Source: wechat official account: Bu Yidao has been authorized to reprint
Pen / Tiger knife & Huyidao
Five Chinese enterprises were sanctioned, and China was mentioned 14 times in the G7 joint communique
Both the G7 summit just concluded and the NATO summit that followed in full swing are intentionally or unintentionally using “exceptionally tough on China” to show that the small circle led by the United States is still “as united as ever”.
However, behind the amiable faction, there is the embarrassment that Japanese leaders were covered up in the group photo, and there is also the division that failed to implement the price ceiling on Russian oil.
At the same time, the shadow of high inflation, slowing economic growth and energy shortage in Europe and the United States has not disappeared this winter.
It can be said that this year’s western “small circle party” showed the unprecedented weakness and differences of this small group.
Moreover, the latest US sanctions against Chinese enterprises have set an extremely bad precedent. This is also the first time since the outbreak of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in February that the United States has taken action against Chinese entities for Russian related businesses.
According to past cases, once the United States has opened a new hole, it will continue to expand its attack area according to its own needs.
The international community should not take any chances.
01
Five more Chinese companies have been added to the sanctions list by the United States.
The reason this time is that they are suspected of providing support to Russian military and defense enterprises before and during the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, in violation of the sanctions.
This is also the first time since the outbreak of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in February that the United States has taken action against Chinese entities for Russian related businesses.
The picture shows the US Department of Commerce Building in Washington
The five Chinese companies are Kangnai electronics, Jinpai technology, Xinnuo electronics, Shengning electronics and world Jetta (Hong Kong) logistics.
It is worth mentioning that the so-called legal basis that these companies violate is the domestic law of the United States.
Liaofan, a professor of the Law School of the University of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that from the perspective of this sanction, it is mainly in the field of export control. This is based on the U.S. export administration regulations and the “commercial control list” (CCL) formulated by the Bureau of industry and security of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which implements license management for the export of specific U.S. products and technologies to Russia. CCL includes thousands of dual-use equipment, materials, software and technologies, covering a wide range. The U.S. export control to Russia focuses on defense, aviation, shipping and other industries.
Liaofan said that according to the regulations, export control not only includes products originating in the United States, but also includes products from third countries that contain a certain proportion of American ingredients or use American technology and equipment. Since the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the industry and Security Bureau of the U.S. Department of Commerce has included more products from third countries into the scope of export control to Russia by modifying the proportion requirements and raising the approval standards, and has not granted export licenses except for individual cases. So it is more strict overall.
The so-called international sanctions should be authorized by the United Nations Security Council in strict accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, with clear objectives, provisions for periodic review and conditions for lifting sanctions.
In addition, the US Department of commerce also included 31 entities from Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Lithuania, Pakistan, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Uzbekistan and Vietnam in the blacklist.
Meanwhile, on the way to the NATO summit, White House national security adviser Sullivan publicly admitted that there was little evidence that China supported Russia militarily or violated the sanctions imposed by Russia after sending troops to Ukraine.
This is not the first time that the US side has made a similar statement.
In May this year, senior U.S. officials said that so far, China has not found any action to support Russia’s military action against Ukraine militarily and economically.
Isn’t that a contradiction?
While imposing sanctions on some Chinese enterprises, he said that China had not violated the sanctions.
Fundamentally, in the eyes of politicians in the United States and the west, China’s “fault” is that it has not done enough – Sullivan said that Beijing needs to make every effort to end the war because many less developed countries have suffered losses due to soaring food and fuel prices.
Why should the United States block China and Russia from maintaining normal energy and economic and trade cooperation? And “punish” China with this?
The US sanctions against Chinese enterprises on the 28th set another extremely bad precedent. According to past cases, once the United States has opened a new hole, it will continue to expand its attack area according to its own needs.
The Chinese are firmly opposed to this. They will certainly take necessary measures to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of their own enterprises. They must beat the “long arm” that the United States has been extending and let it learn a long lesson.
The international community also needs to stop it. The sooner it takes action, the less harm and scope it will cause. Opposing hegemonism is not only a moral imperative, but also an interest. The international community should not take any chances with the United States.
