Author: Ma Xiaoye, Source: FT Chinese

The largest and most intense presidential election in the United States in 60 years has come to an end. Although in the process of forming a new cabinet, the addition of newly appointed candidates will also bring about the adjustment and revision of certain concepts. Without exception, the new government will also have to experience the "persuasion" or "domestication" of professional bureaucrats from various departments in the early stages of operation. There is a deeper state of interaction with the Trump administration on a series of major transformative issues. However, it is now possible to analyze and observe based on relevant information and historical conditions.

Due to the long-term confrontation across the sea between China and the United States after the Korean War, articles that further study the relationship between the two countries are more influential because they are good at military exercises and related logic. It is also a mainstream research method to deduce the evolution of future relations between the two countries based on various international relations theories. These two types of research influence and complement each other, and have a wide impact on the general public. The knowledge, opinions and positions learned from the media are expanded in society through dissemination. Although the feedback from mass media and public opinion is not in the elegant hall, it also has some influence on the public and even the intellectual circles' understanding of Sino-US relations.

China-US relations are the most important bilateral relations in the world. The stability of the world depends on many factors, among which Sino-US relations are particularly important. What this article wants to talk about is that observing Sino-US relations from an economic perspective can further supplement the shortcomings of popular research. One more systematic observation clue in economic aspects can make our overall cognitive framework more complete.

1. Economic Logic in International Relations

Over the past eight years, serious incompatibilities and even antagonisms have emerged in China-US relations in various important fields. As things have developed to this day, China and the United States, as well as the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States, have clearly stated, admitted, or acquiesced that behind the emerging conflicts are conflicts of values, ideologies, and world views. These conflicts cannot be reconciled through diplomatic skills and means, they can only be managed.

Since the Second World War, social ideology has led international relations, to viewing the world with relatively broad civilizational differences, recognizing that a diverse world should be able to accommodate various worldviews, and then to two The two major countries have reaffirmed their worldviews and ideologies in their relations with each other, which is the "elephant in the room." After the illusion ended, looking at the changes over the past few decades, a curved line was drawn.

Looking back at the previous presidential elections in the United States since the 1980s, the campaign has always been based on the two sides competing for topics, vying to criticize, and attacking the other side as a bonus point for answering questions. China's domestic and foreign affairs have been put under the microscope of the US debate. The reason why China does not accept it is that the United States wears "colored glasses." Even at that time, the US negotiator responsible for economic relations said firmly in private exchanges: Two lovers quarreled because they really wanted to live under the same roof. By the time Clinton, George W. Bush, and later Obama were campaigning, the issue began to fade away. The situation in this election is different again. Observed objectively, after two four-year terms of taking turns in power,Especially with the escalation of trade frictions, bilateral relations have lost the multi-purpose buffer and brake of economic and trade. Coupled with the aftermath of the impact of the epidemic, the only aspect of highly consistent political platforms between the two parties in this election that is highly consistent is China.

Since the conclusion of a bilateral economic and trade agreement between China and the United States in 1980 and the beginning of comprehensive exchanges with the United States, the ruling and opposition parties have gone from disputes and eagerness to pass the blame on issues to unprecedented consensus. During this period, many things have happened event. In order to clarify the full picture of the problem from this process of change, it is necessary to thoroughly and completely sort out the basic influence of economic factors in addition to the two strong research discourse systems mentioned above, namely military and diplomacy. The established thinking has been corrected. Because once you are thinking, worried, unwilling, unwilling to discuss openly, and agree with and consciously or unconsciously think, discuss, and plan according to the assumption that the dispute between China and the United States is a life and death battle, other important factors will also It has all become minutiae, so there is no need to further understand what this election means for Sino-US relations.

The established cognitive model for observing Sino-US relations is already well known to those who are exposed to related fields. It is also due to historical reasons that this cognitive model is deeply rooted in the hearts of the international relations community and has formed a thinking pattern. Although the observation content of experts in the history of international relations has slightly expanded in terms of economics, the vast majority of experts in the history of international relations stick to numerical comparisons of time series in their observations of the economy, and neglect to explore economic principles, economic operation laws, and economic analysis of the external world. The fundamental impact of demands and externalities and spillover effects on international relations. The economic perspective does not form a logical continuum. Fragmented observations, descriptions and discussions of economic relationship issues are not conducive to establishing a solid cognitive framework. It may be beneficial to try to take a step back, expand your horizons, observe and think about bilateral relations.

