Paul Gewirtz, a law professor at Yale and Senior Fellow on Foreign Policy at the John L. Thornton China Center, penned a commentary piece for the Brookings Institute comparing the terms "de-risking" and "de-coupling." The G-7 countries recently met to adopt "de-risking" as an economic policy towards China. Gewirtz argued that de-risking means little and is very different than de-coupling as a foreign policy strategy.
According to the commentary, G-7 leaders discussed de-risking as a foreign policy for China, driven by the European Union. Gewirtz wrote in the piece that de-risking is a vague term that can mean different things to different countries, and he noted dictionaries define it to mean “to eliminate risk” or “to remove risk” and the State Department’s definition of avoiding rather than managing risk.
"Agreeing on a shared goal of de-risking is definitely important, and China’s official media are flatly wrong that 'de-risking' is the same as 'de-coupling,” Gewirtz wrote in the commentary. “But no one can say now what policies different countries will implement under the de-risking label. 'De-risking' at this point is only a word, and what I’ve said here is all about the difference between 'words' and implementing 'actions.'"
Moreover, Gewirtz points out in his commentary that multiple definitions can be interpreted to mean different things, with one line moving towards “eliminating” risk and another only reducing risk. He further added that there is no clear line set as to what a “relevant risk” may be, noted that President Joe Biden at the G-7 Summit defined it ask “protecting a narrow set of advanced technologies critical for our national security.”
The Brookings Institute, citing the Cambridge Dictionary, defined de-coupling as “a situation in which two or more activities are separated, or do not develop in the same way.” Gewirtz wrote in his commentary that President Donald Trump used national security as an excuse to exceed his authority on a Trade Expansion Act with Canada, adding that if the U.S. were to do take similar action with China it could edge closer to de-coupling measures.
Gewirtz opined in the article that de-risking often focuses on economic risks presented by the Chinese through diversified supply chains and cutting the dependence on Chinese supply chains without applying economic coercion, adding that the G-7 discussions zeroed in on the need for economic stability and security.
Gewirtz wrote in the commentary that Biden endorsed de-risking over de-coupling, though he expanded the picture to include targeting “harmful practices that hurt our workers." He added that the G-7 leaders don’t want to have an adverse impact on China or damage its economy, but the country’s official media dismissed the statement, maintaining the G-7’s goal is to "to suppress and contain China."
Gewirtz also wrote that while de-risking is important, Chinese media claimed it is wrong to position it as the same as de-coupling.
Ultimately, the policies and actions that fall under the framework of de-risking aren’t well defined, and there is a clear line between “words” and “actions” for implementation, and Gewirtz concluded in the commentary that "until actions replace words, we won’t know what the new 'de-risking' policy is."
