【文/观察者网专栏作者 心智观察所】 12月22日，美国联邦通信委员会（FCC）投下了一枚重磅炸弹。这个以监管电信频谱著称的独立机构， 以"不可接受的国家安全威胁"为由，将所有外国制造的无人机及其组件列入受管制"黑名单"。这意味 着，全球最大的民用无人机制造商大疆，以及道通智能等中国企业，将无法在美国市场销售任何新型号 的无人机产品。 这一决定，表面上是一次例行的安全审查，实际上却是一场酝酿近十年的政治博弈的最终落幕。它不仅 标志着美国对华科技脱钩战略在无人机领域的全面升级，更揭示了一个令人深思的悖论：当一个国家以 国家安全之名封锁天空时，它可能同时也在封锁自己的未来。 "技术铁幕"与强行切割 要理解这道禁令的深意，必须回溯到2017年那个炎热的夏天。 彼时，美国陆军突然发布一纸命令，要求所有部队立即停止使用大疆无人机，理由是存在"网络安全漏 洞"。这是美国政府第一次公开对中国民用无人机表达不信任。然而，耐人寻味的是，这份禁令发布 时，大疆无人机正在美军基层部队中获得广泛好评，士兵们用它执行侦察任务、评估战场态势，甚至在 训练中模拟敌方无人机威胁。 此后七年间，华盛顿的"中国无人机恐惧症"如同一株疯长的藤蔓， ...

本文摘录自《不断深化的地缘经济风险》一书，已获授权。 当"制造业回流"成为美国政客口中的高频词，当"供应链韧性"被写入多国战略文件，我们是否真的看清 了这场全球产业链重构背后的真相？ 高成本拖累、劳动力断层、技术脱钩、美元信用动摇……这一系列问题并非孤立发生，而是共同构成了 一场深刻的地缘经济变局。 制造业并未简单"回流"，而是在地缘政治的驱动下，变得"更贵、更慢、更脆弱"。 首先，劳工权益争议与劳动力市场结构断层构成了供应链区域再布局过程中的显性难题。在墨西哥等传 统外包地，根据墨西哥最低工资委员会调查，汽车制造等关键行业罢工率上升，其最低工资水平仅为美 国的四分之一。劳工的不满情绪和工会力量不断上升，严重干扰了产业链的连续性与稳定性。同时，在 主张制造业回流的经济体中，其制造业劳动力市场面临显著的结构断层，这种技能与产业需求之间的错 配，直接拖慢了制造环节的重构进度。 其次，制造业回流的高成本困境正在削弱政策激励的实际成效。尽管美国政府通过《芯片与科学法案》 试图打造本土半导体生态，但因为本地缺乏相应的供应链基础，还因规模经济效应不足和物流运输成本 激增，这种高投入与低产出之间的结构性矛盾使得制造业回流的 ...

但中国在硅产业领域的绝对优势，成为破解技术封锁的关键底气。工信部 2025 年 2 月披露数据显示， 2024 年中国多晶硅产量达 182 万吨，同比增长 23.6%，全球占比稳定在 90% 以上，硅锭、硅片产量分 别突破 800GW 和 753GW，产能占比均超 85%。质量层面，中国光伏级硅料纯度已实现 99.9999% 以 上，电子级多晶硅通过台积电、三星认证，完全满足 14nm 以下先进制程芯片生产需求。 《硅和平宣言》的落地面临多重现实挑战，其 "技术脱钩" 目标难以实现。首先是产业链融合的不可逆 转性，全球半导体产业已形成 "你中有我、我中有你" 的格局：中国是全球最大的半导体消费市场，占 全球需求的 35%，同时掌控稀土加工、电子元器件等关键环节，美国盟友若完全 "去中国化"，将导致 供应链断裂与成本飙升。 面对美方的战略围堵，中国采取 "自主创新 + 开放合作" 的双重应对策略。在自主可控领域，中国加速 推进半导体设备国产化，2024 年光刻机、蚀刻机等关键设备国产化率突破 30%，中芯国际 14nm 制程 产能稳步提升，华为海思推出新一代 AI 芯片，打破外部封锁。在开放合作层面，中国持续扩 ...

