When meeting with visiting US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, whose high-profile visit to China was expected to make a positive contribution to stabilizing China-US relations, President Xi Jinping stressed that state-to-state interactions “should always be based on mutual respect and sincerity”.
For years, the US and China have been embroiled in trade wars, technical conflicts, and geopolitical battles. Recent events even show the escalating tensions between the two nations, as well as the contentious concept of “decoupling” the two economies by disconnecting trade, investment, and technology ties.
Blinken, in his press conference held after the meeting, gave the assurance that the US does not seek to decouple from China, saying it would be “disastrous”. Some US officials and pundits, however, believe decoupling is a viable strategy for countering the growing influence of China while safeguarding US interests. They are mistaken. Decoupling is a reckless, ill-conceived, extensively flawed, and lethal approach that would impact everyone negatively.
Decoupling would be detrimental to US innovation and competitiveness
One of the primary arguments for decoupling is that it would protect US intellectual property and national security. This ridiculous but widely held argument, however, neglects the benefits of technical interdependence with China, which offers a substantial and expanding market, an abundance of talent and expertise, and a strong R&D capability. These advantages have already been leveraged by some of the US-based corporations to boost innovation and competitiveness in a variety of industries, including portable electronics, automobiles, and semiconductors.
Apple, for example, relies on China for both its supply chain and sales, with the country accounting for more than 20 percent of its global revenue. Tesla has inaugurated its Gigafactory Shanghai[GK1] , which will serve as a significant source of revenue and growth for the electric vehicle manufacturer. Qualcomm appears to have expanded its engagement and collaboration with Chinese enterprises to develop and implement 5G technology, allowing it to preserve its global leadership position in wireless semiconductors.
Instead of distancing and isolating themselves from China’s technology ecosystem, US corporations can benefit from collaboration and engagement. “The interests of the United States and China are intertwined like conjoined twins,” Tesla CEO Elon Musk remarked on his recent visit to China. In addition to denying US businesses access to China’s market, talent, and research and development, decoupling would also expose those businesses to the expenses and risks associated with fragmentation, such as increased manufacturing costs, less-favorable economies of scale, and limited interoperability.
Decoupling would impede international collaboration on prevalent issues
Some perceive decoupling as an opportunity to fortify US leadership and values by unifying “like-minded democracies” against China. This approach, however, ignores the necessity for global collaboration on shared concerns that transcend ideological and geographical boundaries, such as climate change, pandemic response, and nuclear nonproliferation.
Such concerns impact everyone and necessitate collaboration, communication, and compromise. In the past, US-China cooperation has assisted in the resolution of global issues such as the Paris Agreement, the World Health Organization, and the Iran nuclear deal. Decoupling would complicate future collaboration on these and other issues. It would also alienate US allies and partners, which do not wish to pick sides. The world wants to see the US and China cooperate on mutual interests while amicably addressing their differences.
Decoupling would escalate the probability of conflict and instability
Some have argued that decoupling would deter what Western officials call “Chinese aggression” by demonstrating strength and resolution. This erroneous argument dismisses the potential risks of escalating tensions and mistrust between the US and China. In recent years, decoupling has fueled enmity and suspicion between the two nations in fields such as trade, technology, human rights, and security. Chinese merchandise and enterprises have been subject to tariffs, penalties, and export bans as a result of allegations of illicit trade practices and concerns about national security. In response, China has enacted its own tariffs, sanctions, and boycotts in addition to taking actions in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and Hong Kong.
Such behavior from the US has contributed to the likelihood of conflict and instability in the region and beyond. It has additionally compromised and jeopardized the crisis management and communication procedures that would normally be used to prevent or resolve conflicts. Decoupling would not only isolate the US and China from one another, but would also divide the world into antagonistic blocs, creating a zero-sum game with minimal opportunity for cooperation or compromise.
Decoupling would ignore globalization and interdependence reality
Given the growing competitiveness and divergence between the US and China, decoupling is considered by certain individuals as inevitable and unavoidable. This form of thinking, however, disregards the realities of globalization and interdependence, rendering decoupling impracticable and unsustainable.
Decoupling is a complicated and lengthy procedure. It entails deciphering decades of complex and diverse global supply networks, markets, and institutions. It also increases the possibility of stirring up confrontation, resistance, and condemnation among enterprises, consumers, and governments all over the world that are dependent on both the US and China for trade, investment, and technology.
Numerous American corporations have established significant investments and sizable operations in China and are reliant on its labor force, resources, and market for their operations. Correspondingly various Chinese businesses have profited from US financing, ingenuity, and technology. Many nations are reluctant to cut ties with either the US or China since they have mutually advantageous economic and strategic interests. Decoupling would disrupt linkages and impose immense costs on all parties involved.
Decoupling would divert attention away from domestic reforms
Those in favor of decoupling consider it a way to boost US GDP and employment by reducing dependence on China and reshoring critical sectors. This argument, however, diverts attention away from the core root causes of the US’ social and economic problems, such as inequality and poor education, infrastructure and healthcare.
Some politicians and interest groups have used globalization as a scapegoat or distraction to evade accountability and responsibility for tackling domestic concerns. Rather than devoting their efforts to improving education, research, infrastructure, healthcare, and social safety nets, they have demonized China for the US’ loss of employment, impeded innovation, spreading of disease, and violating of human rights.
Decoupling would not alleviate any such problems. It would only exacerbate the situation by decreasing commerce, investment, innovation, and consumption. Additionally, it would divert resources from more productive applications into ineffective ones, reducing US competitiveness and resilience and compromising US leadership and ideals.
In conclusion, decoupling the US and China would be a calamitous decision that would impact both nations as well as the entire world. It’s a ludicrous, nonsensical notion prompted by either ignorance or malice. It would stifle innovation, degrade global collaboration, increase the possibility of conflict, deny the realities of interdependence, and redirect focus away from vital domestic issues. Instead of continuing down this detrimental path, the US must come to its senses and adopt a more-pragmatic approach.
As the now-100-year-old Henry Kissinger, a realist who played a prominent role in US foreign policy between 1969 and 1977, stated in 2019: “We are in a difficult period now. I am confident the leaders on both sides (US and China) will realize the future of the world depends on the two sides working out solutions and managing the inevitable difficulties.”
The author is a Legislative Council member, founder of Save HK, and a member of the Central Committee of the New People's Party of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.
