Behind “trade NATO”
The so-called “China Research Group” composed of conservative members of the UK, recently joined a think tank in the United States to release the sixth Anti China report since its establishment for more than a year. The report provides a systematic proposal to incite the “democratic countries” similar to the ideology of the United States and Britain to establish “trade NATO”, in an attempt to isolate China in an all-round way and curb China’s ability and development trend of technological innovation. Through this case, we can find out how some American and British politicians and think tanks can transform into the routine of policy of China making and Anti China through binding operation and by borrowing relevant reports and suggestions.
Motive of processing “trade NATO”
According to the report’s crazy idea, “trade NATO” is equivalent to “Democratic Alliance”, under which all members act in line with China. If China dare to counter the sanctions and political pressure of any country in the alliance, then trade NATO will follow up the sanctions against China in all respects. For example, the report claims that “if China threatens to prohibit its students from going to a country before, then all countries in the alliance will not allow Chinese students to enter; If a western company is listed on the list of untrusted by China, all countries in the alliance will stop importing Chinese goods; If some countries in the alliance disagree with the decision of the alliance, it will lose its qualification to join. ”
To show “objectivity” ostensibly, Robert Atkinson, an American economist, is responsible for the report. As president of the information technology and innovation foundation of the United States (itIf), Atkinson has been committed to inciting the suppression of technological innovation in China for a long time in recent years, and to wipe out China’s technological innovation achievements.
Why did Atkinson put forward the concept of “trade NATO” which is vicious and full of Cold War color? He claims that the West has four options for China’s current means of repression, the first three are: most people advocate to use market laws and strengthen their own technological strength to compete with China; To restrict China through bilateral and multilateral ways; Encourage domestic enterprises to leave or leave the Chinese market, and ban Chinese goods and raw materials, and impose higher tariffs on Chinese products, thus curbing China.
But Atkinson believes that the first option will lead to the decline of the west, while China will gain global hegemony in economy and technology; The second option has not been effective. The trump regime has tried this way and paid economic and political costs for it. Although it has limited the technological development of China to some extent, it failed in general; The third option is being done by the UK and Japan, but it is useful for the former Soviet Union and has limited effect on China.
Therefore, he proposed a fourth option, namely, to form “trade NATO” to curb China’s technological innovation, thus blocking the way of China’s development. Atkinson and the anti Chinese politicians behind it advocated that this way deserves the US and British politicians to try, and even Britain can take the lead in implementing some of these policies. They claim that “trade NATO” is different from the voting mechanism of the next member of the WTO system, which is difficult to achieve the goal of comprehensively containing China. The characteristic of trade NATO is that any country that does not agree to contain China’s policy will not obtain the “trade NATO” access certificate.