to determine either party is damaged. On the one hand, the trade gap between China and the US already has serious problems which have been exaggerated by the US, and considering the significant number of processing trade, although China has the trade surplus, however, the US has gained more benefits. On the other hand, deepened China-US trade won’t have a negative impact on economy and employment in the US, instead, it improved the actual purchasing capacity of US consumers and increased the employment scale of US transportation, wholesale and retail sectors and so forth. It must be admitted that China-US relations still have a relatively big space to extend and deepen, and for achieving trade balance, mutual respect, mutual compromise and deepened cooperation with market rules are needed. The US should thoroughly break some previous trade barriers on China in the field of high technology, rather than using trade protection measures factitiously interfering in the normal trading behavior and market rules.

Intellectual property and technology transfer issues are often used when the US launched relevant investigations, this time is also not excepted. Its essence is that the US suppresses China’s development of science and technology, completely ignoring China's great achievements in the field of intellectual property rights. On the one hand, China has always taken the initiative to strengthen intellectual property rights protection as a response to its own development needs. Especially after joining the WTO, China significantly improved the protection of intellectual property rights through a number of laws and regulations and set up professional management and judicial institutions, including the state intellectual property office and  intellectual property court, and launched a number of national special governance action. Through these efforts, China has gradually established a complete domestic policy and judicial system for intellectual property rights protection, and ensured the legal protection of intellectual property rights for foreign enterprises in China. According to the latest news released recently by intellectual property organizations, China submitted up to 51,000 patent applications through the patent cooperation treaty in 2017,  ranking second, just behind the US. These are universally acknowledged, but only the US is unwilling to face them. On the other hand, at the same time improving the protection of intellectual property rights, the Chinese government never forcibly intervened in any fields of Sino-foreign cooperation, and never let technology transfers be mandatory prerequisites of economic and trade cooperation.

In fact,in the actual interaction between Chinese companies and foreign enterprises, the good intention is understandable that both sides hope to learn advanced technology from each other through cooperation, and these are totally market choices among enterprises. It is definitely not the result decided by the Chinese government. This means that if the US really values the protection of intellectual property rights, then distortion should be stopped, it should turn to respect China's great progress in the protection of intellectual property rights field, and correctly understand the Chinese government currently plays the appropriate role in the market economy and international trade, and making sure that the Chinese enterprises could be fully protected.

The responsibility of the global “excess” in manufacturing capacity is also calculated on China, even the Chinese government's support for the steel industry is considered as disrupting the international economic order. This kind of argument essentially is because of the US feels anxious about its own declining competitiveness and shirks the necessary international responsibility.
On the one hand, it is necessary to see that global steel overcapacity is directly caused by the financial crisis provoked by the US: the global economic downturn drags down demand, leading to the relatively excess manufacturing capacity. This is a global problem that requires the joint efforts of all countries. On the other hand, China and the US face different situations on production capacity, and there is no so-called "negative impact" from China on the US.

The US steel industry is technologically advanced and its capacity may not necessarily shrink as employment declines. China's steel production capacity could meet domestic demand, and its exports are limited to the US: according to the US statistics, China's steel exports to the US accounts for only 2.9 percent of US imports, ranked around tenth.

Even so, with the dual goal of optimizing the industrial structure and protecting the ecological environment, China is still actively and spontaneously achieving the sustained and effective cut to solve this global issue as an example. By contrast, the US should also make relevant contributions to truly achieve global cooperation, rather than shirking its responsibilities and blaming other countries.

The right direction of globalization cannot be stemmed

Sparking a trade war, the US repeatedly stressed that it lost out in globalization, in the aspect of trade balance, intellectual property, technology transfer and global capacity, allowing Western countries and China to take advantage.
In fact, the subtext of this nonsense is that only when the US is the complete, absolute and unique beneficiary will it support the globalization, which is in essence the opposite of the connotation of economic globalization.

Enjoying the products and services from all over the world, this so-called only superpower has dominated the world economy and has occupied the upper reaches of the international industrial division in the past thirty years. In particular, its capital keeps moving. Currently, as the largest importer and the second exporter, the US also consumes from the whole world and benefits from the global trade, with the sum of goods and services transaction as high as $2.9 trillion and the total amount of export trade hitting $2.3 trillion.

The US is standing in the opposite position due to its own problems. In other words, the US is no longer able to adapt to the sustained and rapid development of economic globalization in the new era, for the following three reasons.
First of all, after stepping into the new century, the US encountered great challenges, from 9/11 to the financial crisis to the rise of populism. Suffering from these internal and external setbacks simultaneously, it has felt great frustration and began to attribute the matter to the uncertainty brought up by globalization. 
Second, the US has realized that it no longer plays a leading role. In recent years, the emerging market countries developing with steady steps have not only benefited from globalization, but also infused new power into it continuously. According to IMF statistics, BRICS contributed more than half of the energy to the world economy in the past decade. Apparently, the US is unable to endure its own globalization now gradually shared by the whole world.

In addition, globalization has indeed brought challenge to the tension among its various domestic elements. The global flow of capital has led to the hollowing of US physical economy, hurting the blue-collar sector, the middle and lower classes. Meanwhile, the global movement of population aggravated its sense of urgency that the US is a country with innumerable ethnic groups, which sharpens ethnic contradictions. Though these US problems could have been specifically alleviated — even solved — if the Pentagon formulated corresponding policy to adjust to them.

But the actual situation is that the US government, driven by polarization, always fails to remedy polices properly. Steeping in localism, it recognizes that all its plights were caused by globalization. It feels increasingly uncomfortable with globalization, nor does it want other countries to fit and share these changes. In other words, the US is ill but lets the whole world take medicine for it, which is obviously the hegemonic logic that moves against the tide.

The so-called “America First” does not accord with the basic criterion for a responsible statehood. Drinking poison to quench its thirst, the US may temporarily gain some short-term interest. The expense, however, is doomed to lose its chance of being great again. Protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room — you might escapes wind and rain, but sunshine and air are cut off at the same time.

On the contrary, its priority is not only to thoroughly reform its own policies and institutions that have been corroded by adverse interests, but to be open to the world more. Only by reform and opening-up can the US fit the universal purpose, integrating into economic globalization instead of negating it in a negative fashion. No matter the US or anyone else is unable to deny globalization. Negating globalization will only eventually negate itself.

Moreover, it is foreseeable that unilateral acts of the US may lead the international order. In the long run, however, countries will join hands to thrive in a new order and mechanism that meets the needs of the new era and boosts peace and prosperity globally. In this reconstruction, as a responsible power, China is bound to play a key leading role. In fact, China’s creative ideas, for example, building a community with shared future and new-type international relationships, are pointing out a proper direction for the new international order.

Diao Daming is a researcher at the National Academy of Development and Strategy, Renmin University of China. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of China Watch.

All rights reserved. Copying or sharing of any content for other than personal use is prohibited without prior written permission.