On March 28, local time, the U.S. Senate passed the U.S. Competition Act by a vote of 68:28.
The 2,375-page bill clearly stated that its purpose is to use China as a "strategic opponent" to boost the international competitiveness of the United States in science and technology, education, economy, diplomacy and other fields.
After the bill passed the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said unabashedly that the United States "cannot afford to be second" in technology fields such as semiconductors, biotechnology and other high-tech industries.
White House spokesman Psaki's statement in a written statement was more blunt: "Today, the Senate took another step forward -- fulfilling the president's vision to strengthen our supply chain and make more American products for decades to come. beat China."
Diao Daming, a researcher at the National Institute of Development and Strategy of Renmin University of China and the secretary-general of the American Research Center, said in an interview with a reporter from China Youth Daily and China Youth Daily that he hopes to eradicate the chronic diseases of the United States and enhance its comprehensive national strength with "external treatment of internal diseases". This kind of routine is not new to the United States; however, the adoption of legislation to institutionalize and frame negative policies toward China is the first time since the normalization of Sino-U.S. relations, and Sino-U.S. relations may face overall challenges in the future.
U.S. Competition Act new bottle of old wine
The release of the American Competition Act of 2022 can be described as twists and turns.
In April 2021, Schumer and Republican Senator Todd Young jointly proposed the "Endless Frontier Act", which aims to increase investment in the technology sector and win the competition with China, but it was not passed due to too much controversy.
In May, Schumer launched the "American Innovation and Competition Act" on the basis of the aborted "Endless Frontier Act", planning to invest 250 billion US dollars in scientific and technological research and development, in preparation for "comprehensive competition with China in the field of technology".
In June, the Senate voted to pass the American Innovation and Competition Act.
However, the House response to the bill has been tepid, and the bill has no text.
At the same time, the House of Representatives is in full swing to concoct its own China competition bill.
Like the Senate, the House's "American Competition Act" also has a blueprint - the "Bioeconomic Research and Development Act", proposed by Texas Rep. Eddie Johnson in July 2021, and was also shelved due to controversy.
Under the promotion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others, at the beginning of 2022, the bill will reappear in Congress under the new name of the "American Competition Act" by combining the previous "American Chip Act", "Eagle Act" and other bills.
On February 4, the House narrowly passed the 3,610-page bill.
After the U.S. Competition Act was sent to the Senate by the House of Representatives, Republicans said it was "not tough enough" on China and "overly focused on irrelevant issues like climate change and social inequality."
The Senate used new bottles of old wine to replace the content of the "American Competition Act" with the "American Innovation and Competition Act" that had been on hold in the House of Representatives for a long time, but the name of the bill remained unchanged, and the revised bill was returned to the House of Representatives for consideration.
According to the news released by the U.S. Congress on April 4, the House of Representatives has requested a meeting of the Consultative Committee to discuss the differences between the bills of the two houses.
According to the relevant laws, the Senate can delete the "no actual expenditure" clause in the bill, and the House of Representatives can veto the clause "unrelated" to the core content of the bill; after a unanimous version is determined, it will be submitted to US President Biden for signature before it can take effect.
U.S. government 'eager to compete' with China
Judging from the currently released version, the bills in the Senate and House of Representatives have both similarities and differences.
Both houses emphasize the importance of technology education, will invest heavily in education programs such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), and authorize about $80 billion in grants to the National Science Foundation over the next five years.
Both chambers reinforce U.S. leadership in international technical standards-setting bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union — and both versions mention that Beijing is "actively striving for leadership in these areas."
The biggest difference between the two House versions is trade policy, which reflects the different political positions of the two parties in the economic field.
For example, the Senate version contains provisions to restart tariff exclusions and refund some importers' tariffs, but the House version does not have such content; the House version contains provisions to address climate change, reflecting the Democratic Party's consistent focus on climate issues, but There is no relevant clause in the Senate version; the House version mentions "strengthening Taiwan's defense" and calls for the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office" to be renamed "Taiwan Representative Office in the United States," but the Senate version does not have this article.