In order to start the discussion below, I will first introduce a few important basic facts that should not be ignored as a starting point for discussion. First of all, human social activities revolve around the core of economy. Secondly, the international relations between the two countries began with colonial development, first led by trade, developed to obtain materials, and then to obtain economic factors such as natural resources and population. In other words, economics has always been the core of royal power and appeal to the outside world. Understanding this basic logic is very important for us to adjust our observation perspective.

After the world got rid of the wars of the Middle Ages, it established the Westphalian system. Under this system, the first premise of the basic norms of international relations recognized by all countries is that fighting for beliefs is no longer allowed. . Countries should only fight for their own interests and even resort to war. The war to enforce beliefs was abandoned, and the cruelty of wars to compete for interests was greatly reduced. This also left time for the development of modern diplomacy from peaceful fights for the economy to resorting to force. This was the Middle Ages when theocracy was relatively supreme. It was a step forward in the civilization of human society and an abandonment of the past on the basis of the civilization of international relations. This distinction is so important, but the public opinion field and some scholars seem to be unaware of it. Here are two examples to deepen my impression. A few years agoIWhat SIS (Islamic State) launched was actually a transnational war. The United States, Russia and other countries joined forces, temporarily shelved other differences on the Middle East issue, and sent troops separately to defeat ISIS. This action actually jointly upholds the most important basic norm of modern international relations, not fighting for beliefs. In his long speech at the Valdai Club meeting a few days ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he would digress into philosophical issues. His important statement was that Russia and other Western values ​​are consistent. Today, after the Russo-Ukrainian war has been going on for three years and is facing further escalation, this cautious statement by Russia is conducive to preventing the West from recalling the international strategy of the former Soviet Union, embedding the Russo-Ukrainian war into a template of fighting for faith, and making it more effective. war mobilization. Putin’s statement on values ​​is different from the wishful thinking of some research institutions and public readers. Value factors have been weakened. Today, when the economies of various countries are deeply integrated, economic factors in international relations are even more important.

The author’s simple non-professional opinion is: the main observation basis of geopolitical theory is strength, and what is discussed is strategic cooperation under the constraints of strength. The indispensable underlying element of geopolitical thinking is a country’s economic foundation and its economic and trade demands to the outside world (market). In the early stages of international expansion, due to limited transportation conditions, these economic demands first resulted in the acquisition of some explicit wealth, such as gold, silver, and rare items. Then, economic factors such as population, resources, trade sphere of influence, and land and sea transportation channels that were not obvious in the early stage quickly became the main targets pursued by various countries with the advancement of modern industrial production organization and technology, and often resorted to war for this purpose. A prominent example is the U.S. oil embargo against Japan in the 1940s, which forced Japan to launch a desperate war in the Pacific against the United States in order to maintain access to economic resources. Japan had many considerations when launching wars abroad during World War II, but the economic motivations for launching the Pacific War were relatively simple and clear.

After World War II, the international relations dominated by the two major blocs of the United States and the Soviet Union tilted towards the side where ideological confrontation was the top priority. Traditional geogame theory also advanced in this context. Although the underlying economic logic of countries competing for and controlling economic factors internationally in the form of blocs was once overshadowed by the threat of nuclear war, once the "peaceful competition" limited by the two camps began, the world began to use non-war means A long-term new phase of international relations involving competition for economic resources. It began with "détente" and subsequently developed into nuclear arms control and nuclear disarmament. These important developments made it possible for international relations to return to the center of economic demands of economies to the outside world, and achieved the world's pursuit of peaceful economic development. A great time. As a result, a large number of important new norms for international economic relations and systematic legal and institutional arrangements for international economic and trade were implemented through negotiations. The unprecedented development of international economic and trade at this stage led to the explosive growth of world wealth during the same period. More importantly, both poor and rich countries benefit from it.