The Chinese Embassy in the United States responded that China and Russia maintain normal energy and economic and trade cooperation, and the legitimate interests of Chinese enterprises should not be damaged. The United States has imposed unilateral sanctions and so-called “long arm jurisdiction” on other countries in accordance with its domestic law, in violation of international law and the basic norms of international relations. China will take necessary measures to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of its enterprises.
02
14 references to China.
The three-day G7 summit hosted by Germany ended on Tuesday. In the joint communique issued by the G7 leaders, “China” seemed to be the protagonist and was mentioned 14 times.
You know, in the G7 joint communique a year ago, China was mentioned only four times.
Moreover, this year’s joint communique shows a tough line in terms of China related statements, which is different from the past. Although the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is the top topic of this year’s G7 summit, some participating countries seem afraid that it will take away the attention of “confrontation with China” and link the two rigidly.
The joint communique called on China to “must” urge Russia to comply with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly;
China should “abandon” its maritime claims in the South China Sea;
To make “unprecedented” severe criticism of China’s human rights policy;
Urges China to make “constructive contributions” to the debt relief programs of developing countries;
Remind China to abide by the UN Charter and “peacefully resolve cross strait issues”;
……
This arrogant manner of pointing fingers and pointing fingers leapt onto the paper.
US officials said the joint statement was “unprecedented” within the group of seven.
In addition, some politicians in some countries may feel that the G7 joint statement is not clear enough to express their anti China position, and have issued a “warning voice” to China on many occasions.
The first is Britain.
British Defense Secretary Wallace urged increased defense investment to respond to threats not only from Russia, but also from other countries such as China.
The British government said in a statement on Tuesday evening that due to the increased military support to Ukraine, Britain’s defense spending this year is expected to reach 2.3% of GDP. Wallace called for the defense budget to be raised to 2.5% of GDP by 2028.
This is far higher than the threshold that NATO requires Member States to keep their defense spending at 2%.
In addition, at a recent group meeting with the prime ministers of Australia and Belgium, British Foreign Secretary trass said that the G7 countries and Australia should use their “economic strength” to challenge China, and Britain and other countries can even reconsider the way they trade with China.
Use trade with China to “threaten China”? Britain itself should first clear up its trade disputes with the EU.
With Britain unilaterally preparing to amend the “Northern Ireland agreement”, Johnson also proposed to extend the steel import tariff to protect the domestic steel industry. It is expected that another “trade fight” between Britain and the EU is inevitable.
At the same time, in the first quarter of 2021, China replaced Germany as the largest import market of the UK. According to the data released by the UK Department of international trade on August 19, 2021, as of the first quarter of 2021, the total trade in goods and services between China and the UK was 84.6 billion pounds.
At that time, if Britain still insists on going its own way and uses its trade relations with China as a tool for political game, I don’t know whose throat it will finally hold.
The second is Japan.
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s trip to Europe this time is very substantial. After the G7 summit, he has to attend the NATO summit as an observer for the first time.
Referring to the situation in Ukraine, Kishida pointed out that “today’s Ukraine may be tomorrow’s East Asia”, saying that Japan will thoroughly enhance its defense capability within five years and will ensure a considerable increase in its defense budget. In addition, in terms of security, it is necessary for the G7 to cooperate closely to safeguard the rule-based international order.
He also mentioned again the Diaoyu Islands and the Taiwan Strait issue, and strongly said that attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by relying on strength are not allowed.
Japan has voluntarily surrendered to NATO, a product of the old cold war, increased its defense budget, exacerbated regional tensions, and pursued absolute security in the name of collective defense. Japan is intentionally or unintentionally introducing the scourge of the cold war into the Asia Pacific.
03
Why did the resolution of the G7 summit verbally show a kind of hardness to China that was rare in the past?
Cuihongjian, director of the European Institute of the Chinese Academy of international studies, said that it was mainly because this year’s summit was held against the background of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The leaders of the G7 countries will first make internal coordination on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and at the same time, they will transfer the unresolved internal contradictions outward, shifting the responsibility to China.
