> unlike their Chinese counterparts, they don't have any real long-term goals
China's long term goal is to become the top superpower. USA's long term goal is to stay the top superpower. Everything else flows from this but it should be very clear that "staying in power" is very much a real goal on any horizon. It also involves a lot of military, economic, and political effort. As a democracy the US can't have an equally concentrated aim but as the saying goes, getting to the top is easy, staying at the top is hard.
The biggest difference is really that the US is already in a top position, and a good chunk of the world, particularly the EU, have interests that are mostly aligned with the US. When they're not it usually takes no more than a bit of economic and political pressure from the US to get the desired results.
China does not have this support. The Western world does not have any reason to trust them, no real "relationship", and no guarantee that China would be a "benevolent dictator" like the US. I say "dictator" because the US successfully imposed its views/demands on the Western world almost whenever this was needed by dangling a tiny carrot and a giant stick, a situation most of the world is more or less comfortable with. So no reason to take chances on a country that could forgo the carrot completely, or just have completely misaligned interests.
To the point, people are arguing that China could use Chinese companies to undermine a foreign country, clearly making them a no go for anything secure. In contrast we also know that for all intents and purposes the US can do and did the same with US based companies. It's just about picking the view that supports your personal beliefs and interests. As a regular person, would you rather be spied on by the US via Cisco or by China via Huawei? As the US government this understandably isn't even a question.
>With this reality, why would any government risk allowing Huawei in their networks?
Well firstly because the USA does the same thing. Being technologically ahead, it tends to work on giving it's companies an edge over regulators or competition rather than stealing tech. But no one is being fair here.
So you're not choosing between a good guy and a bad guy
I'm happy to agree the USA is morally less repugnant than China. I'm neither American nor Chinese but I'll take US hegemony over Chinese. But that's still picking the less bad option.
And either way, you lose some sovereignty. And both nations will be in your infrastructure whether you buy their kit or not, because most such espionage is software based, so it doesn't really matter.
So the question is really not the one your asking. A better question is, "how much will I lose to the security issue and how much will I gain from the tech I'm buying and how does this affect everything else I am doing including relations with both sides?"
Since China has better 5G tech, and the loss is the same, you buy Chinese based only on the first part of that question.
And that is the reason the USA is making so much noise: since the 70s, after the US got scared into pushing for technological progress by sputnik, the USA has been the leader in tech. Now Cisco etc have dropped the ball and the Chinese have edged ahead in this one product...
It's also worth noting how unfairly EU/Asian companies have been treated in US markets over the last decade. There might be value buying Chinese to dissuade US bullying given that the age of peaceful cooperation (economically) seems to be over (Deutsch bank fines, Toyota recalls etc).
Plus increasingly the EU wishes to deviate from us foreign policy and have its own policy. China doesn't care unless you're messing about in their back yard because they don't have much foreign policy beyond there. But the US expects compliance world wide. If you buy Cisco, and then refuse to sanction Iran for no reason, will you still be able to get Cisco spares?
You can disagree with my assessment of parts of this, that's fine. But the point is, this is 100 times more complex than buying a knock off version with security flaws or a proper piece of kit...
> China is not Europe; it's not going to hand over the keys to its economic future to the United States just because the US asks for them.
Of course they aren't going to do that merely because we asked them nicely.
But, if we start forcing them to sell 100 billion dollar companies for 50% off, like what is happening with TikTok, well then they might start to listen.
Thats the whole point. I am completely unsurprised that China is acting this way. And, in response, America is going to retaliate and cause many billions and billions of dollars in damages to major China tech companies.
> It's not reasonable to expect, much less demand, that the Chinese turn their tech economy over to silicon valley by allowing unrestricted US entry. It's not in their economic interests, nor is it in their security interests, and no amount of US bullying will change this.
Well if what you are saying is true, then it sounds like we should try and get a consolation prize, of taking some of their companies.
Sure, they might not give in to our demands. I don't really expect them to. But if thats the case, well, at least the USA can still benefit by taking some of their valuable tech companies, right?
> Were Beijing to pull the inverse Huawei ban on any company in the West, that company would be dead in a few months no matter what it is.
China can't do any of that because it would harm their own economy far more (what remains of their industrial / trade trust would vaporize further) and it wouldn't likely kill the company they target (unless it was a small hyper dependent company). The US move against Huawei works particularly well because of the US partners willing to go along with it as a group; the same is true of US sanctions. China has very few allies and few global levers.