Core Insights - The article discusses the complexities and challenges of global supply chain restructuring driven by geopolitical factors, highlighting issues such as high costs, labor shortages, technological decoupling, and the weakening of the dollar's credibility [1][2]. Group 1: Technological Decoupling - Technological decoupling leads to fragmentation of global innovation and technology standards, increasing complexity in industry cooperation and hindering collaborative efforts [4][5]. - Geopolitical risks elevate uncertainty in global economic development, prompting companies to increase liquidity assets, which in turn reduces domestic R&D investments [5]. - Export controls from leading nations on technology-chasing countries may force innovation but also complicate compliance and increase operational costs for multinational companies [5] Group 2: Social and Environmental Costs - The restructuring of global supply chains faces challenges such as labor market imbalances and high costs associated with manufacturing return policies [6][7]. - Labor disputes and dissatisfaction in traditional outsourcing locations like Mexico hinder the stability of supply chains, while skill mismatches in returning economies slow down manufacturing restructuring [6]. - High costs of manufacturing return weaken the effectiveness of policy incentives, as seen in the U.S. semiconductor industry, where local supply chain foundations are lacking [6][7]. Group 3: Dollar System Erosion - The restructuring of global supply chains is accompanied by a significant shift in the financial order, with a notable trend towards "de-dollarization" [9][10]. - Emerging markets are increasingly adopting local currency settlements in trade, as evidenced by the rising use of the yuan in trade between China and Russia [9]. - The weakening of the dollar's internal credit mechanism accelerates the de-dollarization process, with countries like Brazil and Argentina seeking financial cooperation with China to mitigate dollar risks [10]. Group 4: New Regional Competition Dynamics - The emergence of new regional competition reflects a split in standards between the Global North and South, with contrasting approaches to technology and resources [12][13]. - The disparity in technological capabilities between countries, particularly in foundational research, complicates global supply chain integration and innovation [12]. - Resource nationalism is becoming a significant factor in global supply chain dynamics, as countries assert control over critical resources, leading to increased competition and price volatility [13].

Core Viewpoint - ASML's CEO's remarks about China's potential abandonment of its lithography machines and possible rare earth countermeasures highlight the deep-seated contradictions in the global semiconductor supply chain amid the US-China tech rivalry [1][3][9] Group 1: ASML's Dependency and Market Dynamics - ASML has a significant dependency on the Chinese market, with China becoming its largest customer by Q3 2025, accounting for 42% of equipment delivery [3] - The reliance on ASML's technology is characterized by a passive nature, as Chinese companies face restrictions on accessing advanced chip manufacturing technologies due to US-led sanctions [3][5] - The ongoing technological blockade has forced China to pursue self-reliance in lithography technology, with companies like Shanghai Micro Electronics and North China Innovation making strides in this field [3][7] Group 2: Rare Earth Supply Chain and Strategic Responses - ASML's concerns regarding China's rare earth export controls reveal the interdependent nature of the global supply chain, where China's measures are seen as a response to unilateral sanctions [5][9] - Historically, China has provided stable rare earth supplies to global tech firms, including ASML, but the US's dual standards in technology sanctions and resource demands have disrupted this balance [5][9] - China's rare earth controls signal a commitment to maintaining fairness in the supply chain, indicating that the consequences of escalating technology blockades will affect all participants, including ASML [5][9] Group 3: Implications of US-China Tech Decoupling - ASML's anxiety reflects the broader repercussions of the US's tech decoupling strategy, which inadvertently encourages Chinese innovation and the emergence of domestic semiconductor firms [7][9] - The sanctions imposed by the US have led to the rise of Chinese semiconductor equipment companies, which are beginning to penetrate markets previously dominated by foreign firms [7][9] - The situation illustrates that attempts to isolate China may ultimately result in a loss of market share for foreign companies, as local firms develop differentiated technologies [7][9] Group 4: Future of the Semiconductor Industry - The ongoing struggle over lithography technology and rare earth resources transcends individual corporate interests, impacting the future trajectory of the global semiconductor industry [9][11] - China's push for self-reliance in semiconductor technology is not about severing global ties but rather about finding space for survival and growth amid restrictions [9][11] - A sustainable future for the global semiconductor industry hinges on open collaboration rather than closed confrontation, emphasizing the need for shared technological advancements and equitable negotiations [11]

