中文
This is an editorial from China Daily.
The US Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security announced it was adding 43 new entities under 50 entries to its Entity List on Monday, showing that the gestures Washington has made recently to supposedly try and mend ties with Beijing have been nothing but a put-on.
Not only are 31 of the 43 companies from China, but also the causes it gave for all the 43 entities from 10 countries in total being targeted are related to China. The BIS accuses them of playing certain roles in "human rights abuses" in China, contributing to ballistic missile programs of the People's Liberation Army and training the PLA Air Force's pilots on Western aircraft. Although as usual nothing has been offered to support the allegations.
The "charges" are typical US long-arm jurisdiction without any legitimacy. About 600 Chinese high-tech entities have been added to the Entity List since the previous Donald Trump administration. The list purportedly protecting "national security" is simply an excuse for the US' economic coercion.
Considering the US has been trying to hype up China's "economic coercion" as a global threat for the past months, the founding of the ever-growing list shows which country is the inventor, patent holder and executor of economic coercion.
As US Deputy Secretary of Commerce Don Graves' remarks about the latest move indicate, the US Commerce Department regards the Entity List as "one of the most powerful policy tools we have at our disposal".
In the meeting between Chinese and US commerce ministers on May 25, which the US side had looked forward to and managed to arrange at last on its soil after obtaining the Chinese side's consent, the two sides agreed to build communication channels so as to keep and strengthen exchanges on concrete trade concerns and cooperation matters.
However, the great lengths the US side has gone to this time — targeting the other 12 enterprises from nine countries in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Europe and Africa, all important partners of China, as well for China-related "issues" — should have driven home to the rest of the world the true meanings of the "rules-based order", "competition" and "de-risking" that Washington is pushing for.
By cutting off all means of retreat for even those refusing to jump onto its anti-China wagon, it is crystal clear who is coercing the world for its own narrow ends.
The US now regards the harm it is causing to global industry and supply chains by weaponizing trade and technology as a price the world has to pay for its geopolitical game to maintain its hegemony.
As long as the US continues to base its own security on the insecurity of others, it will remain a source of confrontation and conflict.
