Editor's note: The article was translated and edited from an editorial piece originally published on People's Daily.

Recently, as the 11th round of Sino-U.S. high-level economic and trade consultations was going on, the U.S. declared a raise of tariffs on 200 billion U.S. dollars' worth of Chinese imports from 10 percent to 25 percent. The U.S. also described China with words like "backtracking" and "reneging," claiming that "there is an erosion of commitments by China" and accusing China of "reneging on promises" and "undermining the core demands of the United States." This is totally untrue.

The conspiracy theory featuring "China's backtracking" made up by the United States is absolutely misleading. For more than a year since the Sino-U.S. economic and trade consultations began, China has been pushing forward the consultations with the greatest sincerity, hoping to reach a mutually beneficial and win-win agreement on the basis of equality and mutual respect. 

Even though the United States threatened to levy additional tariffs, the Chinese team still kept the big picture in mind and headed to the United States for the 11th round of Sino-U.S. high-level economic and trade consultations, demonstrating to the greatest extent China's sincerity in pushing forward the talks.

Negotiation at the working level is a process of exchanging opinions and reaching consensus. It is normal for the two sides to have different views and hold repeated discussions on certain issues. If the differences or different opinions in the process of negotiation at the working level are often labeled as "backtracking," then what's the point of negotiation? 

No matter which country is in concern, there are principles in negotiations. China will never give in on major issues of principle. China's core concerns must be addressed. The negotiation between the working teams of both sides is always a matter in progress. The two sides have not formally signed an agreement, so there is no point of talking about "promise."

The U.S. also went back and forth during the negotiations. Does this also count as "backtracking"? The U.S.-style brigandish logic is that the United States has the final say on everything; any disagreement by the other party is deemed "backtracking"!

It is ingrained in the moral code of the Chinese nation to act on one's words and walk the walk. Over the past 40 years of reform and opening-up, China has opened its market while committing itself to domestic development. The world has shared the benefits brought by China's reform and opening-up, and its contribution to world economic development is widely recognized. 

Over the past decade or so since China joined the WTO, it has fully fulfilled its commitments, firmly supported multilateralism, drastically reduced import tariffs and non-tariff barriers, resolutely opposed unilateralism and protectionism, and demonstrated to the world the credible image of a responsible major developing country.

As early as 2010, China's promise to reduce tariffs was fully fulfilled, and the general tariff rate dropped from 15.3 percent in 2001 to 9.8 percent. In terms of service trade, China's commitment to opening-up has been fully fulfilled by 2007 and China's level of opening up is now close to that of developed countries.

Even the annual reports released by the U.S. Trade Representative Office have many positive comments on China's accession to the WTO, believing that the Chinese government has earnestly fulfilled its commitments.

As the main founder and participant of the international economic order and the multilateral system after the Second World War, the United States should have taken the lead in abiding by the multilateral rules. 

However, over the past two years, the U.S. frequently flouted international organizations and withdrew from them, as its backtracking and lack of integrity were widely criticized by the international community: when an agreement, treaty, or organization was in its national interest, it would pursue it and take advantage of it; when an agreement, treaty, or organization was not in the best interest of the United States, it would just walk away from the table.

Under the policy "America First" in which the ends justify the means, the U.S. has withdrawn from a number of international organizations and multilateral agreements to avoid taking its due responsibilities and obligations, such as the Paris Agreement, UNESCO, the Iran nuclear deal, and the UN Human Rights Council... The United States has reneged so much that the world finally came to realize who has been reneging.

It's not new for the United States to go back on its words in the international community, and countries have suffered for a long time. As early as 2001, the United States declared its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol whose effectiveness was greatly compromised as a result. 

A research report on the dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization has pointed out that the United States is by far the "unruliest" among WTO members, because two-thirds cases involving violation of WTO rules are caused by the United States.

In recent years, the United States is under the illusion that the whole world is ripping it off, thus upgrading the doctrine of "America First" to "America Only." This kind of domineering behavior, which aims at reaping benefits without taking responsibilities, will only be faced with the indignation and opposition of the people of all countries in the world.

It has been over one year since the Sino-U.S. economic and trade consultations began. It's known to all that the U.S. has been backtracking on many issues. On May 29 last year, the U.S. overturned the "joint statement" issued by the two sides not to fight a trade war and announced that it would impose additional tariffs on 50 billion U.S. dollars' worth of Chinese exports to the United States. On May 5 this year, the United States reverted to the threat of additional tariffs, causing major setbacks to the trade talks.

The U.S. is unfaithful in that it wields the bludgeon of trade protectionism, abuses tariff measures, resorts to maximum pressure and blackmail, which has seriously undermined the international trade order, harmed the interests of partners, and also hurt the interests of its own people and companies. U.S. willfulness has increased the uncertainty of future global economic growth and disappointed the international community. 

There are inevitably differences in international economic and trade exchanges, and cooperation is the only right choice. No country can lead the world alone. It's better for the U.S. to follow the big trend and do more that is beneficial to world peace and development. It should stop playing the trick of repeated backtracking in an attempt to serve its own interests!

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)