In Diao Daming's view, these differences are all details, and there is no major difference in direction between the two versions.
The political orientations of the two chambers are different—the Senate focuses on a macro-strategic approach, while the House represents more fragmented interests.
The main differences between the versions of the two houses are reflected in how to enhance the comprehensive strength of the United States and how to distribute benefits. The differences on China are minimal.
In fact, the thousands of pages of the bill itself is a "master playbook for strategic competition with China", which aims to cover the demands of all parties through a "package plan" to gain the widest possible recognition.
Washington's "competitiveness" towards China was evident long before the introduction of the US Competition Act.
In July last year, Biden signed a sweeping executive order to "promote the competitiveness of the U.S. economy", aimed at cracking down on the "flattening" phenomenon in various industries.
Under the executive order, the United States established the White House Competition Commission, whose members include senior officials from the Department of Justice, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission to oversee the implementation of the executive order.
Diao Daming believes that this series of actions shows that the White House "can't wait, and will act before legislation", and is naturally happy to see the "American Competition Act".
Therefore, there is no suspense in the negotiation process of the bill between the two houses, and "the result should be available within a week or two"; the bill will be submitted to Biden and will be signed and passed soon.
According to an analysis by AFP, this bill will allow Biden to have more "achievements" to talk about before the mid-term elections in November.
"The United States is sick but makes China take medicine"
According to rough statistics, there are 440 mentions of "China" in the House version of the bill - an average of every 8 pages of "China"; there are 663 references to "China" in the Senate version of the bill - an average of 3.6 pages Once "China".
"China" has become a "tool" to promote the competitiveness of the United States.
No matter which version of the U.S. Competition Act, there are roughly three categories of provisions involving "China": one is to compete with China in the fields of scientific research, economy, and diplomacy; the other is to impose restrictions or direct pressure on the Chinese government, industries and enterprises; The third is to interfere in China's internal affairs such as Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan.
Especially in "competition with China", the Senate and House of Representatives have basically reached a consensus.
According to the review of the versions of the two academies by the China Academy of International Relations, the consensus includes: authorizing the US State Department to hire experts to assist US companies in China-related supply chain management; supporting the decoupling of the economy from China; The act of providing aid and financing by foreign governments of strategic value”; advancing infrastructure projects in the Asia-Pacific region; requiring the U.S. State Department to submit an assessment report on “China’s foreign investment in energy development” within 180 days of the Act’s entry into force, and every 5 years thereafter; Promote the diversification of U.S. information and communication products and services exports and supply chain channels, reduce import dependence on China, and so on.
"In recent years, the "American Competition Act" is one of the few major bills that both parties in the United States can reach a consensus on that involves both policy adjustment and fiscal expenditure." Diao Daming said that through legislation to determine the negative China policy framework, China U.S. relations are bound to have a more negative impact.
In addition, there is no corresponding implementation plan for some provisions in the bill, which means that there is no time limit. Once some politicians intend to take negative actions on China affairs, they can always find the so-called legislative basis - "This is a problem for China and the United States. Relationships are like a sword hanging over your head."
He pointed out that since the normalization of Sino-US diplomatic relations, such a situation has never happened between China and the United States. In the future, Sino-US relations may no longer just be at odds on some specific issues, but will encounter "overall, prospect challenges. ".
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has responded to the two versions of the US Competition Act with strong China-related implications.
When the version of the House of Representatives was released in February this year, spokesman Zhao Lijian said that the bill is full of Cold War mentality and zero-sum philosophy, slandering China's development path and domestic and foreign policies, and advocating competition with China. Wait for the problem to point fingers.
When the Senate version was released in March, spokesman Wang Wenbin said that the China-related content of the relevant bill runs counter to the general desire of people from all walks of life in China and the United States to strengthen exchanges and cooperation.
