10 ms·

I agree, the sanctions aren't helping the Chinese tech economy. And I also agree that economic warfare has escalated recently. Battle lines have been being dr

I agree, the sanctions aren't helping the Chinese tech economy. And I also agree that economic warfare has escalated recently. Battle lines have been being drawn for the last decade or so, and now pieces are moving around on the chess board (not just US and China, Russia Ukraine etc) As to how much beyond "not being friends" this is, I'm not sure that protecting the Chinese tech sector is anyone's responsibility but China's. As you said, this is geopolitics. It's not like China is looking out for US or EU or anyone else's interests. Widescale IP theft certainly isn't helping the US tech economy. If US and China were allies I'm sure more would be done to find a mutually agreeable solution, but it's pretty clear at this point that US and Chinese geopolitical interests are not aligned. Having it's IP stolen is the US's problem to solve. They're solving it in part by refusing (at a state level) to do business with parts of the Chinese tech sector. Considering how long its taken the US to respond, it's clear to me time was being taken to solve this diplomatically, and that patience has run out. It's not like the CCP hasn't had time to change their bad behavior and reach a compromise solution. Having something stolen is a problem for the victim. But the victims response may be a problem for the thief. This is simply a long overdue consequence for systemic bad behavior. This situation is regrettable for both parties. But resorting to "US bad" and "China victim" here is a gross simplification of the situation.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
> This situation is regrettable for both parties. But resorting to "US bad" and "China victim" here is a gross simplification of the situation. It's clear which side is the aggressor here. The Chinese government doesn't want a tech war or a trade war, because every year that China can stably develop its economy plays in its favor. The US sees the same situation in exactly the opposite way: every year that China develops economically lessens American dominance. > Widescale IP theft certainly isn't helping the US tech economy. You're vastly overstating the importance of IP theft. This is a minor annoyance in the US-China relationship now. China used to have weak IP protections, like most developing countries, but now it has much stricter IP enforcement. If this were just a question of reducing IP theft, China and the US would have little difficulty negotiating a deal. The issue is much deeper: American anxiety about being displaced as the world's top power.
- lordfrito 4y ago
  I don't understand how you can complain about unfair economic warfare being waged by the west, while at the same time downplay the systemic theft of western IP to build the Chinese economy. One is "economic warfare" and the other is a "minor annoyance"? Guess it depends on whose side you're on? As for "American anxiety about being displaced as the world's top power". It's no secret that China wants to replace the western/liberal rules based system of international order with one of their own design. Whether or not they will succeed in doing this one thing is certain: it wont happen without major conflicts along the way, and will likely require a world war. The system put in place after WWII has served the world well enough, it's given the world relative peace and prosperity, and helped the great powers avoid major conflicts for a good 75 years. In many ways there's never been a better time to be alive. It seems China seeks to return to pre-WWII conditions, where great powers have the opportunity to pursue their ambitions in absence of any group uniting to keep them in check. This will inevitably lead to rising tensions and conflict between overlapping spheres of influence. If this isn't a recipe for war, I don't know what is. There is a period of conflict that is coming (and in some ways is already here). Russia invaded Ukraine shortly after announcing the Russian-China friendship was was "without limits". Russia wants to be free to pursue it's Imperial goals in eastern Europe, and China is willing to look the other way as they have their own designs on the pan-Asia geopolitical sphere. In many ways the invasion of Ukraine was a shot across the bow to the current world order, announcing that some power blocks are done playing by the current set of rules, and signaling to everyone that the period of relative stability may be over. We've moved from the "post WW-II" phase of history to the "pre WW-III" phase. That fact alone is definitely anxiety producing.
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    > the systemic theft of western IP to build the Chinese economy As I said, you're hugely exaggerating the scale and significance of IP theft. IP theft was not important to the development of the Chinese economy. There is weak IP protection in practically every developing economy, and China was not unusual in this regard. China now has relatively strong IP protections, which are better than what most countries at its developmental stage have. > It's no secret that China wants to replace the western/liberal rules based system of international order with one of their own design. The phrase "rules-based international order" has become a buzzword at the State Department over the last few years. China buys into the international system, centered on the UN, but also including the WTO and other multilateral organizations. The US has a very bad record of respecting these organizations, particularly since the late 1990s. