China is always against politicization and weaponization of economic and trade issues. We are committed to defending liberalization and facilitation of global trade and investment, and defending the stability of global industrial and supply chains. It is the unilateral and protectionist practices of certain countries that have impeded international economic and trade cooperation.

China certainly looks at the US as trying to contain, encircle, and suppress them, and trying to deny them their rightful place in the world. It is not just the leadership who thinks like that. I think if you talk to a lot of the Chinese officials, they feel the same way, they feel that there is this containment to put China down. There is that sense and for every action, there will be an opposite reaction. And so China you will see, trying to find ways to get out of that containment; to make sure they become technologically self-reliant. At the same time, China has been through phases of their development where they talk about standing up, getting rich and now being strong. They see themselves as a strong country, their time has come and they want to be more assertive in their national interest, including their national interest overseas. But there too, China will have to learn – as all big countries do – that if they overdo it, if they push their way around, coerce, squeeze or pressurise other countries, it will engender a backlash – including in the region. That is why they cannot go too far, and they will have to learn that lesson – it is a lesson that all big countries go through.

Unless we're making the argument of "Let's leave three quarters of the people in the world living in abject poverty." I do not see any legitimate rationale behind trying to limit China's growth or trying to oust China from the global supply chain.

China opposes the approach where one’s own absolute security is achieved at the expense and to the detriment of the security of other actors.

[R]ecalibration comes from two important things... First... is that internal challenges for both countries, China for sure on the economic... political... military... A lot of the focus is now inward. Chinese don't think about Americans all day long. ...Second, there's a huge unintended consequence of these technological restrictions... We've seen it in history... that whenever there are restrictions or... walls, it accelerates technological development. So what we have seen in China recently is a national mobilization. Unlikely partners from the big techs, working together. Universities, industries, governments, all trying to tackle the hard and impossible... [T]hat's... accelerated some of the endeavors to leap frog... [W]e're going to see much more of that, because of these restrictions, not despite them.

Twenty years ago, the American economic and political establishment was wrong about China. Today, the consensus view has changed, but it is once again wrong. Now, instead of extolling the virtues of free trade and openness toward China, the establishment beats the drums for a new Cold War, casting China as an existential threat to the United States. We are already hearing politicians and representatives of the military-industrial complex using this as the latest pretext for larger and larger defense budgets. I believe it is important to challenge this new consensus—just as it was important to challenge the old one. The Chinese government is surely guilty of many policies and practices that I oppose and that all Americans should oppose: the theft of technology, the suppression of workers’ rights and the press, the repression taking place in Tibet and Hong Kong, Beijing’s threatening behavior toward Taiwan, and the Chinese government’s atrocious policies toward the Uyghur people. The United States should also be concerned about China’s aggressive global ambitions. The United States should continue to press these issues in bilateral talks with the Chinese government and in multilateral institutions such as the UN Human Rights Council. That approach would be far more credible and effective if the United States upholds a consistent position on human rights toward its own allies and partners.

To a certain extent, what we’ve learned from nearly three years now of the global pandemic is the over reliance that some of us have had on supply chains from China in critical materials, critical for the functioning of our economy or for the industrial enterprises of our most competitive industries. So I think there’s been a major movement to try to make sure that we control our own [supply chains] in certain industries, [so] we have greater access and more reliability about supply chains. This is not just a lesson that we’ve learned; the Europeans [and] Japanese have learned this. You’ve seen movement around the world to make sure that, in a crisis, you control your destiny, and you control your own fate, so your economy can continue to perform at a high level, and you’re not at the mercy of an autocratic power that might deny you critical materials. So, that’s a lesson we’ve learned, and you’ve heard our President, other senior members of our government and many members of the business community talk about that.