Plus, the US would respond very harshly and China knows that. China isn't a gentle flower, it isn't avoiding hammering strategic US companies out of the goodness of its heart; it isn't attempting that maneuver because it knows the cost is too high for itself.
The US is one of the least trade dependent nations:
On imports + exports as a share of GDP, the US ranks #6 in the world as least dependent, with those two items making up 27% of the US GDP. China is at 40%. Germany is 87%, France is 63% and the UK is 62% by comparison.
The US is also, essentially, entirely energy self-sufficient, with Canada's help. Something China is nowhere near being. The US could shut off China's access to foreign oil and a lot of coal supply very easily and it would grind up their economy.
Let's run the hypothetical though. Ok, do it to Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Oracle. Those are three of the five largest US companies and four of the largest tech companies.
Might as well also hit Netflix, Adobe, Intuit, Salesforce, Workday, ServiceNow, Uber, Lyft, Twitter, Snap, Pinterest, Slack, Dropbox, etc.
Also Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Occidental, Phillips 66, Valero, Marathon, EOG.
Run it against JPMorgan, Citi, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, NY Mellon, Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.
Next up do Visa, PayPal, Mastercard, Discover, Amex, Square, Stripe.
Then do it to Pfizer, Amgen, Merck, AbbVie, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogen, Eli Lilly.
Maybe Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrup and General Dynamics.
How about Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile / Sprint.
Also McDonald's, Yum Brands, Kraft, Mondelez, Coca Cola, Pepsi.
Total result: barely a scratch overall, if that.
Few of these companies, many of which are among the largest corporations on the planet, have a critical (threat-of-death type) exposure to China. A few would lose 5-10% of their businesses and life would continue just fine.
This is the fundamental mistake China made by keeping its economy so restricted and locked down to foreign companies. Most of the US economy doesn't have a critical dependency on China. That's also why the large China tariffs are having near zero inflationary effect and that will continue to be the case. The only serious effect it's having is that it's pushing manufacturing out of China, which was one of the goals.
>>> the US has been shown to be willing to use its economic leverage for political ends over the recent few years
> The entity list program against Chinese companies, the pressure on Europe to reject Huawei infrastructure (and accompanying threats in particular when it comes to natsec data sharing)
A couple points 1) political ends aren't necessarily bad ends, and 2) it's hard for me to view much of the Huawei stuff as pursuit of a "short-term or one sided" goal, given there are no American competitors for much of the Huawei equipment at issue.
This is one possible outcome. Another is that China learns to be a bit less self-serving and more cooperative with the rest of the world.
> Because the message this sends to the bigger world is: don't get too successful or we will kill your business.
That seems like a bit of a biased interpretation. Do you believe the US is literally trying to kill Huawei, or might it be possible that this is a negotiating tactic to get them to realize and acknowledge the value they receive from the rest of the world generously trading with them, by demonstrating the consequences of what happens when someone treats them in the way they treat the rest of the world (I am referring to access to their markets)?
> The irony is that that is exactly what western companies blame China for.
> American and European brands are far more dominant in China than the other way around. If anything, the story of Huawei shows that once Chinese companies try to move beyond selling low-value-added products in the West, they are viewed as strategic rivals and face discrimination on poorly explained national security grounds.
When it comes to Huawei, the national security implications are obvious. Just read China's national security laws. Chinese intelligence agencies can walk into Huawei at any time and force their cooperation. Of course, the CIA/NSA can do that domestically too (perhaps with more oversight), and that is why I wouldn't blame China for not using US sourced devices in their critical infrastructure.
> At the risk of sounding nationalistic, I think companies in the United States and other democratic countries should reconsider any and all business relationships with authoritarian regimes like those in China and Russia.
It just sounds stupid. Looking at the situation rationally it is the US that has in just the last 20 years (a) attacked several countries and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people and (b) revealed it is running the most extensive surveillance network in the history of the planet that legally and illegally attempts to surveil everybody including even allied political leaders and (c) regularly threatens to nuke and completely destroy other countries.
And somehow, despite all of this, we are supposed to think China is the authoritarian regime?
I know it's hard to imagine because Americans are completely lost in their bubble but the rest of the world understands well that it is the US, not Russia and certainly not China, that is the greatest threat to the world's peace and prosperity [1]. There's a difference between a country that is focused on exports and a country that bombs weddings and targets its own citizens for assassination on foreign soil.
