In recent days, a few number of American media played up the so-called "China's technological threat", saying that the United States should "never loosen high-tech export control on China". Some people claimed, with due certainty, that China's economic catching up had posed a potential threat to the US, and would endanger its economic dominance comprehensively if China could still achieve breakthroughs in the high-tech field. They also raised doubt about the notion of "stakeholder" raised by US Deputy State Secretary Robert Zoellick.

Such a "noise", though incapable of reversing the current trend of general stability in the China-US relations, should be dispelled so that the ties can continue to develop towards the direction of constructive cooperation, said Yuan Peng, vice director of the Institute of American Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, in an article on People's Daily, May 22.

The above-mentioned "noise" remarks are obviously incorrect and flawed, the article pointed out.

First, they run against basic facts. To ease the China-US trade imbalance, China has not only stressed on "no pursuit of huge trade surplus" and the shift of growth pattern, but displayed sincerity through actions by lodging big orders of procurement in the US, promoting the RMB exchange rate formation mechanism, enhancing enforcement in IPR protection and so on. Turning a blind eye to these active efforts shows apparently an irresponsible attitude.

Second, they run against basic logics. The US, on the one hand, hopes that China will increase sharply its purchase in the US, but on the other hand keeps on setting limits and refusing to sell its "treasures" and "secrets" to China. The logic of some Americans is that the trade imbalance has little to do with US high-tech blockade to China because it only takes a small percentage. Following such logic, will China say the trade deficit is a structural problem and therefore has little to do with whether China strengthens IPR protection? In a word, such mentality is just like "tyrant terms" in a commercial transaction, the ultimate purpose being not solving problem but maximizing one's own profits and absolute interests.

Third, tyrannical mentality is behind the noise. When Mr. Robert Zoellick said "We need to urge China to become a responsible stakeholder in the international system", he intended to find a way of constructive cooperation for future US-China relations. But such a positive concept has been used by some Americans as a magic tool to raise unilateral demands on China and limit its domestic and overseas behaviors, entirely regardless of in-depth cooperation between the two countries on many international and regional issues.

During his recent visit to the US, President Hu Jintao stressed repeatedly that the two sides should not only be "stakeholders", but also "partners of constructive cooperation". "Constructive cooperation" needs efforts from both countries instead of only one, or neglect of the other side's sincerity. Currently, the China-US exchanges and cooperation in various fields are in full swing, and interactive mechanisms including leaders' meeting, strategic dialogue and the annual session of the Joint Committee on Commerce and Trade are being continuously improved. However, there will be hidden hazards for the general stability if such fallacies are not refuted or checked. This is a job that requires efforts from both sides.

(People's Daily May 23, 2006)