Translation Tag: de-risking
Zhang Jie, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, analyzes growing coordination among the United States, Japan, and the Philippines. Zhang frames this trilateral coordination as evidence that Washington is aiming to expand its economic and security influence in the region. In response, Zhang recommends Beijing strengthen diplomatic and economic engagement with its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific, focusing in particular on small and medium-sized states.
Da Wei, a professor at Tsinghua University, argues the Xi-Biden summit in November 2023 revealed U.S.-China relations have entered a “new normal” characterized by four features: mutual acceptance that tension will continue indefinitely, mutual assessment that full-blown conflict would be unacceptable, mutual understanding that neither country will fulfill its strategic goals completely, and mutual observation that economic and social resilience is possible amidst intense bilateral competition.
Dai Changzheng, a national security scholar at the Beijing-based University of International Business and Economics, argues China’s external environment is becoming more challenging due to rising tensions with the United States and heightened risk of pandemics, economic crises, and regional conflicts. Yet, Dai suggests that Beijing now has significant power to shape its external environment, given its substantial economic growth in past decades. Dai recommends Beijing advance and preserve China’s interests in this new environment by deepening ties with developing and regional countries and actively participating in global governance institutions.
Lu Feng, a Peking University professor, argues a closed-loop domestic integrated circuit (IC) supply chain is urgently needed in the face of U.S. and allied technology controls. He suggests Beijing advance this goal by encouraging Chinese enterprises in the field to buy from and sell to each other – decisions that, Lu argues, will be made easier by U.S. technology controls. Lu also suggests China play to its strengths and use its expansive market as a source of leverage to influence the scope of such controls.
Jian Junbo, a Europe scholar at Fudan University, argues the term “de-risking” rather than “decoupling” does not represent a substantive shift in European technology and economic policy toward China. In fact, Jian argues, the term may be more dangerous for China because it rhetorically legitimizes technology and economic controls on the basis of responding to “risks,” appeals to stakeholders with varying threat perceptions of China, and paves the way for greater transatlantic coordination.
Song Guoyou, an expert on U.S.-China economic relations at Fudan University, evaluates Beijing’s response so far to de-risking strategies adopted by the Trump and Biden administrations. Song argues that China can limit both the scope and negative impacts of such measures by seeking to maintain stable relations with Europe and U.S. allies more generally, diversifying export markets, publicly contributing to global economic goods through promotion of the BRI and participation in RCEP, and sustaining U.S. business interest in China.
A pair of Chinese economists argue that the U.S. will have a difficult time effectively de-risking from China due to a variety of hurdles, including tensions with allies over the speed and scope of strategies, vested U.S. business interests, and partisan debates about China policy within the United States. To limit the scope and impact of U.S. technology and economic policies, they suggest, Beijing should seek to improve diplomatic relations with U.S. allied and partner nations, expand economic ties with developing countries, remain open to diplomatic engagement with Washington, and invest in China’s science and technology ecosystem to address innovation bottlenecks.