US Protection of Supply Chain Security Will Increase Confrontation Risk

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 22 June 2021
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Jaime Cantwell. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
Since President Joe Biden took office, the U.S. has further increased hostility toward other countries in the field of science and technology, guided by the concept of rebuilding America. Compared with the Donald Trump era, the Biden administration is more obsessed with supply chain security issues. The Interim National Security Strategy Guidance issued by the Biden administration clearly mentions the fierce competition among major powers in the development and deployment of emerging technologies such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence and quantum computing; there is special emphasis on safeguarding supply chain security. Compared to Trump's version of the National Security Strategy, the guidance goes further and arbitrarily considers China to be the No. 1 competitor of the United States. Against this backdrop, Biden invited 19 major companies from around the world to a meeting on the chip shortage, excluding only Chinese companies, which shows the sinister intention of forming an alliance to decouple from China in the chip supply chain.

In fact, the global supply chain situation is tense, which is the root cause for the shortage of chips. The United States has clamped down on other countries, resulting in serious damage to the global industrial chain. For example, U.S. sanctions against Huawei sent a large number of companies around the world into a frenzy to stockpile chips, further exacerbating the chip shortage. In order to maintain its monopoly and hegemony, the U.S. has repeatedly generalized the so-called national security concept and abused the Entity List to maliciously suppress Chinese enterprises and institutions. On April 8, the U.S. Commerce Department added seven Chinese entities to the Entity List, including both representative domestic chip companies and national supercomputing centers. To date, more than 300 Chinese institutions or individuals have been added to the U.S. Entity List, and its scope is increasingly expanding beyond the technology sector. Recently, the British media revealed a letter from U.S. senators to the U.S. Commerce Department, requesting export controls on all Chinese chip companies that design below 14nm. The Chinese market has a huge role to play in the recovery of the global semiconductor industry, and at a time when the world is experiencing a structural shortage of chip production capacity, the potential damage that could be caused by the dangerous attempt of unilateral "de-Chinaization" by the U.S. is not only global, but will also inevitably backfire on U.S. domestic enterprises.

In order to end dependence on overseas suppliers, Biden signed an executive order in February requiring a 100-day review of the U.S. supply chain for four types of products: semiconductor chips, high-capacity batteries for electric vehicles, rare earth minerals, and pharmaceuticals. There are also plans to complete a risk assessment of the production supply chain of six major sectors, including communication technology, within a year. But some U.S. officials say that frankly, it is unlikely that this will fundamentally solve the longstanding supply chain problems in the United States, not to mention the immediate chip shortage.

It can be said that from the Trump administration's chaotic moves against China to the Biden administration's combination of various policy measures deeply tied to the U.S. reconstruction strategy, what remains unchanged is the confrontation-oriented mindset. In a modern society where globalization is growing and the world expects peace and security, this kind of confrontational thinking of the strategic containment of other countries in the name of protecting one's own security and threatening the security of other countries is extremely anachronistic.


自美国总统拜登上任以来,在“重建美国”的理念指导下,美国在科技领域对其他国家的敌视进一步升级。相比特朗普时期,拜登政府对供应链安全问题更加“情有独钟”。在拜登政府发布的《过渡时期国家安全战略指南》中,明确提到大国之间在半导体、人工智能和量子计算等新兴技术开发和部署方面存在激烈竞争,并特别强调了保卫供应链安全。相较特朗普版《国家安全战略报告》,指南更进一步武断认为“中国是美国的头号竞争对手”。在此背景下,拜登邀请全球19家大型相关企业就芯片短缺问题召开会议,唯独将中国企业排斥在外,显示出意图结成所谓“同盟”,在芯片供应链上与中国“脱钩”的阴险用心。

事实上,全球供应链紧张,特别是芯片短缺的根本原因,正是美国对别国进行钳制,导致全球产业链受到严重破坏。比如美国对华为的制裁一度导致多国企业在恐慌情绪下大量囤积芯片,进一步加剧了“芯片荒”。而美国为了维护自身垄断和霸权地位,一再泛化所谓国家安全概念,滥用“实体清单”,恶意打压中国企业和机构。今年4月8日,美国商务部将中国7家实体列入“实体清单”,其中既有国产芯片代表性企业,也有国家超级计算中心。截至目前,中国已有超过300个机构或个人被美国列入“实体清单”,涉及范围也从技术领域日益泛化。近期,英媒曝光美国国会参议员给美国商务部的信件,内容为要求对中国所有设计14纳米以下的芯片企业实施出口管制。中国市场对于全球半导体行业复苏有巨大带动作用,在世界芯片产能结构性短缺的当下,美国单方面“去中国化”的危险尝试可能带来的潜在伤害不仅是全球性的,也必然会反噬美国本土企业。

为了摆脱对海外供应商的依赖,拜登在今年2月签署行政令,要求对美国半导体芯片、电动汽车大容量电池、稀土矿产和药品这四类产品的供应链展开为期100天的审查,并计划在一年内完成对包括通讯科技在内的六大部门生产供应链的风险评估。但有美国官员坦言,此举难以根本解决美国积弊已久的供应链问题,更无法缓解近在眼前的“芯片饥渴”。

可以说,从特朗普政府对中国挥出的“乱拳”,到拜登政府将种种政策措施与美国重建战略深度捆绑的“组合拳”,不变的是以对抗为主的思路。在全球化日益发展,和平与安全成为世界期盼的现代社会,这种以所谓保护本国安全为名对其他国家进行战略遏制、威胁别国安全的对抗思维是极其不合时宜的。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Venezuela: The Devil in Los Angeles

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Topics

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Venezuela: The Devil in Los Angeles

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Poland: Los Angeles Riots: Battle for America’s Future

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Related Articles

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Venezuela: Trump’s Foreign Policy

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony