3 ms·

All national security has a cost, access to TSMC is obviously national security issue, and appears US is positioning itself to reduce the cost of access to TSMC

by billme 6y ago

All national security has a cost, access to TSMC is obviously national security issue, and appears US is positioning itself to reduce the cost of access to TSMC and increase it for China. National security is an ends, not a means; its ultimate form is shapelessness, not a strict definition.

jrochkind1 6y ago
I'll ask again, is there any example of international trade dispute/conflict that would not be about 'national security' with this understanding? Can you give one? Or does this intentionally and consciously reconceptualize all attempts to get advantage in international trade, or a business advantage for domestic corporations over foreign ones, as 'national security'?
- billme 6y ago
  Here’s a recent example: https://www.csis.org/analysis/wtos-first-ruling-national-security-what-does-it-mean-united-states https://www.csis.org/analysis/wtos-first-ruling-national-sec...
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    Can you explain that example in your own words, and what you think makes it not an issue of national security? Or is your position just, hard to say, whatever the WTO says? What the WTO determines has changed over time, and can depend on the balance of power. The WTO knows that if it keeps making rulings that countries just ignore, it loses power and legitmacy, it has to try not to push too hard. But your opinion is whatever the WTO decides is correct? To me, if the penalties against Huawei are really about negotiations over a government subsidy for a TSMC plant, I'd expect the WTO to rule against the US, if it was playing 'fair'. Which doesn't mean it will. Here's an example of the WTO ruling against the US in a trade dispute with China, and the US retaliating to try to weaken the WTO. https://www.ft.com/content/131a55ea-a84a-11e9-984c-fac8325aaa04 https://www.ft.com/content/131a55ea-a84a-11e9-984c-fac8325aa... Here's an expert writing on "Why Limiting U.S. Tech Exports to Chinese Companies Like Huawei Is a Risky Strategy", https://itif.org/publications/2019/05/23/why-limiting-us-tech-exports-chinese-companies-huawei-risky-strategy https://itif.org/publications/2019/05/23/why-limiting-us-tec... China has been working on challenging actions against Huawei specifically at the WTO; although it has to be careful because they know the WTO's rulings can be effected by politics, and the US (especially current administration) may not abide by the WTO ruling anyway, they need to try to remain on good terms to avoid escalating trade war, regardless of what the WTO might ultimately rule (which can take a while too). https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/05/29/huawei-goes-legal-again-as-china-tells-its-officials-and-media-back-off-the-u-s/#52b4636b6b3b https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/05/29/huawei-go...
- cryptonector 6y ago
  There is not. In more peaceful times smaller trade disputes can be seen as having no national security relevance. But otherwise international trade absolutely is of relevance to national security. And that's as true for perennial exporters as for perennial importers.

by billme 6y ago

jrochkind1 6y ago

I'll ask again, is there any example of international trade dispute/conflict that would not be about 'national security' with this understanding? Can you give one? Or does this intentionally and consciously reconceptualize all attempts to get advantage in international trade, or a business advantage for domestic corporations over foreign ones, as 'national security'?

billme 6y ago
Here’s a recent example: https://www.csis.org/analysis/wtos-first-ruling-national-security-what-does-it-mean-united-states https://www.csis.org/analysis/wtos-first-ruling-national-sec...
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  Can you explain that example in your own words, and what you think makes it not an issue of national security? Or is your position just, hard to say, whatever the WTO says? What the WTO determines has changed over time, and can depend on the balance of power. The WTO knows that if it keeps making rulings that countries just ignore, it loses power and legitmacy, it has to try not to push too hard. But your opinion is whatever the WTO decides is correct? To me, if the penalties against Huawei are really about negotiations over a government subsidy for a TSMC plant, I'd expect the WTO to rule against the US, if it was playing 'fair'. Which doesn't mean it will. Here's an example of the WTO ruling against the US in a trade dispute with China, and the US retaliating to try to weaken the WTO. https://www.ft.com/content/131a55ea-a84a-11e9-984c-fac8325aaa04 https://www.ft.com/content/131a55ea-a84a-11e9-984c-fac8325aa... Here's an expert writing on "Why Limiting U.S. Tech Exports to Chinese Companies Like Huawei Is a Risky Strategy", https://itif.org/publications/2019/05/23/why-limiting-us-tech-exports-chinese-companies-huawei-risky-strategy https://itif.org/publications/2019/05/23/why-limiting-us-tec... China has been working on challenging actions against Huawei specifically at the WTO; although it has to be careful because they know the WTO's rulings can be effected by politics, and the US (especially current administration) may not abide by the WTO ruling anyway, they need to try to remain on good terms to avoid escalating trade war, regardless of what the WTO might ultimately rule (which can take a while too). https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/05/29/huawei-goes-legal-again-as-china-tells-its-officials-and-media-back-off-the-u-s/#52b4636b6b3b https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/05/29/huawei-go...
cryptonector 6y ago
There is not. In more peaceful times smaller trade disputes can be seen as having no national security relevance. But otherwise international trade absolutely is of relevance to national security. And that's as true for perennial exporters as for perennial importers.