At this stage of the development of human society, animalsThe use of force to secure important resources such as oil and the acquisition of other economic resources by force has always existed. But the more important new economic development factors: the development of science and technology, as well as various innovative models such as transnational operations that regard the world market as an operational space, have changed traditional manufacturing with unparalleled influence. The transnational development of manufacturing has changed the economic logic of a country and the world. The entire international relations and the economic game foundation behind them have also been adjusted accordingly. Obtaining advanced technology and controlling high-tech exports have become key parts of the game of international relations. Here, military and security factors and substantive economic interest concerns are mutually exclusive, making it difficult to handle them properly.

After we have supplemented the above-mentioned economic-related missing parts to the existing cognitive framework of international relations, or revealed the underlying economic logic obscured by military technology and international research, we can then observe the U.S. Think further about the economic logic of the election.

2. The economic logic of the U.S. election and Sino-U.S. economic and trade relations

The U.S. election is a comprehensive competition between two different development visions. The two visions for China stem from the problems that need to be solved for its own economic development. We need to get rid of the negative impact on our way of thinking of stimulus-reaction interactions that have focused on specific actions in recent years, and deconstruct the relevant underlying economic logic, instead of simply "projecting" China and the United States based only on our self-feelings after being affected. relation.

The reason why this election is called the most important election in 60 years and the most intense showdown in 24 years is that the two sides have fully engaged in a confrontation over the vision of the United States. After competition and comparison, the election campaign mobilized a large number of voters who had never voted to participate in the voting. The election results relatively fully reflected the mainstream public opinion. This is a fact that cannot be ignored. The Republican election results show that its platform is recognized among blue-collar and middle-class people. One observation is that exit polls in Florida and Texas, two big vote states, show that Latino men are actually an important force in the Republican victory over the Democratic Party and widening the substantial gap. Regardless of whether we look at the class analysis methods we naturally accept, the oriented propaganda, or the unreliable wishful thinking of the objects of empathy, this group should be the laborers, working-class, and self-sufficient among all ethnic groups in the United States. The typical ethnic group that employs the main body of people. In this election, where real visions compete with real guns, the Republican Party can shed its image as the spokesperson of the big bourgeoisie. It cannot be achieved through rhetoric or the sadness of being shot. It relies on its vision to mobilize the masses. Empathy among the majority of voters.

The Democratic Party pursues a progressive identity aggregation strategy, integrating as many complex ideas as possible. In terms of economic propositions, despite the fact that Obama, who has a variety of reputations, came forward in the sprint stage, he repeatedly detailed Harris's economic sugar checks, and told voters several times in his speeches that there are not many things that the president can do, and it is necessary to Improve everyone's life step by step.

Comparing the two, the Republican Party focuses on supporting industries and enterprises in its economic vision. Compared with the Democratic Party, which focuses on killing the rich and helping the poor, it raises taxes to a lower level.Distributing sugar to the income class can further stimulate the enthusiasm of workers and the middle class. Perhaps we can say that the middle class, who are indifferent to Trump's personal characteristics, voted for Trump for the "decent" job opportunities they had pinned their hopes on (Lighthizer's words). This proposition complied with the wishes of voters and produced a mobilizing effect.

When thinking about the relationship between China and the United States, we must first know ourselves and the enemy, and we must deeply analyze the good intentions reflected in this election, and then put China-US relations into it. Facing the harsh reality, we can no longer simply project our own unexamined and imprecise wishful thinking onto the other party. We need to re-examine the "rebellious act" of the majority of the middle class and working class voting for the Republican Party. These people rejected the benefits offered by the Democratic Party, and they did not vote for Trump because they were excited by the abstract slogan of "Make America Great Again." What they care about is individual opportunity within a vision of American economic development.

Among the many international economic problems facing the United States, the trade deficit is actually not a particularly big and urgent issue. Long-term deficits are unhealthy, but neither now nor in the foreseeable future will there be a situation where the United States is unable to pay for imports due to trade deficits and needs to rely on the IMF's support system. The pressure brought by the trade deficit on the US dollar exchange rate can be eliminated through the capital market and other macro-financial means. Using the deficit phenomenon to reflect on the loss of "decent and dignified jobs" in the manufacturing industry and the impact of trade and employment impacts on the negative decline of American communities and even society as a whole are part of Trump's campaign philosophy that touches people's hearts.

