[ad_1]
Original title: Quick reference comment | These two great movements between China and the United States are not the same!
China issued the “Measures for the security review of foreign investment” on the 19th, which will conduct security reviews of foreign investments that affect or may affect national security. Just one day ago, the President of the United States signed the “Foreign Company Liability Act,” which imposed additional disclosure requirements on foreign companies listed in the United States. As soon as the news broke, some foreign media believed that the last two regulatory review orders between China and the United States “targeted each other, and the two sides fought again.” There is even a public opinion that China’s move is aimed at “countering the harsh US judgment of Chinese companies.”
In reality, this is a misunderstanding of relevant Chinese practices. It is true that China and the United States have taken important actions in the field of regulation almost simultaneously, but the practices of the two countries are not the same.
▲ Image source: Visual ChinaFirst, unlike the United States, which specifically targets companies in a certain country, China is reasonably applying internationally accepted rules.
The Foreign Investment Security Review is an internationally accepted foreign investment management system. In recent years, major countries and regions of the world have successively introduced or improved foreign investment security review systems. The United States has enacted the “Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act”, the EU has issued the “Foreign Direct Investment Framework Regulation”, Australia has issued the “Foreign Investment Reform Act”, Germany , Japan The “Foreign Trade and Payment Act” and the “Foreign Trade and Exchange Act” were revised separately, and the UK is formulating the “National Security and Investment Act”. China’s promulgation of the “Measures for the Examination of the Security of Foreign Investment” is merely conforming to this trend and a manifestation of the use of internationally accepted rules to safeguard national security.
On the other hand, the United States has already cracked down on Chinese companies to the point of not disguising themselves, this is a well-known fact. According to Reuters statistics in September this year, the US government had included 275 Chinese companies in the so-called “entity list.” In recent times, the United States has continued to expand its list of sanctions against Chinese companies. The US Department of Commerce included a total of 77 entities on the export control “entity list” on the 18th, most of which are Chinese companies, universities or individuals.
Second, unlike the generalized concept of national security in the United States, China aims to effectively maintain national security.
Since 2011, China has established a security review system for mergers and acquisitions of domestic companies by foreign investors, but the fence to prevent and control security risks must be increasingly strict. If the level of supervision is much lower than the degree of openness, it can not only cause macroeconomic instability, but it can even jeopardize national economic security and have disastrous consequences. Therefore, in areas where foreign investment is related to national defense and national security, conducting security reviews in accordance with the Measures for the Security Review of Foreign Investment will help fill the regulatory gap.
On the other hand, in the United States, the abuse of national power and the generalization of the concept of national security are already well known. The United States has made many accusations against Chinese companies, but made a “presumption of guilt” against Chinese companies without any evidence. The charges were all “unnecessary” and simply could not stand the test of the outside world.
Third, unlike the United States, which reverses protectionism, China is committed to promoting a higher level of openness.
For China, opening up to the outside world without security guarantees is unsustainable. Only when security risks are effectively prevented and controlled can we better implement a wider, wider and deeper openness. Opening to the outside world is China’s basic national policy. China has just reached a “Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement” with 14 Asia-Pacific countries, which is clear proof of China’s commitment to promoting high-level openness. China’s launch of the “Foreign Investment Security Review Measures” is not to impose a “purchase order” on foreign companies, including US companies, but to actively promote foreign investment and effectively safeguard foreign investment. National security.
On the other hand, the United States, through the generalization of the concept of national security to repress foreign companies, including Chinese ones, is precisely an example of the protectionism of the current US government. In today’s world, protectionism has severely impacted international trade, the anti-globalization trend continues to increase, trade and investment are blocked by barriers, and the supply chain of the global industrial chain is about to be broken. Without a doubt, the United States has brought a “bad head.”
▲ On December 11, an unmanned container truck was working at the Tangshan port terminal. (Photo of Liu Mancang issued by Xinhua News Agency)Relevant U.S. practices have exposed its so-called hypocritical cloak of fair competition, and China’s relevant actions are aimed at escorting a greater level of openness. Comparing the two, how can they be confused!