When China sends its students to the United States, especially when it sends central bankers and planners to the United States to study (and be recruited), they are told by the U.S. “Do as we say, not as we have done.” The United States is not telling China... how to get rich in the way that it did, by protective tariffs, by creating its own money and by making other countries dependent on it. The United States does not want you to be independent and self-reliant. The United States wants China to let itself become dependent on U.S. finance in order to invest in its own industry... The neoliberal plan is not to make you independent, and not to help you grow except to the extent that your growth will be paid to US investors or used to finance U.S. military spending around the world to encircle you and trying to destabilize you in Sichuan to try to pry China apart. Look at what the United States has done in Russia, and at what the International Monetary Fund in Europe has done to Greece, Latvia and the Baltic states. It is a dress rehearsal for what U.S. diplomacy would like to do to you, if it can convince you to follow the neoliberal US economic policy of financialization and privatization. De-dollarization is the alternative to privatization and financialization.

China wants to shift its production structure, but imbalances in... trade is not just a commercial policy. It's... an imbalance between s and investment, and it's not just due to the currency or trade policies that will solve these imbalances.

Companies around the world cannot make plans, cannot make investments, cannot make assumptions about what’s going to happen, because we don’t know what he’s going to do, we don’t know what the Chinese are going to do. But, you know, there’s a more deep historical problem here. And it’s really American history. When we became an independent nation, it was partly because we were held back—tea party, remember?—by the British. They had a rule: They wanted the colony to be subordinate. We didn’t want to do that as Americans, and we ended up pushing back against the control, the effort to hold back American development. We went to two wars: the Revolutionary War and, again, the War of 1812. The history records are not good about trying to squelch an upcoming economic power. China is today’s upcoming economic power. The effort to squelch and stop it is both likely to fail and extremely dangerous, because these trade wars have a nasty habit of becoming military.

Meanwhile, needless to say, freedom, democracy, and human rights in China have not expanded. They have been severely curtailed as China has moved in a more authoritarian direction, and China has become increasingly aggressive on the global stage. The pendulum of conventional wisdom in Washington has now swung from being far too optimistic about the opportunities presented by unfettered trade with China to being far too hawkish about the threats posed by the richer, stronger, more authoritarian China that has been one result of that increased trade. In February 2020, the Brookings analyst Bruce Jones wrote that “China’s rise—to the position of the world’s second-largest economy, its largest energy consumer, and its number two defense spender—has unsettled global affairs” and that mobilizing “to confront the new realities of great power rivalry is the challenge for American statecraft in the period ahead.” A few months ago, my conservative colleague Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, compared the threat from China to the one posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War: “Once again, America confronts a powerful totalitarian adversary that seeks to dominate Eurasia and remake the world order,” he argued. And just as Washington reorganized the U.S. national security architecture after World War II to prepare for conflict with Moscow, Cotton wrote, "today, America’s long-term economic, industrial, and technological efforts need to be updated to reflect the growing threat posed by Communist China." And just last month, Kurt Campbell, the U.S. National Security Council’s top Asia policy official, said that “the period that was broadly described as engagement [with China] has come to an end” and that going forward, “the dominant paradigm is going to be competition."

China acts according to its interests, including on climate: short-term economic factors may dictate over anything else.

China pursues a defense policy that is defensive in nature. This is out of the need for safeguarding state sovereignty and territorial integrity and maintaining lasting peace and stability for the country. China has never invaded any country nor has it stationed a single soldier abroad. However, there are still some people around the world who keep spreading the fallacy of the "China threat", arguing that a stronger China will threaten others and become a destabilizing factor in the Asia-Pacific region. I believe these people have ulterior motives. They are not happy to see China in development and progress. As is known to all, China's modern history is one that saw its territories ceded and its people subjected to foreign aggression, plunder and enslavement.

Chinese state... power... [and unparalleled] instruments... can... steer, manage, and push the economy... any direction. ...Policy directives, rules, and regulations can be set with little political obstruction. The state can scrap old rules and make new ones overnight... granting or denying... approvals and licenses, or leveraging the to serve a... goal. ...Internal controls and competition curb corruption. ...[C]ivic society holds ...government ...accountable ...Social media ...embodies a two-way monitoring platform ...