Global Times - 30.07.2019

16 Tuesday July 30, 2019

FORUM

The US government’s latest hegemonic
attempt to coerce the World Trade Orga-
nization (WTO) into changing its treat-
ment of developing countries is destined
to hit a wall of opposition.
In a memo purportedly promot-
ing WTO reform, the US administra-
tion threatened action by the US Trade
Representative if “substantial progress”
toward changes to the special and differ-
entiated treatment for developing mem-
bers had not been made within 90 days.
When it comes to the reform of one
of the world’s most important multi-
lateral organizations, messing with its
basic principle and trying to override its
rules with US laws will beget nothing
but failure.
The special and differentiated treat-
ment is a basic right endowed to the
WTO’s developing members and is a
pillar of the organization. It gives full
consideration to the gaps between devel-

oping and developed countries, embod-

ies the inclusiveness of the multilateral

trading system and serves the long-term

interests of all countries.

These gaps are comprehensive in na-

ture: income per capita, technological

strength, economic structure and quality

of development, to name just a few. As

there is no simple universal definitions

of the words “developed” and “develop-

ing,” any assessment of a country’s de-

velopment level must adopt an overall

perspective.

However, the US is attempting to

upgrade some developing members by

overstressing selective indicators and ul-

timately deprive them of the legitimate

rights and interests to which they are

entitled to by virtue of their actual status.

It will bring controversy and chaos,

putting new obstacles in the way of

WTO reforms.

In the memo, the US targets China

and other developing countries for un-

fairly getting preferential treatment, ig-

noring the yawning gap between China

and developed countries in terms of eco-

nomic and social development.

It is true that China has become the

world’s second largest economy, but it

is also the biggest developing nation.

China’s GDP per capita was only 15 per-

cent of that of the US in 2017, and it has

a prominent imbalanced development

problem, with over 10 million people

still living under the extreme poverty

line.

China has never used the special and

differentiated treatment as an excuse to

shun its due obligations. Since its acces-

sion to the WTO over a decade ago, it

has actively safeguarded the multilateral

trading system and made widely recog-

nized contributions to global free trade

and investment.

The US, by contrast, has trampled

WTO rules and undermined the rights

and interests of developing countries

for its own benefit, casting a shadow

over multilateralism and the open world

economy.

It obviously timed the memo to serve

as a new bargaining chip for the upcom-

ing 12th round of China-US high-level

economic and trade consultations.

But the tactic of imposing pressure

is nothing new to China and has never

worked. After all, the US needs to show

good faith in trade talks. If it plans oth-

erwise, China is ready and has nothing

to fear.

The article is a commentary from

the Xinhua News Agency. opinion@

globaltimes.com.cn

Page Editor:

[email protected]

Detractors drive US bitterness against China

Tampering with developing-country status to surely draw backlash

By Zhao Minghao

T

he Trump administra-
tion’s China approach
triggered a new round
of debates within the US, with
both sides of the aisle express-
ing their views through open
letters to US President Donald
Trump. Amid growing bilateral
tensions, the US narrative
on China is being metamor-
phosed.
On one side are well-known
scholars and former govern-
ment officials who have long
studied China. They suggest
that China is not an enemy
and the US approach must be
based on a realistic appraisal of
Chinese perceptions, interests,
goals and behavior. They also
believe that many US moves
are contributing directly to
relations entering a tailspin.
The open letter they signed is
intended to show “there is no
single Washington consensus
endorsing an overall
adversarial stance toward
China.”
On the other side are
former US military and
intelligence officials as
well as hawkish China
watchers. They have
urged the Trump admin-
istration to stay the course
on its path of countering
China, emphasizing that
the strategic interests of
China and the US are
“antithetical.” That open
letter was written by
James E. Fanell, former
director of intelligence
and information opera-
tions for the US Pacific
Fleet, who has long ac-
cused China of preparing
for war. The signatories
include China detractors

such as Gordon Chang, who

have been predicting the com-

ing collapse of China.

The debate indicates that

there are varying perceptions

on China within the US. Mili-

tary and intelligence officials

are used to thinking about the

worst-case scenario. Lacking

adequate knowledge, they tend

to compare China to historical

adversaries of the US: Nazi

Germany and the former So-

viet Union. This undoubtedly

will lead to strategic blindness.

Fanell wrote in the open let-

ter: “In our political system,

politics is the norm, and war is

the exception. It is explicitly the

opposite in the PRC’s world-

view.” Anyone who has some

knowledge about the history of

American wars will find such a

view ridiculous.

What riles Chinese analysts

is Washington’s new ideologi-

cal fusillade against China with

the Communist Party of China

in the cross hairs. This will un-

dermine the foundation of bi-

lateral relations. Although the

Trump administration defined

China as a strategic competi-

tor, it has in fact treated China

like an enemy. But according to

late Harvard political scientist

Samuel P. Huntington, “The

ideal enemy for America would

be ideologically hostile, racially

and culturally different and

militarily strong enough to

pose a credible threat to Ameri-

can security.”

From 2008 when the US

began to hype up “state capital-

ism” to a debate about China’s

so-called sharp power in 2017

and warnings against a “clash

of civilizations” with China

in 2019, the US perception of

the “China threat,” especially

in ideology, has reached new

heights. Various factions which

support a tough approach for

China have closed ranks to up

the pressure on Beijing. For

instance, they recently accused

China of techno-authoritari-

anism.

The Trump administration

is seeking to rationalize its con-

frontational approach by pur-

posely reshaping US society’s

perception of China. Unlike

its predecessors, the Trump

administration pays little atten-

tion to opinions of think tank

experts in its policymaking for

China. White House insiders

Peter Navarro and other anti-

China hawks are only willing

to engage with scholars such

as Michael Pillsbury, writer

of The Hundred-Year Mara-

thon: China’s Secret Strategy to

Replace America as the Global

Superpower.

US Secretary of State Mike

Pompeo once served as the

director of the Central Intelli-

gence Agency, which is largely

behind his deep-rooted hostili-

ty against China. Worries about

a clash of civilizations with

China are dominating discus-

sion on China within the US

State Department. US national

security adviser John Bolton

has not yet visited China since

he assumed the position.

Officials in charge of China

affairs in the National Security

Council, the State Department

and the Pentagon are almost

all anti-China hawks.

There is no doubt that for

quite a few US policy elite

members, China has sur-

passed Russia to become a

thorny diplomatic topic in the

medium to long term. As US

scholars Jonathan D. Pollack

and Jeffrey A. Bader wrote in

their article “Looking before

we leap: Weighing the risks of

US-China disengagement,” to

many Americans, “the defining

question is no longer how to

manage relations with China,

but how to counteract and (if

possible) impede China’s ad-

vance to major-power status.”

Beijing has clearly

recognized this change.

But confrontation is never

a sensible solution. To

avoid the two big powers

eventually falling out,

more talks are needed

now. Keeping debates

open can inject more

resilience into policymak-

ing. However, it’s worry-

ing that Washington now

has been shrouded in a

new red scare.

The author is a senior

research fellow at the

Charhar Institute and

an adjunct fellow at the

Chongyang Institute

for Financial Studies at

Renmin University of China.

[email protected].

cn

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT