Distinguishing Chinese Countermeasures from US Sanctions

On 26 December, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) announced countermeasures against US military-related companies and senior executives.

Most Western mass media have been referring to China as imposing sanctions rather than countermeasures, but the distinction is important. The US uses sanctions offensively, as a punitive measure to achieve its desired aims.

China celebrates independence (2019)

An early objective of the US was to prevent recognition of a Communist China, so the US embargoed the PRC at its inception in 1949. This aim lasted until 1972.

It was the first of many sanctions to be imposed on the PRC. After the Mao era, came a propaganda blitz about a Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. The US again imposed an embargo (a broader, severe form of sanction). [Tienanmen was later shown to have been essentially an attempt at a color revolution in China—Ed.]

Later, disinformation emerged about a [non-existent] genocide being perpetrated against Uyghurs in China spread. US sanctions were once again applied.

There are several instances of US sanctions being applied against China, including over Xizang (Tibet), Hong Kong, etc.

However, the US does not apply the so-called rules-based order to itself. It arrogates the right to judge and sanction actions abroad that it considers inapplicable to itself (it rejects the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and in 1986 it ignored the finding of the International Court of Justice that the US was guilty of “unlawful use of armed force” and ordered to pay “reparations for damages to person, property and the Nicaraguan economy…”) or its allies (it is nign impossible to imagine the Trump administration acknowledging a genocide in Palestine or even stopping its supply of weaponry for the prosecution of said genocide).

China is rising, and the US economy is heading in a precarious direction. The US response to this has been to ditch its support for free trade. Faced with a stern competitor, the US has not sufficiently upped its game. It has resorted to erecting roadblocks to free trade and persuading its vassals to deny China access to technology; i.e., a win-lose relationship. China has, nonetheless, stepped up its game. It has continued to research and develop, innovate, develop supply chains, and establish domestic independence to evade unfair trade practices. Contrary to the West, China emphasizes win-win relationships with its trade partners.

Taiwan as a Red Line

However, China does have an inflexible red line, and this red line pertains to the One-China principle: “The one-China principle has a clear and unambiguous meaning，i.e. there is but one China in the world, Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China.” One hundred and eighty-three countries adhere to the One-China principle, including the US. Although the US has agreed to the “clear and unambiguous” One-China policy (it does not agree with the wording of One-China principle), it holds to a position of “strategic ambiguity,” purportedly to deter a military clash between the PRC and its province of Taiwan.

President Xi speaking to the people during victory parade

The US Department of State spokesperson, Tammy Bruce, stated on 12 August 2025: “The United States is committed to preserving peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

Supposedly, then, the sale of a $10 billion arms package to Taiwan, announced by the US State Department on 17 December 2025, should serve the two purposes to which the US is pledged: (1) the One-China principle/policy and (2) preserving peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

This is clearly problematic on both fronts. First, the One-China principle/policy is being violated by making a sale to a province without the approval of the capital Beijing. Second, what bona fides does a serial warring nation like the US have to command credulity to preserve peace? In just 2025, the administration of the US’s self-declared “peace president” has bombed Yemen, Iran, Somalia, Venezuela, Nigeria and is fully complicit in the genocide in Gaza.

Conclusion

The US’s sanctions are distinctively different from the countermeasures employed by China. The US’s sanctions are offensive, meant to punish any entity the US declares to be an enemy, to kill, act as sanctions of mass destruction,1 or carry out a genocide,2 even though that costs half-a-million children’s lives.

On the other hand, China’s countermeasures are non-lethal, defensive, and designed to protect it from the sanctions imposed on it and also from US meddling in its domestic affairs.

Finally, claiming peaceable US intentions toward the PRC and its province Taiwan are implausible given its historical record with the PRC and Taiwan, its historical record with the rest of the world, and the historical record of the establishment of the US through the genocide and dispossession of its Indigenous Peoples.3

ENDNOTES:

1. John Mueller and Karl Mueller, “Sanctions of Mass Destruction,”

2.  See Abdul Haq al-Ani and Tarik al-Ani, Genocide in Iraq: The Case against the UN Security Council and Member States (Clarity Press, 2012).

3. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous People’s History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2014).

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com.