Analyzing the various economic aspects of U.S. international relations, and then analyzing and refining the various concerns of mainstream public opinion in this biggest showdown in 60 years is a long-term research topic left to scholars. Observing the economic issues related to relations with China through the general election, we should understand that when dealing with pain points in economic relations, it is no longer possible to limit ourselves to explicit issues such as commodities and foreign exchange without thinking about deep-seated social issues. We need to correct our thinking inertia and improve our cognitive framework. Only by identifying the correct problem can you make fewer mistakes, waste moves, and waste less time when dealing with them.

In order to get a complete concept, here is a brief review of several important background facts about international economics and trade.

First, at the beginning of the reconstruction of the world economic system after World War II, one of the purposes of negotiating a new trading system was to increase employment through international trade. The founding conference of the International Trade Organization, San Francisco The “United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment” is exactly what it sounds like and should not be misinterpreted.

Second, while the multilateral trading system is rapidly promoting free trade, it has a clear accompanying constraint that it must provide necessary protection to industries harmed by free trade. Relevant enterprise operations and social employment data are observation indicators. Historically, in the context of fair trade, when the impact of industrial upgrading brought about by technological progress was too great, such as when large-scale cross-border transfers of textile trade occurred, the multilateral free trade system also arranged trade quotas that completely violated the principles of free trade to restrict outimport quantity so that the importing country can prepare new labor jobs.

Third, the U.S. dollar exchange rate is free to float, and interest rates are controlled by focusing on two indicators: inflation and employment. Exchange rates and trade balance conditions are expendable components of interest rate adjustments. Looking at the priorities of employment and trade balance based on the past practice of the United States, it is obvious that the importance of the latter has always been weaker than the former.

With these concepts in mind, let’s review the interaction process of Sino-US economic and trade relations.

Eight years ago when Trump was elected, China issued huge import orders under the 100-day action plan. The United States accepted China's goodwill, but emphasized that it hopes to seek an institutional solution. Afterwards, the United States still launched a Section 301 investigation. After completing the investigation four months later, it announced a list of products to be subject to additional tariffs. China did not negotiate with the U.S. to reach any other alternative solution before actually imposing special tariffs. As for the negotiation price plan proposed by important U.S. cabinet members during a collective visit to China, China initially believed that one-third of the price was negotiable and one-third was not negotiable. , there is no need to talk about the other third that China is prepared to make adjustments on its own (this is both an expression of its willingness to deal with the other party's concerns, and a refusal to include these proposed concessions within the scope of bilateral legal obligations). Within the legal time frame of the United States, the two sides were unable to negotiate to eliminate some product categories from the tax increase list, nor were they able to sit down and discuss in detail whether the level of goods to be subject to additional taxes was appropriate.

At this time, trade issues have shown signs of being tied up with other issues in bilateral relations, and trade friction has become the symbolic first battle in a series of problems and contradictions between China and the United States.

Former U.S. Trade Negotiator Lighthizer began to use a series of speeches and articles to transform the employment side of the coin "trade and employment", the basic concern of the international trading system, into the current situation of American society. On the bright side. By the time of this election, after eight years, both terms had adhered to this concept of handling international economic and trade relations. It is foreseeable that in the future, the United States, which is in the process of continuously upgrading its industrial structure, will continue to focus on foreign economic and trade developed over the past eight years. When dealing with foreign economic and trade relations, it will focus on improving the employment level and taking into account other economic demands.

3. The imposition of 60% tariffs and its impact

Observing this US election and paying attention to the future direction of Sino-US relations, we should make up for the development paths of these economic and trade relations that have been ignored in the past eight years. . This helps us objectively analyze the current situation and think about the future.

When thinking about the future, the first thing we have to study is what will it mean if the decision to impose a 60% tariff on Chinese products is implemented after the new presidential team takes over on January 20, 2025?

