PREAMBLE
The Europe-US de-risking from China’s supply chain is in fact much the same as ‘decoupling’ [实际上与“脱钩”是一回事].”
It further implies from the word “risk" means that the EU would, and is, facing a threat from China.
Indeed, The Group of Seven (G-7) countries have had agreed on a central part of their economic approach to China — “de-risking” — and, just as importantly, “de-risking, not decoupling.” This phrase originated with the European Union, so the agreement seems wide, (Brookings, 30th. May, 2023).
However, in what context does the “de” in “de-risking” mean? Some would like to define “de-risking” as “to eliminate risk” or “remove risk.” Then, others would prefer to define it as “reducing the possibility that something bad will happen” or making something “less risky.” The U.S. State Department in a non-China context defines “de-risking” as “to avoid, rather than manage, risk.”
Whatever, it is a hope that within Europe, and the United States, there are competent and rationale enterprises which can, and should, provide many with a handhold [抓手] to win over more China-friendly forces.
This planet of us is a multipolar world, and humanity should supercede greed and domination towards a global development initiative, (thediplomat 11/07/2023) where commodity supply chains are connected seamlessly.
In a two-part essay, various discourses from China's think-tankers are duly presented for your reflective assessment.
Author: Zhong Feiteng (钟飞腾) – Director of the Centre for Regional Security Studies and researcher at the Asia-Pacific and Global Strategy Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)
Published: 05 July 2023
Source: Shijie Zhishi
“In terms of the change in wording at least, 'de-risking' is softer than 'decoupling' … From China's perspective, the positive side of this shift is that, after several years of gamesmanship, the West has finally realised that a full 'decoupling' from China is impossible. In particular, Europe is not willing to maintain the same policy towards China as the US and has expressed its desire to make choices based on its own interests and long-term strategic needs.”
Washington’s adoption of this EU-initiated concept is both an acknowledgement of European autonomy and a sign that the US economy simply cannot do without China.
“[However,] the US and Europe's so-called ‘de-risking from China’, with their emphasis on reducing ties with our country in the areas of technology and supply chains, is in fact much the same as ‘decoupling’ [实际上与“脱钩”是一回事].”
De-risking' and 'decoupling' are intrinsically linked, with the fundamental objective still being to ‘de-sinicise' [去中国化].”
“In the near future, ‘de-risking’ may well be replaced by yet another new term.”
“Through de-risking, the West seeks to achieve three objectives:
“First, to ensure Western dominance in a number of emerging industries.”
“Second, to deny China access to technologies that can be used to enhance its strategic military capabilities.”
“Third, to strengthen as far as possible its manufacturing base at home.”
“As to why there is a campaign to 'de-sinicise', it is the hegemonic mindset of the West that is ultimately at play. Instead of seeing a rising China as more conducive to world peace and development, China is being vilified as a source of ‘risk’ to the West.”
“Treating China as a risk rather than an opportunity will only continue to hinder the world's economic recovery.”
The ambiguity surrounding the concept of ‘de-risking’ will continue to impede on the implementation of its related policies.
Author: Jian Junbo (简军波) – Deputy director of the Centre for China-Europe Relations, Fudan University.
Published: 27 June 2023
Source: The Paper
On why the EU has chosen the term “de-risking”:
The use of the word “risk" implies that the EU is facing a threat from China. Therefore, “de-risking” will allow Brussels to legitimise any of its protectionist trade policies by implying that China is to blame for these.
Jian thus fully agrees with his colleague from Sichuan University Yuan Hang (原航), who stated that “de-risking” is “a discursive trap [designed] by the EU … [which] shifts the blame onto the other party [i.e. China], stigmatises it, and subjects it to its moral judgment, which [in turn] serves as a moral basis for its [i.e. the EU’s] subsequent actions.”
Nevertheless, de-risking should provide Brussels with more flexibility in its approach towards China.
“As the ‘de-risking’ rhetoric grows in popularity in Europe, the true meaning of this term and its actual impact on the [EU’s] economic policy towards China have not yet been clarified or clearly defined. This is perhaps what Europe wanted to achieve: a vague term with an unclear meaning that provides enough room for a more flexible European economic policy towards China.”
The choice of the term “de-risking” rather than “decoupling” has allowed Brussels to find a suitable middle ground between pro-decoupling and pro-engagement voices in Europe. This should allow for greater unity within the EU when it comes to the PRC.
Unity is one of several reasons why Brussels may choose not to delineate the contours of this concept further.
The adoption of this same term by the US should help Brussels and Washington improve the coordination of their economic policies towards the PRC. Despite notable disagreements between the two when it comes to China, “de-risking will become the glue that holds their common China agenda together.”
Implications for China:
Although inherently ambiguous, this “de-risking” process is set to continue the EU’s trend towards the “securitisation” [安全化] of its internal market and the reduction of its multiple dependencies on China. ‘De-risking’ is also set to be used as a means to hinder China’s technological rise.
“On the surface, ‘de-risking’ appears to be milder than ‘decoupling’. Whereas the former is primarily concerned with security, and apparently allows for normal communication to be maintained in areas where security is not involved, 'decoupling' denotes a separation, a complete break at all levels. This is indeed true in terms of the severity conveyed by these terms, but the problem is that de-risking is extremely ambiguous in meaning and is based on a broad generalisation of ‘security risks’. This leaves a huge amount of room for ‘de-risking’ policies to operate in. Although it may not be as bad as decoupling, it will not be as benign as we may imagine.”
“For our country, the ‘de-risking from China’ rhetoric that is currently in vogue in Europe is actually quite deceptive and dangerous [具有相当大的欺骗性和危险]. As mentioned previously, its ambiguity is largely intentional on the part of the Europeans. China should understand the true intentions of their ‘de-risking from China’ [rhetoric] in light of their growing geopolitical awareness.”
“'De-risking' will operate on multiple levels and is set to pose an ongoing challenge to China-EU relations. Thus, the development of appropriate hedging strategies at different levels will be a continuing priority for China. Nevertheless, as long as China continues to upgrade its industries and open up to the outside world, the risks posed to our country by Europe's ‘de-risking from China’ policy will continue to diminish, or even disappear.”