Bans and blame serve no real purpose

Again. And again. And again. Seemingly once a week, the United States announces a new set of bans against Chinese organizations and technologies. And each time a new obstacle is put in place, the reality becomes clearer: Washington is scared. US officials know it. So, too, do international audiences.

Consider what has transpired in the US in the past couple of weeks.

On July 23, the Department of Defense updated its "List of Foreign Research Institutions Conducting Problematic Activities", imposing sanctions on more than 80 Chinese institutions. Universities and military organizations dominate the list, and the ban includes a "funding prohibition [that] extends to all employees of such institutions". In other words, every person is judged guilty no matter what he or she does.

Guilty of what exactly? Good luck getting a substantive answer to that. One US official said the moves were needed in order to preserve "the integrity of the American scientific enterprise".

Then on July 28, the US government announced a ban on imports of new Chinese humanoid robots, quadruped robots and grid-connected power inverters, citing national security risks.

Without offering any evidence, the head of the Federal Communications Commission claimed the move was wise because it would "secure America's critical supply chains". The FCC further justified the action by suggesting the devices could pose cybersecurity threats to critical infrastructure.

Note the inclusion of the word "could"; its use provides the rationale for the severe action undertaken. Just do not tell anyone in Washington that the flip side of the word "could" is the phrase "might very well not". That does not fit the tidy little narrative Washington constantly trots out about China being an unfair global partner.

The drumbeat continued on July 31.

On that day, the Department of Homeland Security added 43 more Chinese companies to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List in its largest-ever single expansion. Justifying the sweeping import bans under a "rebuttable presumption" of guilt, officials once again leaned heavily on broad rhetoric of national security and economic protectionism.

Two themes connect the bans announced in July.

First, there is a flawed belief inside the White House and among many who make up the political elite in Washington that the US is capable of going it alone in creating and sustaining the most sophisticated technologies. During both of his terms, the US president has spoken of a rebirth of US manufacturing; he has talked in tones of returning the US to those days long gone in which the country was the envy of the world because of what it produced and then sold domestically and internationally. There therefore needs to be a rationale as to why manufacturing is not returning and why the technological resurgence Washington has promised has not materialized, and it can't be because of decisions made in Washington.

Enter China. Claiming that China does not play by "the rules" allows for finger-pointing at a bogeyman. The sanctions offer fuel to the suggestion the US is responding forcefully and ethically.

More fundamentally, Washington increasingly appears to be redefining competition itself. Traditionally, economic leadership rested on producing better technologies, attracting more talent and creating more competitive industries. Increasingly, however, leadership is being pursued by restricting competitors' access to markets, capital, research partnerships and advanced technologies. Competition is no longer confined to outperforming rivals; it extends to shaping the conditions under which rivals are allowed to compete. That marks a significant shift in how economic power is exercised.

Second, the activities deliver a violent slap in the face to the US' long-standing professed belief in free trade.

In order to protect select domestic industries, Washington has repeatedly kicked to the curb one of its fundamental tenets: free trade is the best trade. Here again, one Washington insider after another will say that if only China played by "the rules" — yes, there is that phrase again — then these pesky bans might just go away.

Of course, those rules were written by the US. They are supported by other Western democracies. They are endorsed by the World Bank and other international agencies that are absolutely beholden to Washington. With all of that as the backdrop, maybe "rules" is not the correct word. Perhaps diktats is.

No, the US is not coming right out and saying it is running scared, but only the most naive of people cannot see the truth.

The US no longer holds sway on the international stage as it once did. It lacks the moral authority to lead by example. It alone does not produce the most cutting-edge items. It refuses to accept that a multipolar world defines the 21st century. Solid leadership would acknowledge those facts and adjust accordingly. But that is not Washington's way.

The world does not like that. Just a few days ago, a new poll released by the Pew Research Center found that people in 25 of the 36 surveyed countries held a more favorable view of China than of the US.

A nation confident in its people and in its ability to compete on the intricately connected world stage would roll up its sleeves and find real solutions. A scared nation blames and blames and blames.

The author is an associate professor at the Communication and Organizational Leadership Department, Robert Morris University in Pennsylvania. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Robert Morris University.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.