The ridiculous American attempt to invent a “second shock” from China

Recently, Lael Brainarddirector of the U.S. National Economic Council, said in a speech that the “China shock” of the early 2000s hurt American manufacturing and that the current administration is committed to avoiding a new “China shock.” She said that if Americans choose to buy electric vehicles (EVs), “we want them made in America, not China.” On the same day, the U.S. Commerce Department proposed banning Chinese software and hardware in connected vehicles in the country, which would effectively exclude almost all Chinese cars, including those made by General Motors e Ford in China.

This “second China shock” narrative is nothing more than a new version of the old “China threat” rhetoric. As part of the US president’s economic team, Brainard serve to justify protectionist measures against China and to gain political influence.

At the same time, however, there are those who view China very differently in the West. A recent article in the New York Times The paper, titled “What Happens If China Stops Trying to Save the World?” argues that while the US is waging a trade war on green technologies to try to drive China out of the game, the Asian country has rewritten the history of the global green transition. China has led the way in deploying green energy on an unprecedented scale while avoiding significant carbon emissions, and if it is excluded from the process, the pace of the global transition will be much slower.

A European article, entitled “Will China save the planet alone?”reinforces the idea that the reduction in global emissions will be possible in large part due to Chinese efforts in clean energy. China installed more solar power in one year than the US has achieved in its entire history. Other experts, such as British economist Anthony Rowleyalso stress that the West should be grateful to China for driving global economic growth, rather than attacking it with tariffs and sanctions.

So what is the real narrative: “China shocking the world” or “China saving the world”? A global survey conducted by CGTN shows that 88,62% of respondents praise China’s contribution to green development, while 77,41% believe that linking the new energy industry to protectionism undermines global efforts to combat climate change. Fatih Biroldirector of International Energy Agencyalso highlighted that the services and support offered by China have made clean energy technologies more accessible globally.

For the White House, it is getting harder and harder to sustain its lies about Chinese electric vehicles. While Brainard Says Chinese EVs Hurt American Auto Industry, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo argues that the issue “is not about trade or economic advantage,” but rather about “national security.” This contradictory narrative only exposes U.S. hypocrisy.

“Made-in-China” products not only provide affordable consumer goods to many countries, but also play a vital role in global supply chains, driving technological advancement. For a service economy like the US, importing Chinese products not only meets domestic demand but also creates many local jobs.

So for the world and the US, China is not offering a “second shock” but rather continuing opportunities. The real “shock” comes not from China but from the US’s move away from the principles of globalization and free trade.

China has never seen the development of its green industry as a geopolitical competition. If there is any competition, it is between countries’ green transformation and global warming. China and USA have complementary strengths in the energy transition and circular economy. Instead of attacking each other, the two countries should cooperate to address climate challenges and offer hope to humanity.

With information from News Agencies