Yin Xiaopeng | In response to international disputes, China should adhere to the construction of the

Professor Yin first summarized the four main viewpoints of the US government in the Sino-US trade dispute:

The views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce: China should buy more U.S. products;

The President's Council of Economic Advisers believes that restrictions should be placed on Chinese investment in the United States.

The US trade negotiator's view: China's investment in technology should be restricted;

The long-standing implicit view in American political circles is that China's overall management system needs comprehensive improvement.

In response to the US government's four viewpoints on the US-China trade dispute, Professor Yin believes that China should have two specific countermeasures:

First, upholding the rule of law is beneficial in addressing international disputes externally and in advancing China towards a society governed by the rule of law internally. It is a long-term endeavor with considerable challenges.

Second, we will unite the international front, connect with more than 100 countries and more than 200 economies, integrate into the world, and achieve long-term development.

(Professor Yin Xiaopeng's speech)

The following is a transcript of Professor Yin Xiaopeng's speech at the roundtable forum:

Sorry, I didn't make a PowerPoint presentation. I only have 5 minutes, so I won't do that.Professor Ju gave us many topics, but I'll focus on one small one: the US government's views and strategies, and China's response.

I have taught at research universities abroad for many years, but by chance, I have also become acquainted with a number of leading figures in top research institutions of the US government and international organizations.This is a very interesting thing. In principle, it has nothing to do with me. I am an academic, and I am also involved in some policy work.

Because I've been discussing this for nearly a decade, we are the only partner of the U.S. International Trade Commission in Asia.So they started arguing as soon as they entered the room, and decided to leave the room to settle things.I've summarized the US government's views on the US-China trade conflict, and there are four main viewpoints.

The first one is simply asking people to buy more of their products.This is mainly represented by the US Secretary of Agriculture, who plays a relatively important role on Trump's side. The US Secretary of Commerce is also very supportive, saying that buying things is all that matters.

The second point emphasizes investment restrictions!Therefore, many issues, when viewed in a broader context, boil down to investment restrictions. So, the neutrality of state-owned enterprises, national treatment, intellectual property protection, further market opening, and other issues are all specific manifestations and extensions of investment problems.Trade is not the issue; what they are emphasizing is investment!Moreover, China's tariffs on the United States are not very high, so they have never been a major problem. Therefore, this is the view of a group of people, a group of people on the President's Council of Economic Advisers, who support it.

The third point is the restriction on technology investment.In fact, this is the main and publicly stated view of U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer, as he has been the one leading the U.S.-China trade negotiations.But they haven't been making much noise lately.Lighthizer has publicly stated that he would remove all tariffs if China stops implementing the "Made in China 2025" plan.Of course, this is just a gesture, but for a trade negotiator to say this publicly, there should be a basis and support for it.

The excuse for rejecting and boycotting China's technological development is that it is unreasonable to use state power to support scientific research and innovation. Of course, this is a very good excuse.The idea that state power is not market power is deeply ingrained.

The last point, which has long been implicitly acknowledged in American political circles, is the overall dissatisfaction with China's management system and the need for comprehensive improvement.Of course, this may involve issues of political system, but that's the question they raised.This issue has persisted since Clinton initiated Sino-US engagement, and it has remained a persistent viewpoint from Clinton to Obama, including the Bush administration.Some people now say that this viewpoint is outdated and has disappeared!That's wrong!The majority of the U.S. Congress is Democratic, but a significant number of Republicans also support this view.He believes that if China is asked to change things, it is a strategy, and ultimately everything will have to be changed.

This is because different people in the US government and core think tanks have different perspectives on the issue.But this is also a very interesting question.When you talk to the Chinese government, you can ask the Chinese government for everything, and there is no conflict between these different viewpoints, nor between these different people:In any case, China has to meet all our demands!However, if problems arise during negotiations, there is a priority issue. Therefore, some people who used to be very vocal are now silent because their views are considered by the government to be less important and have been postponed!But it didn't disappear!This should be a general question.

I've seen many different opinions, and of course, I generally think that many of the media reports are nonsense.This is just a rumor spreading!It mainly depends on the professional explanation.There is also much debate among professionals regarding whether the US is completely anti-China. Representatives from different fields have completely different opinions. From this point of view, I still agree that this is a multifaceted issue.

In my personal opinion, China should ultimately have two specific countermeasures:

1. Legal development should be the most important thing!The rule of law in China is not only one of the solutions to problems for the outside world, but it is also beneficial to China in the long run.China should move towards a society governed by the rule of law, which is a consensus. However, the development of the rule of law over the years may be worse than we thought.

2. It should be an international united front.In the 1950s, many people were very hostile to the new China, especially after the Korean War. However, Premier Zhou Enlai's international united front was outstanding. Now, the international united front is somewhat disappointing.

I don't think the international united front is a short-term issue of building good relations.In the long run, China needs to integrate into the world and lead the world!What does it mean to integrate into the world? Why do you want to be independent of the world?More than 100 countries, 200 economies, you should be together.These are my suggestions, thank you!

（Yin Xiaopeng(The professor then engaged in discussions and exchanges with the audience.)