The concept of 60% tariff is roughly equivalent to the unprecedented overall tariff level of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act during the Great Depression in U.S. history (there will be many specific products and tax rates) The difference here is just to give you a general idea). Some information says,At that time, the weighted average tariff rate reached 59.6% (the weighted average is a calculation result using trade volume as a weight, which is different from the simple average result). If the United States decides to impose an import tax on products at a level of 60%, it will roughly be equivalent to imposing an import tax on the products at the highest rate under the U.S. Mutt-Hawley Tariff Act of the early 1930s. This level was the tariff level that was applied to Chinese products when the United States initially contacted China and lifted the trade embargo. However, it was no longer applicable after China and the United States signed a bilateral trade agreement in 1980. According to the provisions of the bilateral trade agreement, products begin to enjoy most-favored-nation treatment tariffs. From this point of view, the concept of 60% tariff proposed by the United States has its origin and basis.

What legal difficulties and economic consequences will there be once it is decided to impose a 60% tariff on products? From a legal point of view, it is relatively "convenient" for the United States. Because the trade agreement signed by the two sides in 1980 used the "most-favored nation treatment" clause. Later, during the Clinton administration, in order to avoid the annual review of immigration issues under the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and avoid conflicts between the review mechanism and the general provisions of the WTO after joining the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United States independently The Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) Act was passed. Eliminating the low-tariff treatment for imports from China can precisely take advantage of this historical change in the law to go back. It can be considered that there is not much legal obstacle for the United States to do this. This situation is not good for you.

The legal initiative put forward by members of the US Congress, that is, to pass legislation to cancel the permanent normal trade relations given to the United States, is an even more unfavorable situation. Because once Sino-US economic and trade relations improve in the future, it will be difficult to overcome this new legal obstacle.

What kind of multilateral legal issues will this encounter in the WTO? Common expressions in the public opinion field cannot distinguish between the legal rights and obligations of international treaties and the spirit and principles of international arrangements. Generally speaking, it is unprofessional to say that a certain practice violates WTO regulations. The mistake is that it does not distinguish between the legal rights and obligations of institutional arrangements and the non-binding spirit and principles. If China and the United States, two WTO members, enter the WTO dispute settlement process regarding the 60% increase in tariffs, the spirit and principles will be just the background and cannot be used as the basis for specific judgments.

According to the terms of the accession protocol at that time and the specific provisions of the 15-year transition period to promote market-oriented reforms, China can appeal and express dissatisfaction, but it is difficult to obtain a favorable ruling. Of course, the unique feature of WTO dispute settlement is that it provides various windows of opportunity during the entire process of resolving disputes, supplemented by arbitration or mediation, and encourages both parties to resolve issues through negotiation and consultation. As long as both parties reach an agreement and withdraw the lawsuit, the dispute resolution in this case will be considered successful. Bilateral and multilateral negotiations are a positive procedural arrangement that increases the chances of solving problems. What needs to be explained is that it is very different from the impression of most non-professionals.What is clear is that the multilateral economic and trade system is more of a place for reasoning and negotiation to resolve conflicts, rather than an institution for judging right and wrong. The reason is simple. On issues involving member interest groups, if one party is wrongly judged and there are no multilateral enforcement measures to follow up, the problem will not be solved even if the judgment is made.

What will be the economic impact of imposing a 60% tariff? Although I mentioned earlier that 60% is basically back to the high-end tariff level before 1980. Considering that the vast majority of products do not have monopoly technological advantages or monopoly advantages in raw materials, there are many competitors of similar products in the world. Once tariffs change the price advantage of a product, it is highly likely that it will be squeezed out of the U.S. market by competitors. In the long run, even if the discriminatory high tariffs can be lowered in the future, if the products want to return to the US market, it cannot be achieved by returning to the tariff level. They will also have to compete with other products or local products that have already taken their place in the US market.

Some people may have an unrealistic idea, "If the east is not bright, the west is bright", and new international markets can be opened up. The lesson from the past is that once one of the largest markets closes, the resulting trade diversion can have an impact on other markets. Forcing other affected markets to also take safeguard measures. It has happened in history that an export product was judged to be disruptive to the market and was subject to additional tariffs. A series of markets were affected by the trade reversal and were closed one after another, causing the product to completely withdraw from the international market.