Google returning to China is a good thing if only because it means the power of the US' murderous regime has over the multinational.
Realistically, it is not clear that China's censorship demands are unique outside of Asia or even Europe. China will ask Google to do the same monitoring and blacklisting that the corporation already does for Thailand, Malaysia and even Germany. None of this is new or even particularly unreasonable to the millions and billions of other people on the planet who don't live in the US. Believe it or not these people actually have their own ideas about how they want the internet to work.
> the future will be one of only Chinese international corporations
A world ruled by corporations headquartered in a single country, with other countries having their politics and economy determined by the interests a single nation has been the rest of the worlds situation for 50+ years. It's somewhat ironic to see Americans suddenly getting concerned about this.
> Would WeChat or TikTok even exist if the Chinese market were open to existing western chat and social media software?? Unlikely.
The argument that if the Chinese market was fully open then their local companies would have been more quickly devoured by single, US based corporations doesn't do much to convince me that what the Chinese government is doing is wrong.
And don't fool yourself, this had nothing to do with what's 'fair' for America or Americans, all of this is so strong arm Chinese companies into surrendering to corporations that happen to be based in the US on favorable terms. This is the US government working as the goons to enforce Facebook, Google and in this case specifically Microsofts global dominance.
> It makes sense, if the US is going to push against Huawei.
I don't think that's the right way to look at this. China was going down this path either way (as any country should examine for itself) and Huawei would just be a convenient excuse. There's just no way that the Chinese which are actively working to the undermine Western order would always be strategically reliant on US or Western technology.
>It isn’t the same at all. China routinely bans American internet companies for no apparent reason.
The reason is the China from the start saw US as a competitor to China's companies (and internal sovereignity, as the US likes to push its political agendas to other nations).
China wasn't seen as a competitor by the US, but as it's outsourced cheap factory - so as they were just that, they were ok. Now that China's companies get increasingly competitive and aim for the global market themselves, the US tries to stop them in various ways from doing business in the US.
("National interests" is a good catch all reason for that, "humans rights" is another good excuse - though when you do business just fine with all kinds of other human rights violator states - not to mention violate human rights left and right yourself -, it's evidently just an excuse).
Same thing when Japan got on the rise and started buying US companies and investing there. There was all kind of nationalistic objections, and in the end they were pressured to sign the Plaza accord, that hurt them to this day.
> it is clear that China /is/ our enemy. I personally hold no animus towards China...inform my enemy...recognize someone is your enemy...
Firstly, if you are so obsessed with finding enemies everywhere, then you do hold animus.
Second, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. The US missed out on 5G technology because a foreign researcher wasn't granted a green card and sold his research to Chinese companies instead. Way to go, undermining the very foundation of your success.
I think you need to realise that, outside of the west, for example in India, US is not trusted a whole lot more than China is. The allegations of threat to national security against Huawei seem suspiciously well timed, they appeared just as Huawei came out with 5G tech. To many nations this looks like economic warfare, and resorting to sanctions simply to secure markets.
You need to accept the fact that China is here to stay, and third nations are going to enjoy playing China and US off against each other, and see who can offer them better deal.
> > It's like saying a government backed army and a guy with a gun are the same because they can both shoot people.
> This however qualifies for that title, since you're probably underestimating China if you're comparing them with a single person with a gun.
You totally missed the analogy. Here, China/US are the armies, and Huawei/Cisco are just some folks with guns. When governments intervene, they bring an enormous amount of resources that even large companies cannot compete with.
> Does that mean that all systems are compromised? No, because there are risks associated with tapping in to these systems. Partly it depends on if they have access to the systems, but mostly on the possible blow-back if they get caught.
Isn’t it common knowledge that the US and China is spying on everyone? The main difference is that China is not a military ally, and its government spying, which is unfettered, supports its private enterprise that is government financed and owned.
US govt spying is unfettered. US corporate spying far more restricted because US businesses are bound by Federal and State laws, and it’s not centrally coordinated, instead US businesses are autonomous entities. And though US corporate spying on customers is rampant, it is also transparently written into usage contracts. US corporate spying is obviously for profit, and since the US and Europe are strategically tied through NATO, it’s not on the same threat level. China and its axis ally Russia, clearly bump up against the West because our political systems are fundamentally opposite, democratic vs autocratic.
