(Source: "First Finance", 2024-12-26)
At the end of 2024, two institutions that were influential in US trade policies, the US Department of Commerce and the US Trade Representative Office (USSTR) -have released signals that seem to be contradictory.
On the 23rd, the U.S. Trade Representative Office (USTR) announced the launch of a 301 survey on the related policies of the Chinese chip industry. Earlier, the US Minister of Commerce Raymond said on the 22nd that the United States' effort to limit China to gaining advanced semiconductor technology did not hinder China's progress and curbing China's semiconductor industry will be "spending effort".
A spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce said on the 23rd that the US 301 survey has obvious unilateral and protective colors. Earlier, the US 301 tariffs on China had been ruled by the WTO that violated the rules of the WTO and was opposed by many members of the WTO. China has repeatedly submitted to the United States for seriously negotiating.
It is worth pointing out that the United States provides huge subsidies for the chip industry of the country through the "Chip and Science Law". U.S. companies occupy nearly half of the global chip market. This is obviously contradictory.
w88 live casinoFor the w88 online sports bettingmultiple contradictions released by the United States, Tu Xinquan, the dean of the WTO Research Institute of the University of Foreign Economics and Trade, said in an interview with the First Financial Reporter that this may be regarded as the "last madness" of the current US government. The U.S. government has always adopted a similar attitude in many fields. Regardless of the solution mechanism for multilateral trade disputes or unilateral operations for national security, its logic is always the same: as long as the United States believes that a certain action meets the needs of national security, it will follow the needs of national security.
He told reporters that as for the timing of the survey, it is really intriguing. On the one hand, USSTR is about to usher in a generalization. The current trade representative Dai Qi "brushes the sense of presence" at the last moment may be to pave the way for his career or political career and leave some "results" of performing duties.

Why does the United States conflict
First Financial: A spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce said that the mature process chip report released by the Ministry of Commerce recently showed that Chinese -made chips accounted for only 1.3%of the US market share. Chinese chip exports to the United States is far lower than from the United States.
Tu Xinquan: In fact, the core means of launching a 301 survey in the United States are using its market as a bargaining chip.
Historically, regardless of Japan, the European Union, or China, the United States has approved the "economic stick" to form a deterrence by virtue of its position as its main export market. However, in the field of mature chips, the United States is neither China's main export market, but also lacks sufficient chips to pressure China.
From the status quo of Sino -US semiconductor trade, the United States is not the main export market of China's integrated circuits, and related products export the United States only account for about 1.7%of China's total exports. Similarly, China is not the main source of chip imports in the w88 mobileUnited States, w88 online casinoand China's mature process chip accounts for only 1.3%of the US market share.
In addition, even if this survey is launched, its subsequent execution will be left to the next government to complete, and whether the policy continues after the generalization is uncertain. The contradiction between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party still chose to launch such actions during this sensitive period, which undoubtedly increases the complexity of the event.
From an industrial perspective, this 301 survey may not have a substantial impact on the chip industry of both China and the United States. As far as I know, the relevant Chinese associations have communicated with the US Semiconductor Industry Association, and the latter seemed to be surprised by the investigation, and obviously did not pay great attention.
First Financial: At present, we see that there are obvious self -conflict in many behaviors, such as its implementation of the "Chip and Science Act", and also supports home enterprises through subsidies. How to evaluate such dual standards or contradictions?
Tu Xinquan: The United States is a country with pragmatism. Its so -called "morality" has always been conditional, boundary, or even limited.
In the field of trade, the same is true. Looking back at the development process of the Guan Trade Agreement (GATT), you will find that the "exception" of many rules is the result of the United States promoted.
The contradiction between the United States about its own policies is well -known, and these behaviors are actually "facing their faces." However, the United States does not care about it -it fundamentally does not care whether these contradictions will weaken their moral foundation or international reputation.
Does the United States acknowledge the failure of curbing the development of Chinese chip development
First Finance: A report released by the Fed in New York this summer states that the US export control measures have not changed substantially on the cooperation relationship of semiconductor companies. What do you think of this view in the United States?
w88 casino games loginw88 online live casinoTu Xinquan: Recently, the Chinese Business and Economic Affairs expert of the US Strategy and International Issues Research Center, Scott Kennedy, published an article in the "Foreign Affairs" magazine, mentioning that the "anti -phase effect" of the American scientific and technological warfare "reflux effect" (Backfire).
At the same time, I think the United States may underestimate China's ability. Although chip manufacturing is a field of industry specialty, it is more reflected in a "skill" instead of simply "technology".
For example, in terms of chip manufacturing, Chinese companies have gradually overcome many technical problems that have been considered difficult to surpass. This breakthrough is more from countless trials and experience accumulation.
First Financial: Raymond Duo mentioned that curbing China is "spending effort". How proportion of this view is in the US economic and trade community?
Tu Xinquan: This statement of Raymondo does not rule out its reflection on the current policy effect. In fact, the frequent adjustment of export control policies in the United States in recent years, especially the continuous increase in "direct product rules", just shows that early measures have not achieved the expected results.
Therefore, Raymondo mentioned that "curbing China is a time -consuming kung fu", which may reflect her disappointment or reflection on the effectiveness of the policy. She may be summing up the work results of the past few years, especially in the context of the upcoming steps, she needs to examine whether these measures really meet the expectations.
Link to the original text:https://m.yicai.com/news/102418343.html