The above is the expected impact of imposing a 60% tariff. The good news is that according to US Customs origin regulations, there are legal standards for determining the country of origin of a product. Under normal circumstances, the value-added standard for determining origin is 40%. By this standard, the value-added percentage of processing trade in China by many large multinational companies is relatively low. There are some relatively solid studies or monographs for reference in this regard, which I won’t go into details here. In other words, this large number of export products may not be subject to tax according to the US Customs rules of origin. What needs attention is how the authorities will deal with this complex phenomenon if the export of a large number of original products is blocked, and a large number of foreign-invested processing trade products can continue to enjoy low tax rates for export to the United States in accordance with the law. If opinion leaders who lack certain knowledge about economics and trade and are filled with indignation take advantage of the situation and direct their indignation at "unequal treatment" to foreign-invested enterprises in China, and then use them as targets of retaliation, trade and other collateral losses may result. It will be very big.

After hearing that the United States was planning to impose a 60% tariff on Chinese products, a group of opinion leaders began to study some "cool tips" for setting up factories in other countries or setting up ambushes to enter the United States. The motives of these enthusiastic people are good, and the direction of their thinking is not too outrageous. However, these must be done in accordance with laws and regulations on the basis of careful study of various preferential arrangements between third countries and the United States and the origin regulations in free trade agreements. implementation. Preemptively instigating public opinion will not help companies; it will also trigger early warnings and lead to trouble.

Before the United States formally introduced tariff increases,Various options are being considered. Trump also proposed to impose a 10% tariff on products to force greater cooperation in controlling the export of fentanyl precursors. It also proposed imposing higher tariffs on Canada and Mexico. It can be seen from these changes that Trump is also changing his thinking perspective. Perhaps, he has realized that an additional 60% tariff increase on the 2,000 products in 2018 is a prohibitive tariff. If trade is banned, taxes cannot be levied. It is better to weaponize tariffs and use them to solve the problem of fentanyl smuggling. This leaves room for China and the United States to resolve issues through negotiation.

4. Concluding remarks: Key points to observe in the future Sino-US bilateral relations

In the past eight years, Sino-US economic and trade relations have almost become the "stone of friction" for friction and struggle in other relations. It is a pity that people have become a residual term in addition to the core interests in the relationship between the two countries. Now we are more certain to accept the next new test.

China-US relations are the most important bilateral relations in the world. The two countries were each other's largest trading partners. In this American experiment, which is determined to reform the existing political system in the United States, the economy should focus more on providing more decent and dignified job opportunities for blue-collar and middle class people, change the downward trend of society, and open up opportunities for upward mobility. What are the logical and continuous observation points in the relationship?

First, in terms of economics and trade, the trade policy implemented by Lighthizer-Dechie at the beginning of Trump’s first term and aimed at increasing decent employment opportunities in the United States has the goal of curbing the growth of American society. The responsibility for sinking downwards has a "tragic" place in the Republican Party's vision competition in this election, and it has also won the support of the majority of voters. We must understand this new development and make the cognitive framework of the original bilateral relationship more complete.

Second, in terms of setting the scene for the relationship between the two countries, the two countries have stated several times that the two countries are not enemies, do not seek to treat each other as enemies, and do not seek ideological confrontation. Both sides expressed respect for each other's core interests. Both countries have stated that they will cooperate on some common challenges faced by mankind. In the past few years, the leaders of both sides have made active efforts. Both sides have made clear statements on their core positions and received serious positive feedback from the other side, preventing further decline in bilateral relations. But what is frustrating is that the direction of public opinion on both sides is not in the same direction. As far as the media is concerned, in recent years, it has become a popular method to guide public opinion by constantly comparing the growth and decline of the two sides in key areas. Taking into account the influence of the media and public opinion mentioned at the beginning of this article, in addition to military technical thinking and international relations theoretical schools, judging from the current situation of the two countries, public opinion is obviously intensifying the confrontation and confrontation in various fields of Sino-US relations. mentality. There is a wise saying in the world of international relations: "If you treat the other party as an enemy, the other party will become an enemy." Similarly, when economics prompts change, there is a similar saying that "prophecies will be self-fulfilling." We need to observe this tendency carefully and take it seriously.

For the fewAlthough the official exchanges were official, reports described it more as a serious confrontation that used offense as defense and verbal exchanges. Based on such reports, researchers will ask: Is this a technical game of normal relations or a diplomatic strategy of antagonistic relations? This involves another serious question: Have the two sides reached a tacit and informal consensus on the issue of antagonistic relations? Or is it just the fireworks effect created by the report?