Core Viewpoint - The recent "Operation Clean Carts" initiated by the FCC targets Chinese-manufactured electronic products on cross-border e-commerce platforms, significantly impacting companies like Huawei, ZTE, Hikvision, and Dahua [2][4][5]. Regulatory Actions - The FCC has begun removing millions of Chinese electronic products from major platforms like Amazon and eBay, with over 5 million items worth more than $1 billion affected, particularly in the security and smart home sectors [4][11]. - The FCC's actions are part of a broader strategy to enhance scrutiny over Chinese technology, extending from brand-level regulations to supply chain transparency, affecting the entire electronic manufacturing ecosystem [6][10]. Supply Chain Implications - The new regulations indicate that any components associated with blacklisted companies could trigger product removals, shifting the focus from just the sellers to the entire supply chain [5][11]. - The FCC's decision to revoke certifications from 15 Chinese testing labs has led to increased costs and longer certification periods for exporters, with costs rising by 30% to 50% and delays of 2 to 3 months [10][11]. Market Impact - The crackdown has immediate repercussions on the North American cross-border e-commerce market, with significant financial implications for both Chinese and local brands that rely on Chinese components [11][12]. - The U.S. market for surveillance equipment is substantial, with approximately 30 million units shipped annually, of which around 20 million are sourced from mainland China, representing nearly 70% market share [12]. Corporate Responses - In response to regulatory pressures, Chinese companies are adjusting their overseas strategies by enhancing local data management and diversifying into emerging markets like Southeast Asia and South America [16][18]. - Companies are also optimizing supply chain management by establishing traceability systems and improving product certification processes to mitigate risks associated with compliance [16][18]. Future Outlook - The FCC's actions represent a comprehensive test of the Chinese manufacturing export model, with the ability of companies to maintain supply chain stability and adapt to regulatory changes being crucial for their long-term competitiveness in the global security and smart home markets [18].

Group 1 - The European Union (EU) has a significant dependency on China for rare earth materials, with 82% of its imports coming from China, which is critical for various manufacturing sectors including automotive and renewable energy [4][6]. - The recent arrival of 2,582 tons of rare earth materials has temporarily alleviated supply chain pressures in Europe, which had been exacerbated by previous shortages [4][6]. - Despite this dependency, the EU has moved forward with sanctions against 12 Chinese companies, indicating a complex geopolitical strategy that balances internal and external pressures [10][13]. Group 2 - The EU's sanctions appear to be a response to pressure from the United States, aiming to demonstrate alignment with U.S. foreign policy while managing internal divisions among member states [10][11]. - The sanctions are seen as a way to prepare for potential technological decoupling from China, as the EU recognizes its reliance on Chinese technology and aims to slow China's technological advancements [13][19]. - The EU's approach has sparked internal dissent, particularly from countries like Germany and France, who view the sanctions as a gamble with economic interests [14][21]. Group 3 - China's response to the EU's sanctions has been measured, involving strategic delays in rare earth export approvals and the suspension of certain technical cooperation projects, which applies pressure without escalating conflict [16][18]. - The EU faces a challenging reality where its economic ties with China are substantial, with trade amounting to $847.3 billion, making it difficult to sever these connections without significant economic repercussions [19][21]. - The inherent contradictions in the EU's sanctions strategy highlight the complexities of global interdependence, suggesting that a cooperative approach may be more beneficial in the long run [23][25].

