Overemphasizing security

The West should see the negative impact of its theory of decoupling with China and conduct constructive exchanges with Beijing

The overstretching of security concepts is having a negative impact that cannot be ignored on the current international landscape. At the Summer Summit of the European Union and the G7 Summit, the United States and some other Western countries repeatedly mentioned “de-risking” in their China policy.

In the name of de-risking, they have tightened restrictions on China in terms of market access and supply chains. Recently, the US and the Netherlands strengthened export controls to China, and Washington continues to tighten scrutiny and bans on some Chinese internet companies.

The RESTRICT Act, proposed by some US congressmen, specifically targets technology companies in “hostile” countries. Although the leaders of the US and the West have realized that decoupling with China is in the interests of neither parties, they still intend to monopolize the right to define the rules for security and use de-risking to continue their economic bullying of China.

In fact, the premise of security is dialogue. Western countries should let go of their confrontational thinking and carry out diplomacy with China based on negotiation, dialogue and consensus building.

At present, non-traditional security challenges frequently take place around the world, and new fields such as digital space pose challenges to national governance. However, in the era of globalization, there is a high degree of interest entanglement among countries. Overstretching the concept of security on unilateral terms and pursuing unilateral security means government intervention in spontaneously formed social and economic activities, which will inevitably damage the interests of other stakeholders, especially other countries. In addition, the overstretching of security concepts also forces other countries to take measures to maintain non-traditional security. Therefore, it is important for countries to conduct negotiations to ensure that security measures will not cross the line.

It is difficult for all countries to adopt a set of universal international security standards due to differences in their national conditions, strategic goals and values. For example, in the field of the digital economy, although developed countries emphasize the transparency of digital regulation and support the facilitation and openness of the digital economy, developing countries, often lag behind in experience and technological expertise, need more and broader regulation of digital economic activities. The requirements for equivalence in standards often put developing nations at a disadvantageous position vulnerable to security risks. For all countries to collectively reduce global security risks, it is important for them to respect the security demands of other countries based on their national conditions, determine through negotiations the code of conduct accepted by all parties, and the road map for countries to build security systems.

Currently, Western countries are facing a series of external security challenges, but their solutions tend to be unilateral confrontation based on ideological bias instead of bilateral and multilateral dialogue. On the issue of trade with China, the US adopts two methods — unilateral assessment and adjustment and consultations within small circles — to “reduce the vulnerability of its supply chains”.

Washington has given priority to formulating rules through organizations such as G7, and promoting such rules through the establishment of the “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity” and other new mechanisms that exclude China.

Although leaders of the West now avoid using confrontational concepts such as decoupling and instead emphasize de-risking, their definition of security risks is still relatively arbitrary. On the other hand, regarding China’s recent legislation, such as the newly revised Counter-Espionage Law, some Western governments have criticized China for “expanding the scope of security concepts” and hyped up the “political significance” behind the legislation. Regarding China’s review of Micron’s products, some US politicians, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, claimed that it was “unacceptable”. It can be seen that on security issues, some developed countries are taking unilateral decisions, even abusing economic tools to attack companies from other countries to achieve so-called security.

In 2022 alone, the number of sanctions imposed by the US Department of the Treasury exceeded 2,200, up by nearly 20 percent on a yearly basis. These unilateral security measures disrupted the order of international economic activities, harmed the interests of other countries, and brought consequences such as high inflation and supply shortages in Western countries including the US. In addition, security measures on unilateral terms intensify confrontation among major powers and weaken the ability of the international community to coordinate and solve global problems.

Some Western strategists argue that China and the US have ideological differences and “lack of a basis for dialogue” to justify building a circle of small-sidedness and downplay arguments for engagement with China.

However, dialogue among major countries is a prerequisite for reducing misjudgments and controlling risks, not the other way around. During the Cold War, despite their fierce competition, the US and the Soviet Union conducted long-term negotiations on nuclear risks, and even established a mutual inspection mechanism recognized by both sides. Even though this dialogue has been interrupted multiple times due to political factors, it had helped prevent the escalation of conflicts and ensured the nuclear security of the two superpowers and other countries for decades.

China-US and China-EU dialogues still face many obstacles. For example, in February, some hawkish politicians in the US accused China for using unmanned airships to conduct espionage activities, which led to the postponement of Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s planned visit to China. However, since 2022, senior officials from Germany, France, the US and other countries have made successive visits to China and held high-level dialogues, which is an important step in the right direction for communication and controlling security risks.

The West should avoid the “twofaced” approach of calling for rationality during dialogues and inciting confrontation after returning home, reduce the hype about the so-called China threat, and work with China to explore the establishment of a normalized security dialogue mechanism.

The various factors that led to international instability, especially the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and turmoil in supply chains, are all related to some countries’ one-sided pursuit of “absolute security” and emphasis on confrontation rather than negotiation. The security threats advocated by some politicians have in fact become a selffulfilling prophecy, and their de-risking measures are actually harmful to others and themselves. The US and other Western countries should realize the harm of their theory on decoupling with China, and see clearly the negative impact of overstretching security concepts as soon as possible, and conduct constructive exchanges with Beijing on the basis of high-level dialogues over issues that are of common concern to both sides and countries around the world.

The author is an assistant research fellow of the Institute of World Economics and Politics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and the National Institute for Global Strategy at the CASS. The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

LUO JIE / CHINA DAILY