What this translates to is Chinese investors are agressively running around buying into key strategic businesses, advised by data gathering in coordination with its government, with a view to maintaining control, which reflects how the country is managed itself.
American investors are running around buying/competing against business in coordination with data rich parent company entities, with a view to making money. But because it’s a democratic country where laws preserve autonomy even against the government, it’s a free for all and anyone can play, even Chinese owned American companies. Which is a reflection of how the US is managed itself.
This is also how Europe is managed, so I do believe Chinese control of telcos is a bigger threat to Europe’s way of life.
> The US is now on the verge of the second great breakthrough of mass automation of that data, intelligence and action. I am honestly shocked that this third stage of American Dominance has not be countered by any other nation save China, and even they're only defensively.
As someone who has similar thoughts, I'm not so sure. The EU has been trying for a while. Russia also puts quite a bit of effort into having an Internet that can operate separately from the US.
edit: That still doesn't explain to me why China and Russia don't have stronger pro-Linux (or something) initiatives. Even the middle powers could at least try to have some control over their technological infrastructure.
> US companies have now been shown for what they really are: an extension of the US government.
Not just with US companies. ZTE, Huawei and others are extensions of the Chinese government, Gazprom and the Kreml are interchangeable and the IMF is finance weaponized by the Western economies as a whole.
> Caveat emptor: using US technology has big risks.
Using and especially depending on any technology from a foreign power, especially one that may turn to an adverse power or outright enemy, is a risk. The Western countries have all, over the last decades, shifted most of their production to China - and now are surprised that China has them by the balls, literally, as many countries don't even have people with the skillset required for low level manufacturing.
> so he’d be wise to curb his nationalistic “no-one-tells-China-what-to-do” bluster
This comment highlights both ignorance of Chinese history and continuing American arrogance.
China has been painfully dictated what to do during the last 200 years. This has had a profound effect on the country and has led to the collapse of imperial rule and the drive to 'rejuvenate' the country (to use the official term in China).
This is also arrogant because it suggests that China should be told what to do coming from THE country (the USA) that really is the archetype of "no-one tells us what to do".
I would quip that one of the US's issues with China is that China is not told what to do and is too big to be easily coerced. A bit of a rude awakening for the US...
> Huawei then uses ... its rising global market dominance to set the next generation of global 5G telecom standards around its own technologies, not those of Qualcomm or Sweden’s Ericsson.
Which is exactly what Qualcomm did for 3G. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
> Why isn't the entire world using software or hosted solutions for all of our SaaS needs in India and China?
Because the tech has been developed in the US, and the US has lead in it ever since.
> Given that the existential nature of the Chinese economy is intertwined with the CPC, I don't think any good will come of this.
I mean, the article being discussed here shows that US corporations are tools of US foreign policy. Yes, it's a different style of control, but it's control nonetheless.
And before the notorious flaggers run wild: I don't like the Chinese model. I don't particularly like the US model either though. I'm not judging those that profit from it for also liking it. I'm sure I would, too.
China's long term goal is to become the top superpower. USA's long term goal is to stay the top superpower. Everything else flows from this but it should be very clear that "staying in power" is very much a real goal on any horizon. It also involves a lot of military, economic, and political effort. As a democracy the US can't have an equally concentrated aim but as the saying goes, getting to the top is easy, staying at the top is hard.
The biggest difference is really that the US is already in a top position, and a good chunk of the world, particularly the EU, have interests that are mostly aligned with the US. When they're not it usually takes no more than a bit of economic and political pressure from the US to get the desired results.
China does not have this support. The Western world does not have any reason to trust them, no real "relationship", and no guarantee that China would be a "benevolent dictator" like the US. I say "dictator" because the US successfully imposed its views/demands on the Western world almost whenever this was needed by dangling a tiny carrot and a giant stick, a situation most of the world is more or less comfortable with. So no reason to take chances on a country that could forgo the carrot completely, or just have completely misaligned interests.
To the point, people are arguing that China could use Chinese companies to undermine a foreign country, clearly making them a no go for anything secure. In contrast we also know that for all intents and purposes the US can do and did the same with US based companies. It's just about picking the view that supports your personal beliefs and interests. As a regular person, would you rather be spied on by the US via Cisco or by China via Huawei? As the US government this understandably isn't even a question.
reply