Group 1 - The U.S. government is proposing to impose tariffs of up to 100% on Chinese goods as part of a strategy to address China's import of Russian energy, indicating a shift towards "economic weaponization" in geopolitical conflicts [1][3][4] - The G7 countries are divided on the issue, with Canada, Germany, and Japan expressing concerns about the economic impact of high tariffs on their own economies, particularly in sectors reliant on trade with China [6][8] - The U.S. Commerce Department has added 23 Chinese companies to an export control list, targeting key technology sectors such as semiconductors and biotechnology, which reflects a strategic shift towards "precise blockade" against China's tech industry [8][10] Group 2 - China's response includes launching an anti-discrimination investigation into U.S. trade policies related to integrated circuits, indicating a formal legal countermeasure rather than an emotional reaction [12] - China is diversifying its agricultural imports, signing significant soybean purchase agreements with Argentina and Brazil, which could undermine U.S. agricultural exports and impact domestic prices [15][17] - The upcoming negotiations in Madrid are expected to be tense, with both sides facing pressure to maintain their positions, and the outcome will depend on the actions taken over the years rather than just discussions at the negotiation table [19]

Group 1: Negotiation Dynamics - The US and China have agreed to extend the tariff truce for 90 days, providing short-term stability to their economic relationship, while underlying complexities in negotiations persist [1] - The US has introduced three main negotiation traps: pressure on China's manufacturing sector, energy procurement conditions, and technology decoupling strategies [3][4][5] Group 2: US Negotiation Traps - The US is pressuring China to limit production capacity in key industries like steel and solar, attributing the hollowing out of US manufacturing to Chinese low-priced goods [3] - The US has linked energy trade negotiations to sanctions, demanding China cease imports from sanctioned countries and set a $200 billion annual quota for US LNG purchases [4] - In technology, the US is pushing for unrestricted semiconductor equipment purchases and the lifting of export controls on rare earths, aiming to maintain its technological edge [5] Group 3: China's Strategic Challenges - The US is employing a multi-faceted pressure strategy involving tariffs, technology restrictions, and international rules, complicating China's negotiation position [7] - China's reliance on imports for advanced manufacturing, particularly in semiconductors, poses risks to its supply chain stability [7][8] - The EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism and India's demands for market access add to the international pressure on China [8] Group 4: China's Counterstrategies - China is diversifying its markets, with exports to Belt and Road countries increasing by 18%, which helps mitigate the impact of US tariffs [9] - China controls 60% of global rare earth processing capacity, using this leverage to impact US industries significantly [10] - Recent trade agreements and initiatives aim to reshape global economic rules, positioning China as a proactive player in international trade [10] Group 5: Future Negotiation Outlook - The current tariff negotiations are characterized by short-term concessions but long-term challenges, with the US maintaining its core demands [12] - China's decreasing reliance on foreign trade, from 64% in 2006 to an expected 32% in 2025, indicates a shift towards domestic market-driven growth [12] - The negotiation process is seen as a reflection of structural contradictions between the two economies, necessitating a balance between immediate compromises and long-term strategic interests [12]

Group 1 - The EU and the US are currently engaged in a significant tariff dispute, with the EU appearing to compromise under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, who has American ties [1][3][10] - Trump's announcement of a reduction in tariffs on EU goods from 30% to 15% is expected to benefit industries such as automotive and pharmaceuticals, although other tariffs on steel, aluminum, chips, and spirits remain unresolved [3][6] - The EU has committed to purchasing $750 billion worth of US natural gas and investing $600 billion in US military equipment over the next three years, which has drawn criticism for potentially burdening European industries [3][6][7] Group 2 - Criticism from EU officials highlights concerns that the agreement represents a significant concession, with some describing it as a "cutting of flesh" to avoid higher tariffs [6][10] - The investment plan includes $420 billion for AI research and $180 billion for purchasing F-35 fighter jets, raising questions about the opportunity cost of not investing in Europe's semiconductor industry [7][10] - A controversial clause allows US regulators to directly review the data flow of EU digital companies, leading to protests from 137 tech firms against this provision [7][10] Group 3 - The agreement is viewed as a tactical ceasefire amid a backdrop of declining globalization, with potential implications for future global trade dynamics involving US-EU technology alliances and resource country energy alliances [10] - The ongoing economic situation in the US, including Trump's failed request for interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve, adds complexity to the trade landscape [10][12]