Again, this is "us versus them." Nothing about "win-win cooperation", it is rather "winner takes all." And to win all, the US hasn’t hesitated to start blocking exports to China of advanced chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment from various countries that include the US, the Netherlands, and Japan. While the export bans were publicly justified by concerns that advanced chips could be used for military applications, the real motive has always been to stymie China’s chances to ever progress from a developing to a developed, advanced economy.

Could it be that the US is so extremely worried that its business relationship with China, historically based on the principle that American consumers enjoy inexpensive goods and American corporations reap massive profits while Chinese workers toil away for meagre salaries, is at risk of changing fundamentally, with China climbing the value chain and challenging US dominance with competitively priced, high-tech products and services? Will the US keep going around the world peddling "national security concerns" to its allies to ensure this shift never takes place?

What happened to the US traditional gospel that emerging countries should open their economies and start trading with the West so that they can grow and ultimately prosper? Well, it seems China has prospered a tad too much for US tastes, even though its GDP per capita is still only a fraction of America’s. Hence, the US has in recent years engaged not only in increasingly protectionist policies but in worldwide diplomatic efforts to convince its Western allies, Japan, and Korea that they too should take on China. Some European leaders have showed quite a lot of enthusiasm for the task, and it is Europe that astutely coined the term “de-risking” - as “de-coupling” sounded too abrupt - the unsaid risk being of course that a full-fledged conflict, economic or military, between China and the US would have a disastrous impact on global supply chains and the world economy.

In this respect, the so-called "military threat" posed by China is another fabrication by the US aimed at building or consolidating its hegemonic economic influence in the region. Repeatedly arguing that the Chinese mainland is determined to "take over Taiwan by force" (with American media eagerly publishing articles with catchy headlines such as “China ready to invade Taiwan by 2025”), an unsubstantiated claim based on US generals' regular assessments of China's military capabilities, the US has been building alliances in the Indo-Pacific (the traditional “Asia Pacific” area of concern for the US having been expanded to include India, another rival, for convenience), such as AUKUS and the Quad, with allies suddenly worried about the "significant" and “potentially imminent” threat China presents to their "national security."  Not content with these regional pacts, the US went on to convince members of the G7 and other European countries that due to its “aggressive posture”, China's supply chains are at risk, prompting leaders there to advance the concept of "de-risking," thus conveniently helping advance Washington’s agenda. All across the Indo-Pacific, US diplomacy has been very busy scaring its counterparts with this improbable story, to the point where they need to choose right here, right now, whether they wish to side with the US, or with China, as if to ask of them with whom they would align with in the event of war. Unlike the global South, rich nations, who are persuaded they face the same threats the US does, don't hesitate for long.

Of course, all this is made up, and one can applaud US diplomats’ vast and impressive talents of persuasion. As China has made clear, no merchant ship has ever been harassed in the Taiwan Strait, nor has any commercial flight there ever been disrupted. However, the US makes it a point to regularly conduct "freedom of navigation" operations in the region, and fly spy planes near China's airspace. China wouldn't even think of sailing its navy ships around Guam or Hawaii once a month. Failing to find a valid reason for these wasteful activities, it can be logically concluded that their sole purpose is provocation and muscle-flexing. Which makes it utterly ridiculous when the US complains that its military ships and planes are intercepted by the PLA when they come too close.

Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's official visit to Taiwan last summer was yet another incredible instance of US provocation, aimed at triggering a legitimate response (the PLA’s drills around Taiwan in the days that followed) that can then be used for its propaganda. What public opinion in the West fails to do is to imagine for a moment what would happen if some people in Hawaii wanted independence, and China's Premier made an official visit to Hawaii without clearance from Washington and there expressed his support for the “indomitable” spirit of the independence-leaning part of the population. And then, every month, the PLA Navy would sail military ships around Hawaii. That's evidently an absurd scenario. Yet, this is precisely what has been taking place in the Taiwan Strait.

We all know why it is highly meaningful for a House Speaker to visit Taiwan, or to speak to Taiwan “authorities” on their “stopover” in the US. To go to war with China over Taiwan, what would be required is the stamp of the President (who has since then repeatedly implied he would be supportive) and approval by Congress. Together Biden, McCarthy, and Pelosi thus have made it abundantly clear that the entire US government will definitely fight alongside Taiwan if the PLA were to take over the island by force. That’s a strong deterrent.

Moreover, time and again, China has expressed its staunch commitment to achieving reunification peacefully, which makes eminent sense. However, the US has been acting of late as if China now had a strong intent to very soon secure that outcome by force and has managed to convince a large group of "allies" that this is now a plausible scenario. Again, if one can commend the US for something, it is for its power of persuasion and intimidation. As we have seen, the most likely scenario where China would need to take over Taiwan by force would be a reckless declaration of “independence” by local authorities, that China would forcefully resist, and for which the US shouldn’t and wouldn’t fight.

Today, could the US be calling for the demise of China based on a narrative resting on unfounded scenarios, distorted facts, and irrational considerations? Looking at US actions, justifications, tactics, propaganda, and savvy application of double standards, this may very well be the case. If the US and China were to face off, either commercially, industrially, financially, or militarily, no matter the outcome, there wouldn't be any winner and instead the whole of mankind would suffer a great loss. But in its perennial quest to preserve its hegemony, keep exploiting the world’s other nations, and eradicate any perceived competition, the US seems ready to take its chances. The question is, is that what the American public really wants? That’s a question the American media needs to answer, and this time, with the honesty and integrity one might want to expect from it.

Based in Hong Kong, Michael Peterson is a seasoned professional writer and frequent commentator on Chinese foreign policy and international affairs.

The opinions expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of China Daily and China Daily website.

If you have a specific expertise and would like to contribute to China Daily, please contact us at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.