People's Daily: China-US Economic and Trade Relations Need a "Cooperation List," Not a "Warrant Coverage" List

Recently, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) placed foreign-made power inverters and advanced robotic equipment on the so-called "Warrant Coverage" list. New models of these products will be unable to obtain certification authorization and will be barred from sale in the U.S. market. Under the guise of "non-discrimination" or "national security," the U.S. measures essentially amount to discriminatory treatment and suppression of Chinese enterprises and products. They represent typical unilateral bullying and a blatant distortion of market economy rules and principles of fair competition.

For some time, the FCC has repeatedly generalized the concept of national security, continuously introducing and escalating restrictive measures. This not only severely harms China's legitimate trade interests but also seriously undermines the foundation of China-U.S. economic and trade cooperation, while further disrupting the stability of global industrial and supply chains.

Using the so-called "Warrant Coverage" list to implement targeted containment and suppression is a habitual tactic of the FCC. In 2021, the agency cited "national security" to include telecommunications and video surveillance equipment from five Chinese companies on the list, setting a bad precedent for the abusive use of regulatory tools. Since then, the U.S. side has continuously introduced restrictive rules, expanding the scope of suppression to include products such as drones and routers. In April this year, the agency reviewed and passed restrictive measures aimed at revoking the qualifications of testing and certification bodies in countries that have not signed "mutual recognition agreements" with the United States, artificially raising compliance thresholds for Chinese products. By further extending its control tentacles into new energy and advanced intelligent manufacturing sectors, the U.S. intention to suppress Chinese technology and contain its industries has become glaringly obvious.

This U.S. action runs counter to the current momentum of stabilization and improvement in China-U.S. relations. Over the past year, under the strategic guidance of the two heads of state, the China-U.S. economic and trade teams have maintained pragmatic communication and achieved positive progress, injecting valuable certainty into bilateral economic and trade cooperation and global economic recovery. In May this year, the two heads of state jointly established a new positioning for a constructive and strategically stable China-U.S. relationship, pointing the way forward for the development of bilateral relations. All levels and sectors should work together in the same direction. China has always believed that competition between major powers is not surprising, but competition should not define the entirety of China-U.S. relations. Even if there is competition between China and the United States, it should be benign competition involving mutual learning, positive competition where each strives to outdo the other, and fair competition that abides by rules. What both sides should extend is the "Cooperation List" for mutual benefit and win-win outcomes, rather than the artificial restrictions of the so-called "Warrant Coverage" list.

The root cause of the U.S. side's repeated wall-building and barrier-setting lies in its adherence to zero-sum game thinking and its deep-seated anxiety over competition with China. Facing the rising international competitiveness of China's new energy equipment and advanced intelligent manufacturing industries, some in the U.S. have failed to consider how to enhance their own competitiveness and gain development advantages through fair competition. Instead, they insist on erecting barriers in an attempt to slow down the development pace of other countries. History and reality have repeatedly proven that protectionism is never the right path for development; administrative barriers cannot stop the progress of industrial and technological advancement. Forcibly pushing for "decoupling" and building "small yards with high walls" will not only fail to halt the iterative upgrading of China's industrial technology but will also force the global industrial and supply chains to accelerate diversification. Ultimately, this will backfire on the U.S.'s own economic vitality and technological competitiveness. Insightful observers have long pointed out that placing administrative barriers above market laws and industrial competitiveness is akin to creating an inefficient "greenhouse" for domestic industries, which will ultimately cause U.S. domestic enterprises to lose their drive for innovation and burden consumers with the dual costs of high prices and outdated technology.

From a broader global perspective, the U.S. approach goes against the tide of economic globalization. In today's world, economies are deeply intertwined, and industrial divisions of labor are highly complementary. The formation and development of global industrial and supply chains are the inevitable result of market forces and an important opportunity for shared development among nations. Power inverters and advanced robotic equipment are key products supporting global green transformation and the upgrade of intelligent manufacturing. Free trade and technological cooperation benefit countries around the world. By artificially fragmenting markets and setting up technical barriers, the U.S. not only raises the operating costs of global supply chains and impacts the ecosystem of global industrial cooperation and technological innovation but also "scorches" the process of global green transformation and intelligent industry development, harming the common interests of all countries.

Protectionism does not enhance competitiveness, and building walls and barriers does not buy security. China urges the U.S. to face the calls from business communities in both countries, respect the laws of the market economy and the principles of fair competition, immediately stop its erroneous practices, and revoke the relevant discriminatory restrictive measures. If the U.S. insists on going its own way, China will firmly take countermeasures. We hope the U.S. will effectively implement the important consensus reached by the two heads of state, abandon zero-sum game thinking, return to a rational and pragmatic track, work with China in the same direction, promote the healthy and stable development of China-U.S. economic and trade cooperation, and inject more positive energy into the constructive and strategically stable China-U.S. relationship.

Risk Warning and Disclaimer

Investment involves risks; please proceed with caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account the specific investment objectives, financial status, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article align with their specific circumstances. Investment decisions made based on this content are the sole responsibility of the investor.