[Text/Observer Network Tong Li] Today (23rd), Intel apologized for its remarks involving Xinjiang. Between Chinese netizens’ discussions on “sincerity” and “buy or not”, some foreign media reports interpret this as the latest case of “multiple-national corporations are increasingly involved in geopolitical disputes between China and the United States.”
From Xinjiang cotton to photovoltaic industry... For a long time, the US government has generalized the concept of national security, abused state power to suppress and restrict Chinese companies under the guise of human rights, and tried to curb China's rise.
For Intel "disable Xinjiang products", Chen Jing, a columnist of Observer.com, said from an economic sense that the impact should be little. Intel's product supply chain has little relationship with Xinjiang, and "disgusting" is far greater than economic harm.
He analyzed that the root of the Intel storm is the political manipulation of American politicians, and companies passively deal with it. "From the tone, Intel is saying that it is passively involved... If this is the truth of the world's merchants, it means that no one in the business elite believes in any 'ghost tricks' about Xinjiang, but the political atmosphere is impossible."
Instead of saying that Intel's statement is "arrogant", Chen Jing believes that it is "close to the truth" and "may become a model for many (multinational) companies. On the one hand, it expresses political statements, and on the other hand, it implies that it is forced to make a political statement, hoping that the Chinese people will understand it."
"When the actual impact is not great, there is no need to fight back solemnly", but when the United States tries to inject some larger sanctions to achieve the effect of "the United States loses zero, China suffers 100 damage", China must fight back and let the United States bear the losses as well.
" Multinational corporations are increasingly involved in China-US geopolitics "
On December 23, Bloomberg reported the apology of Intel in China. Previously, Intel restricted products from Xinjiang in its annual letters to suppliers.
US media noted that Intel emphasized in its statement that the requirements for suppliers are "to ensure compliance with US legal requirements", and there is no other intention or intention to express its position.
Bloomberg also excerpted the paragraph from Intel's statement "thank you all for your questions and concerns", emphasizing that the company "respects the sensitivity of the issue in China" and "we are in a growing and changing and complex global environment."
In addition, last week, news that the Biden administration was planning to attack the Chinese chip industry. Reuters html cited sources on the 317th that the U.S. government has not decided to upgrade sanctions on SMIC to prevent the company from obtaining more advanced production equipment; but U.S. government officials believe that the U.S. should join forces with allies to take measures to further restrict the export of chip manufacturing equipment to China.
Regarding Intel's response, US media analyzed that the latest storm reflects how multinational companies are increasingly involved in geopolitical disputes between China and the United States. Intel faces growing geopolitical tensions, increasing the difficulty of maintaining its position in global supply chains. As the conflict between the United States and China escalates, Intel hopes that the U.S. and European governments will provide funds to help it expand its business.
US media also pointed out that in the face of increasingly fierce competition, the Chinese market is crucial to Intel's development. China is the world's largest consumer of semiconductor and is also the largest market for personal computers, which is the main destination for Intel microprocessors. More than a quarter of the chip maker's revenue in 2020 comes from China.
Another foreign media - Reuters saw that Intel said that with restrictions imposed by "multiple governments", the company has been "required to ensure that its supply chain does not use any labor, procurement of products or services from the Xinjiang region."
Reuters also mentioned other large multinational companies, saying they are under pressure to continue operating in China while complying with Xinjiang-related sanctions, where they have their huge market and supply bases.
23 On the afternoon of the 23rd, Chen Jing, a researcher at the Society of Science and Technology and Strategics, interpreted the information he saw from it to Observer.com: "From the tone, Intel is saying that it is passively involved, and the political atmosphere in the United States is forcing it to express its opinion.So I just said it accordingly, but I hope the industry understands that there is nothing I can do. It is not that I really believe in these things, but that I respect Chinese users. If this is the truth about businessmen in the world, it means that no one in the business elite believes in anything wrong with Xinjiang, but there is no way to go about the political atmosphere. In fact, even many foreign public opinion can see that the United States cannot really care about Xinjiang's affairs, all for suppressing China. "
This statement that is "close to the truth" "may become a model for many companies"
Chinese netizens have different opinions about Intel's Chinese statement. As of press time, the number of readings of Weibo topics on "Is Intel's apology statement sincere?" has exceeded 47 million.