How the United States develops is the United States' own business. Don't take China as an imaginary enemy and talk about China at every turn.
"It is obviously impossible to effectively solve the problems of the United States by relying on 'internal diseases and external treatment' to solve their own problems, and let others take medicine when they are sick." Sober awareness.
After World War II, the US government implemented "institutional leadership" internally and "adversarial leadership" externally.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, problems at all levels in the United States have become increasingly prominent, and the country's development has fallen into a state of internal and external difficulties. Corresponding adjustments must be made, such as boosting the country's competitiveness and improving governance capabilities to respond to people's demands.
However, the political structure of the two-party system in the United States and the different interests represented by each party make it difficult to form a synergy to solve its social problems.
"Therefore, the United States needs a rhetoric to solve its own problems, that is, to solve its own problems by solving the 'China problem'. Of course, when dealing with the 'China problem', the two parties also have different interests." Diao Daming said.
Suppressing China is hard to hinder China's development
Among all the areas of competition with China covered by the US Competition Act, semiconductor manufacturing is the top priority. Both versions of the Act plan to allocate $52 billion to invest in the US semiconductor industry.
There are traces of the idea behind this provision.
The chip shortage encountered by the world in 2021 has not yet been significantly relieved.
Shortly after taking office, Biden held a semiconductor summit at the White House, saying that he would invest in semiconductors and batteries in a "radical" way.
In September of the same year, the Biden administration asked a number of semiconductor companies to provide chip supply chain information in order to grasp the status of semiconductor supply.
Just days before the Senate passed the U.S. Competition Act, U.S. Commerce Secretary Raimondo held a bipartisan meeting to discuss how the U.S. could compete with China in the chip space.
"The United States believes that semiconductor manufacturing is the direction in which the United States can lead the world's science and technology in the future. In addition to semiconductor chips, high-tech including AI is of great significance. Obviously, the United States should continue to make efforts in these directions." Diao Daming believes that, Since the United States has positioned the world pattern as "strategic competition", it must make arrangements in advance in areas that effectively ensure the competitiveness and leadership of the United States.
The United States has a long tradition of ensuring its superiority in cutting-edge technology, from the Manhattan Project, which aimed to develop nuclear weapons, to the predecessor of the Endless Frontiers Act, proposed in the era of Roosevelt Jr.
However, the "American Competition Act" is more clearly targeted than the plan of the year.
However, can the use of national power be able to achieve strategic goals?
Take chip manufacturing as an example, including raw material production, corresponding technologies, and manufacturing links that have already been highly divided in the context of economic globalization. Can the United States master it in a short period of time?
Diao Daming believes that the US approach goes against the logic of economic globalization.
Even if there is sufficient financial support, and even if it does not cause political conflict in the relevant countries and regions, moving the complete industrial chain to the United States, "I am afraid it is not something that can be done in three to five years."
Attempts to suppress China's development by staying ahead in these areas may not achieve what the United States wishes.
In the face of a series of moves by the United States to contain China in recent years, China has always emphasized that in the new era, China and the United States should adhere to three principles, namely mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation.
Diao Daming said that the strategy is comprehensive, such as strengthening high-level communication, finding more possible cooperation points, and fully mobilizing positive factors in the United States and around the world.
Looking back on the Sino-US interaction in the past period, Diao Daming pointed out that despite the constant friction between China and the US, the economic and trade structure has remained stable, and China's exports to the US have even increased.
Taking a step back, even if China and the United States are completely "decoupled" in the future, it may help to accelerate the pace of China's independent innovation to a certain extent.
He said: "Although the national strength and influence of the United States should not be underestimated, it is difficult to hinder China's development. Historical experience has already shown this."
This newspaper, Beijing, April 6th
China Youth Daily, China Youth Daily reporter Hu Wenli Source: China Youth Daily