In the view of the G7 countries, the reason why Russia can continue to fight is that “China may have played a role” to some extent. However, even the United States admits that so far there is no evidence that China provides military resources to Russia or that China undermines Western sanctions against Russia. Under such circumstances, the main thing they can do is to exert diplomatic pressure on China. This G7 statement, in fact, is more of a tough stance.
Next, if they still cannot find evidence, the means they have taken to China are actually becoming more and more limited. It is nothing more than diplomacy and public opinion, or pulling several Chinese enterprises into the blacklist, just as the United States has done recently. However, the US sanctions against Chinese enterprises have no concrete evidence, and are more aimed at intimidating us. While saying that it could not find evidence of China’s support for Russia, it also imposed sanctions on Chinese enterprises. In fact, this practice is difficult to get the support of European countries.
Cuihongjian believes that the United States has been trying to bind China and Russia. On the one hand, it can deliberately emphasize China’s influence on Russia and attack China’s international image; On the other hand, China can be blamed for the delay in resolving the Russia Ukraine conflict. However, there have been differences between the United States and Europe on whether China and Russia should bind.
On the one hand, European countries do not think that China and Russia are the same. After all, there are great differences between China and Russia in the way to solve problems and the starting point of policies; On the other hand, it is difficult for them to solve the problem of dependence on the Chinese market while solving their dependence on Russian energy. If we do that, it will be almost a disaster for the economies of most European countries.
Therefore, we can see that the leaders of European countries have mentioned that there is no way to deviate from the interests of cooperation with China.
Liao Fan, a professor at the Law School of the University of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that the sanctions imposed by the United States on Russia can be mainly divided into four categories: specific regional sanctions, import and export restrictions, financial sanctions and other relevant sanctions. There are two kinds of nature of sanctions. One is primary sanctions, which is to restrict American enterprises and companies, including American technology products, from contacting Russia. The other kind of sanctions is to expand the scope, that is, when Russia is the target of U.S. sanctions, enterprises from other countries such as China can not have cooperation or procurement support with Russia in the above-mentioned areas.
In particular, Chinese enterprises are involved in transactions with the target of sanctions through the technology, products or financial system of the United States. For example, the most typical example is the previous US sanctions against Iran and North Korea, which also require Chinese companies to abide by.
This is a very hegemonic approach, and the United States, as a hegemonic country, relies on these means to maintain its position and suppress its opponents. The purpose is to keep the position of your boss stable for a long time. Therefore, it is expected that the United States will impose sanctions on Chinese companies under this pretext.
Previously, the United States mainly warned about the trade cooperation and oil procurement between China and Russia, especially the military technical cooperation and military products supply between China and Russia. However, the United States has not found the evidence they said.
Now there are several changing factors:
First, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has entered a white hot stage. At present, Ukraine is at a disadvantage, and the United States and Europe are in a hurry.
Second, it is difficult for the United States and Europe to provide any more effective weapons for Ukraine’s military equipment support. If the United States and the West provide more heavy offensive weapons, it will be equivalent to the direct participation of the United States and the West in the war. Russia certainly does not agree. In that case, the war will risk an all-round escalation.
Third, with the long-term conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the United States has found that the previous financial sanctions, oil trade sanctions and import and export controls have had an impact on Russia, but they still cannot allow Russia to suspend military operations in a short time. Under these changes, the United States will certainly increase its pressure on China and impose more restrictions on Trade and cooperation between China and Russia through sanctions.
The communique of the G7 meeting was harsh. For China, liaofan believed that it was mainly because of the poor economic conditions in Russia, the United States and Europe, the serious inflation, high prices, the dissatisfaction of the people, and a lot of strikes and protests. The United States and Europe do not have any good ideas. Recently, strikes have been going on in several European countries.
Therefore, this also reflects the mentality of the G7 countries. They are very anxious, but there is no way. Therefore, it is hoped that China can change its trade policy and reduce its support for Russia. This in turn highlights the importance of China.