Social media screenshot
Some netizens think that Intel's statement is "arrogant", while Chen Jing believes that "close to the truth": under the political pressure of extreme anti-China in the United States, facing the surging public opinion in China, try to achieve a balance as much as possible.
Moreover, "Intel's statement may become a model for many companies. On the one hand, he made a political statement, and on the other hand, he implied that he was forced to make a political statement, hoping that the Chinese people would understand. "
Why did Intel suddenly "jump out" at this time? Chen Jing mentioned the so-called "Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act" passed by the US Senate on the 16th local time. He said that Intel is more famous and has been pointed out. In fact, there are many companies with such statements. This statement is more like an attitude statement than a kind of enforcement. In fact, the statement was the same for the last HM statement. In fact, some companies' earlier English statements were not noticed by Chinese public opinion.
is inconsistent. On the evening of the 23rd, more and more netizens questioned on social media whether Sam member store , a subsidiary of Walmart , has taken off Xinjiang products?
At 9 o'clock that night, I opened the search bar of the "Sam Member Store" APP and typed the words "Xinjiang", that is, "Xinjiang Hami Melon", "Xinjiang Hotan Red Date", " Xinjiang Apricot " and other keywords containing "Xinjiang" are available. But after searching for "Xinjiang", I got the result of "sorry, no related products were found".
"Sam Member Store" APP screenshot
In Chen Jing's view, Intel's approach is "sooner or later", and all kinds of companies have to face attacks from US lawmakers.
"In fact, this statement also implies the meaning of "the US government may require inspections in the future" to prepare the supply chain early. I personally think it is a regular operation in the industry, and its root is the political manipulation of American politicians. Companies passively deal with it and need to follow the process of expressing and executing. Personally, I think it is inevitable. Of course, like HM, deliberately emphasizing the attack on China is to take the initiative to jump out. "
" Global Times " editorial wrote on the 22nd that for multinational companies, bearing, proper handling and balancing pressure from all parties is originally a basic skill. But Intel's approach is full of calculations and speculation. It ignores the truth and sings a high-profile in the so-called "human rights" field. It may be a "felt shot" at the US government in exchange for the US government to "leave it" on it elsewhere. Perhaps it also hopes that in the end, it will gain China's understanding and get away with it on the grounds of "political pressure". But that will be an impossible task.
As for Intel's previous remarks, it will have little impact? Chen Jing continued to analyze the economic significance of the economic sense, the impact should not be great. Terl's product supply chain has little relationship with Xinjiang. It can almost be concluded that the statement will not have an impact on Intel's production in China, and it is not certain whether it will even conduct a serious inspection. Statements of companies like Intel are basically equivalent to political statements, and "disgusting people" are far greater than economic harm.
Chen Jing mentioned that Cui Tiankai, former deputy minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and former ambassador to the United States, said at a seminar a few days ago, "China must be fully prepared, not fight a battle without confidence, nor do you bet on anger or consume wars." Chen Jing believes that is, issuing a statement about Xinjiang like Intel that has little actual impact, which is not a big deal in the competitive framework that China and the United States obviously need a long-term struggle. It is just handled regularly and does not need to fight back solemnly.But in some cases, the United States will try to inject some larger sanctions to achieve the effect of "the United States loses zero and China suffers 100 damage." In this case, China must fight back and the United States must also bear the losses.
"Maybe this is China's second stage of opportunity to "hide your strength and keep your low profile". In the first stage, although China's hard power of GDP, factories and infrastructure has developed well, it is low-key. In the second stage, China's soft power in doing business continues to expand, its ability is getting stronger and stronger, and its reputation in global business districts is getting better and better, but these global business elites do not speak out and continue to be low-key, and step up cooperation with China at hand."
"After understanding the ins and outs of the statements on Xinjiang by Intel and other companies, Chinese public opinion can strengthen confidence, not be disturbed, and develop at China's own pace."
On 23, Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian responded to Intel's incident and said that we have noticed the relevant statement and hope that relevant companies can respect the facts and distinguish right from wrong. "We have repeatedly emphasized the statements about forced labor in Xinjiang, etc., which are completely lies fabricated by the anti-China forces in the United States. The purpose is to discredit China's image, undermine Xinjiang's stability, and hinder China's development. The people in Xinjiang are hardworking and brave, and Xinjiang's products are of excellent quality. If some companies choose not to use them, they will also suffer losses."
Source: Observer.com
