US chip manufacturer Qualcomm Inc. agreed on Monday to pay a $975 million fine for violating China's anti-monopoly law as part of a settlement with Chinese antitrust authorities. The company's stock rose 3 percent in after-hours trading on Monday.

In fiscal 2013, Qualcomm produced 716 million chips, half of which were shipped to Chinese IT enterprises. The accusations leveled at Qualcomm involved its collection of higher patent fees in the Chinese market. The company, which has been sued in Europe and South Korea many times for its monopolistic practices, took a cooperative attitude in China's probe. The rise in its share price indicates that investors have endorsed the penalty and they believe the settlement is conducive to the future development of Qualcomm in the Chinese market.

However, The New York Times thinks differently. The newspaper took the opportunity to reprimand China for "economic nationalism." One of its reports claimed that "it's a sign of the times" for foreign companies in China, as they "have faced heightened scrutiny for corruption, monopolistic practices and tax evasion" and "are victims of economic nationalism." It's also believed by The New York Times that "the ruling opens a new front in the economic conflict between China and the US."

As long as they comply with Chinese laws, multinationals enjoy more convenient access to the Chinese market than in other emerging economies. It is much easier for these foreign firms to access the Chinese market than for their Chinese counterparts to enter US and European markets. At the beginning of the reform and opening-up period, China attracted foreign investment with various preferential policies and tolerated the misconduct some foreign companies engaged in. However, as China moves forward, it's important that the country preserves its economic order. Therefore, anti-monopoly regulations are imperative.

With China further advancing the rule of law, it will step up efforts in regulating economic activities. However, at this juncture, Western media outlets such as The New York Times trumpeted that foreign companies are specially targeted, which will exert a negative influence on the views many Westerners have of China. The world's first antitrust law, the Sherman Antitrust Act, was passed in the US in 1890. The Americans believed that without this law, the US could not become strong and prosperous. If China doesn't act decisively against monopolistic practices, it won't have a future.

The New York Times' reporting on the Qualcomm fine reflects its nationalism. That China is always the one to be blamed for frictions between China and US enterprises constitutes the basic logic of the newspaper.

As large as the fine is, it's quite reasonable. Qualcomm previously faced a fine of up to 10 percent of its annual revenue in South Korea, while the fine imposed by China is only 8 percent. Chinese society has no intention of harassing foreign investors. Foreign multinationals should actively cooperate with the relevant authorities to enhance the rule of law in the economic field.