The decision-making level of foreign relations is very high, and people involved or bystanders should be cautious when studying issues and expressing opinions. Prudence does not mean not saying or making reports that increase transparency, nor does it mean blocking the channels of speech. It means having a piece of evidence to say something, and not making assumptions, let alone using ink out of loyalty.

Although it is convenient to list all aspects of bilateral relations in a simple and formulaic way to incorporate new numbers and facts to measure changes, this method of observation and thinking also limits people's ability to thinking. Because this formula is too simple, the template generated based on it fundamentally conceals the basic fact that human social activities revolve around the economy. It is also consistent with Marxism's view that economy is the foundation, and some other fields belong to the superstructure and are affected by the foundation. The assertion of constraints is inconsistent. The tension of one's own economy is the basis for studying foreign relations, and the appeal of economic development to the external world is the starting point for studying foreign relations, not the other way around. In the past eight years, especially during the epidemic, Sino-US relations have experienced a downward spiral in all areas. The prominent changes in security-related dual-use high-tech exports have highlighted the tendency to prioritize security issues over economic considerations. The security concerns caused by the confrontation between China and the United States have become the "king bomb" that overwhelms issues in other fields.

Third, in terms of the thinking mode of treating bilateral relations, representatives of official think tanks began to openly talk about the complex relationship between security and economy at the recent annual conference on world economics, believing that if security is considered, economic costs should be considered. , if the economy fails, it may eventually become more unsafe. Being able to think about problems in this way was rare in the past. Now, the vision of the United States advocated by Trump is about to be transformed into implementation. When we assess the situation, we must not only see the changes and the increasingly severe situation, but also reflect on whether our own understanding of Sino-US relations is no longer sufficient.

We should be aware of the interaction between the economic base and the superstructure (that is, other related areas of Sino-US relations). Simple elementary mathematical forms of two-sided alignment and linear thinking are inappropriate templates. This template corresponds to linear thinking, which is rigid and single, and is not conducive to thinking and exploring solutions to problems.

If there are contradictions and conflicts between two major countries with fundamentally different ideologies in various fields of interaction, but in terms of economy, both sides believe that limited world resources can play a vital role in promoting scientific and technological progress. It will still be barely enough in the future, so the coexistence of the two major powers China and the United States will be possible.

To think and study Sino-US relations under this general premise is to strive to find a solution or compromise. We should iterate on the arithmetic template thinking in the form of elementary mathematics (the two sides of the equal sign are aligned).era, using advanced mathematical thinking to examine and understand the relationship between the two countries. To find and understand the functional relationship between various areas of bilateral relations and clarify the interaction of relevant areas, that is, which area of ​​change is a function of changes in another area, we can further consider whether there is a possibility of second-order or more-order solutions ( exchange for interests in some other related fields), which can further open up our ideas. It is worth mentioning here that the foundation of economic and trade relations between China and the United States is not only broad, but also "thick" and deep. This is due to the complexity of the economic process itself. Borrowing the image of multi-order derivatives of function formulas, negotiating economic issues is difficult and complex. However, because economic exchanges are deep, many problems can be solved cross-cuttingly and are not necessarily unsolvable.

Starting from functional thinking, reviewing and comparing past changes from the perspective of linear thinking will be enlightening for us to deal with the current problems faced by Sino-US relations, cope with the changing situation, and find ways to improve and solve it. If deduced, the expression of the functional relationship and the expression of the relationship between the economic base and superstructure can support and confirm each other. We should avoid using economic and trade as a bargaining chip for issues in other fields, and strive to deal with them as separate from other issues as possible. In other words, if foreign economic and trade relations are not properly handled, it will be more difficult to do a good job in the economy, and weak economic performance will also drag down international security issues. Simply using the economy as a bargaining chip for other issues may not necessarily achieve the expectation of greater security in the end.

In short, I hope that the Sino-US economic and trade relations, which were once highly integrated and symbiotic economically, and that you and I are part of you, can return to the center of the exchanges between the two countries through the joint efforts of both parties, so as to Enhance our ability to deal with various issues in Sino-US relations in isolation and rebuild mutual trust from the bottom up through negotiations.