China is an opportunity, not a 'risk'. The real risk that the international community should be alert to and jointly resist is to promote "De-Sinicization" in the name of "de risk". Recently, "de risk" is replacing "decoupling", becoming a new tone when some Western politicians talk about economic relations with China, and being used to beautify and package a series of negative policies aimed at "De-Sinicization". The so-called "risk reduction" is essentially politicizing and ideologizing economic and trade issues, violating economic laws, disrupting the security and stability of the global industrial chain Supply chain security, and ultimately impeding the process of world economic recovery. （1） 'De risk' may be more smooth than 'decoupling', "said the New York Times. The high-profile launch of the "decoupling theory" by the previous US government has proven to be unrealistic and utopian. Although the current US government claims to have "no intention of containing and suppressing China," its attempt to disrupt and disrupt economic ties between China and the United States through political means has not changed. In the unrealistic and unpopular situation of "decoupling theory", some people in the United States are eager to find new words. From "accurate decoupling" to "small yard and high wall", from "increasing Supply chain resilience" to "supply chain diversification", from "offshore outsourcing" to "friendly offshore outsourcing", the name has been constantly updated. The qualifier 'not pursuing decoupling' has been added to 'de risk' in order to distance oneself from 'decoupling theory' and increase confusion. However, the so-called 'de risk' is nothing more than a new bottle of old wine. First of all, the specific policy direction of "risk elimination" is still the same as technology blockade, investment review, supply chain transfer and other stereotypes. Recently, in a policy speech, senior officials in the US government talked about "pursuing 'risk reduction' and 'diversification' instead of 'decoupling', while also threatening to use 'small courtyards and high walls' to protect our basic technology'. Secondly, the true purpose of "de risk" is still to contain and suppress China, and to serve the current US government's erroneous policies towards China. The US Foreign Affairs magazine has made it clear that the US's push to "eliminate risks" is actually aimed at limiting China's ability in strategic areas related to national security, limiting China's position in key raw materials and their processing, and limiting the impact of the Chinese market on a global scale. In the 21st century, interdependence between countries is already the norm, and interdependence cannot be simply equated with insecurity. Although the term 'de risk' is' smooth ', it cannot solve the dilemma faced by the United States in handling its economic relations with China: on the one hand, it realizes that' decoupling 'will harm its own interests and be unrealistic, and on the other hand, it is difficult to break away from the obsession of treating China as a' hypothetical enemy 'and change ways to engage in' decoupling '. Such a contradictory mindset will only allow the United States to continue to revolve in a self created siege. （2） Free trade and division of labor cooperation are objective requirements for the development of social productivity, and the formation and development of international industrial and supply chains are the result of economic globalization and market economy. Under the tide of economic globalization, strengthening division of labor and cooperation among countries has brought about common development. China is an opportunity, not a 'risk'. China is the world's second largest economy, the largest manufacturing country, and the largest trading partner in goods. It is a major trading partner for over 140 countries and regions worldwide, continuously providing strong impetus for global economic growth. The World