Blogger’s Note: The US and CIA attempted to ferment counter-Revolution within China during the 1980s (under Raegan) – whilst the Clinton Administration attempted to destroy Chinese Socialism by applying outside pressure (in his youth – President Bill Clinton once fled to the USSR to avoid Conscription during the Vietnam War – and it is remarkable that he was ever permitted to stand for elected office in the US). Clinton granted China “Most Favoured Nation Status” and privileged China in every economic and cultural manner (this included the US sharing early internet technology with Beijing – although Beijing claims it was already working on its own version). The idea then was that if the Chinese people were showed the benefits of Western capitalism – then the authority of the CPC would be weakened and the Revolution overthrown. However, the CPC retained its power by engaging in external interaction with capitalism – whilst redistributing the resulting wealth internally (amongst the Chinese people). This policy of retaining Socialism internally whilst enriching the nation by engaging with predatory capitalist forces (renamed “Socialist market forces”) – has proven very successful for China. As the decades have gone by, China has developed its own scientific and technological base – which has started to concern the US – as China is slowly but surely becoming a rival (and alternative) to the American model. Furthermore, China’s economic growth is spreading into other (developing) Asian and African nations often neglected by the US – creating a power-vase of loyalty around China. Add to this the West inserting Neo-Nazism into the Ukraine and the alienation of Russia – and all the ingredients are present for a new world order (a side show for China is the Israeli genocide in Gaza). Meanwhile, the US is paranoid about the Chinese people possessing high IQs and being able to see things the average Westerner may not. This is believed to the basis of advanced technology hidden in plain site – and voluntarily imported into the West (through the agency of Western greed). In other words, the Americans are paranoid that the Chinese are exporting to the West a “hidden” computerised technology that can, when remotely triggered from Beijing, render useless all US technology and power-generating capability (the National Grid, for instance, could be instantly “turned-off” and Defence Computers short-circuited). Just as China can pursue any path it wishes – it is also true that so can the West. Decoupling, at least for the Westerners, is viewed as a logical strategy of self-defence. It is as if the West believes it has been caught unawares by the “cleverness” of China – and is belatedly doing something about it. Unless there is a change of leadership and thinking in the West (which is unlikely) – this policy will be pursued regardless of the cost. For the (bourgeois) West, the cost is worth the West retaining a) its economic dominance, and b) its cultural independence. This is true even if the policy is illogical or even wrong – as “power” to create or mould material reality is the key operative here. The problem is that China can do nothing to prevent this “decoupling” policy if the West insists upon pursuing it – as “decoupling” is viewed very much as the “reversing” of Clinton’s (mistaken) pro-China policies. ACW (4.8.2026)
2026-08-03 Ecns.cn Editor：Meng Xiangjun
(ECNS) — A stark contrast is emerging in today’s international discourse: on one side, Western politicians relentlessly promote so-called supply chain “de-risking,” under the spotlight, introducing one legislative proposal after another. On the other side, markets and businesses are feeling the chill as they confront the cold, hard costs of reality.
A recent estimate by EY-Parthenon found that if the United States, the Eurozone, and the United Kingdom hope to largely eliminate their dependence on Chinese supply chains in key industries by 2050, they would need to invest an additional $23.6 trillion over the next 25 years. The figure places an almost unimaginable price tag on the prolonged push to “decouple from China.”
What does $23.6 trillion actually mean? It is equivalent to more than 70% of the annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States.
This implies that if Europe and the U.S. insist on a sweeping separation from China’s industrial chains, the cost would be extraordinarily high. It would not only impose an unbearable burden on Western businesses but could even place the broader Western economy under severe strain.
More importantly, even if the West were willing to foot this enormous bill and pour such vast sums of money into the effort, ending their reliance on Chinese supply chains in the short term would remain virtually impossible.
An Unbearable Astronomical Bill
In recent years, Washington and Brussels have continued to introduce and expand restrictive measures targeting China’s industrial and supply chains .
More recently, the European Union has reportedly been considering broader supply chain auditing rules, in an attempt to pressure European multinational corporations into reducing their reliance on critical Chinese components through mandatory legal instruments.
However, administrative intervention, cannot ultimately override the fundamental forces of the market.
A U.S. financial institution acknowledged in a report on global “nearshoring” that true supply chain restructuring is by no means as simple as “moving a factory.” Every cross-border relocation of a production line involves substantial losses in the value of fixed assets, the duplication of supporting infrastructure, and sharp increases in cross-border logistics and compliance costs.
These costs will ultimately be passed on to ordinary consumers in the West as inflationary pressure.
A recent survey of supply chain executives shows that after repeated and costly disruptions, key decision-makers in Western enterprises are being forced to adopt a more pragmatic approach. Given the efficiency, quality, and irreplaceable cost advantages offered by Chinese suppliers, many Western companies have concluded that continuing to prioritize them remains the most commercially rational choice.
This is because Chinese enterprises no longer occupy their places in global industrial chains through simple “low-end assembly.” Instead, their technological advantages and deeply developed industrial ecosystems have embedded them within the very capillaries of high-end global manufacturing.
Nearshoring Turns into “China In-shoring”
One of the clearest examples is currently unfolding in Morocco, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.
To evade tariffs and shorten transport distances, European automotive giants have in recent years touted Morocco as a so-called “nearshoring paradise,” attempting to build it into a beachhead for “de-risking” away from China.
However, in-depth investigations by industry media have revealed an ironic reality for European policymakers. No sooner had European automakers established factories in Morocco than Chinese auto parts suppliers followed, embedding their technology and capital within the local supply chain.
Modern automotive supply chains are vast and deeply interconnected. Many of the aluminum parts, battery materials, and critical electronic components purchased locally by European automakers in Morocco, can ultimately be traced back to Chinese Tier-2 and Tier-3 suppliers.
With their high-precision molding technology, advanced surface treatment processes, and difficult-to-replicate economies of scale, Chinese companies have become an indispensable foundation for European automakers operating in Morocco.
A similar story is unfolding not only in Morocco, but in industrial parks across Mexico.
Drawing on their strong awareness of market opportunities, many Chinese enterprises have established operations in Mexico under the framework of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. By localizing their technology and production capacity, they have gained direct access to the North American and positioned themselves close to the supply networks of the major U.S. automakers.
European and American policymakers hoped to use Morocco and Mexico to reduce their reliance on China, but their efforts have instead opened up even broader market opportunities for Chinese enterprises.
The “flood barriers” painstakingly constructed by Western politicians have quickly become little more than leaky sieves when confronted with the powerful forces of technological capability and cost competitiveness.
the current structure of global industrial and supply chains emerged through decades of globalization, as tens of thousands of companies voted with their feet and survived repeated rounds of market competition. These deep industrial ties, built around the pursuit of maximum efficiency, cannot simply be severed by legislation drafted behind office desks.
Western politicians may need to sit down and carefully consider the implications of this $23.6-trillion bill. After all, those who insist on driving against the wind may ultimately be the ones who suffer the consequences.
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 