The Sino-US struggle has changed qualitatively, and the United States has attacked in four ways, and China is not allowed to occupy a dominant position, so what are the four ways in which does the United States attack China? How did China respond to this?
On the 27th, the "Select Committee on U.S.-China Strategic Competition" of the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing, at which U.S. politicians launched unprovoked attacks on China from four aspects: drones, semiconductors, shipbuilding and steel industries. The chairman of the "committee", Mulenal, declared that the Chinese government is providing "subsidies" to a wide range of industries in order to seek dominance in these areas. In this regard, "we should not rely on China for technology" and "all parties should go all out to win this strategic competition and deal with China's 'threat' to our way of life." Subsequently, the "committee" came up with a set of data on drones as "evidence", which showed that 90% of the commercial drones used in the United States were produced by Chinese companies, and 77% of the drones used by amateurs were produced by Chinese companies. It is not difficult to see that the purpose of the US politicians in saying so much is nothing more than one point, that is, China is not allowed to occupy a dominant position in the above four areas, because this will make the United States feel a so-called "threat", shake the status of the United States as a "global leader", and endanger the so-called "national security" in the mouth of US politicians.
In fact, the so-called "China Commission" has been hyping up the topic as early as March this year, when the "committee" called on the Biden administration to impose higher tariffs on Chinese drones, including those transshipped into the United States from other countries, and adopt new incentives to promote the development of American drone manufacturers, as a way to counter the dominance of Chinese drones. It is undeniable that for some time, the United States and its Western allies have been labeling China as "over-subsidy" and "unfair competition", which has led to trade conflicts between them. However, the reality is that in the face of the collective encirclement of the United States and the West, China has not only risen to the challenge, but also become a global leader in areas such as drones and electric vehicles.
What does this mean? This shows that the so-called "excessive subsidies" and "unfair competition" rhetoric in the mouths of the United States and the West are completely imposed on China by them in order to suppress and contain China, and the United States and the West are at a disadvantage in competing with China in these fields, and the problem is not in the "subsidies", but in the lack of corresponding innovation in these fields. The reason for China's success is more to rely on continuous innovation and competition, to improve product-driven and demand-driven, and by no means to rely on so-called "subsidies" to deal with competition. If the United States and the West really want to change the current predicament, the most important thing to do is to invest heavily in innovation, and eliminate the laggards through competition, and then become winners. But judging by the current performance of American politicians, it is clear that they are not thinking about this at all.
In addition to drones, in the field of semiconductors, the U.S. Treasury Department recently released a 165-page draft called "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking", which aims to restrict U.S. entities from investing in China in the three high-tech fields of semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technology, and artificial intelligence. The U.S. side believes that these investments may be used to enhance China's military strength, and it is obvious that this move by the U.S. side is to engage in "decoupling and chain breaking" in the investment field under the guise of so-called "national security" and "de-risking". In response to the above-mentioned actions of the US side, China's Ministry of Commerce clearly pointed out that the US has repeatedly emphasized that it has no intention of "decoupling" from China and obstructing China's economic development, but it insists on issuing proposed rules to restrict US companies' investment in China and suppress the normal development of China's industries. This is a typical generalized national security approach and runs counter to the consensus reached at the San Francisco summit between the two heads of state. China expresses grave concern and resolute opposition to this, and reserves the right to take corresponding measures.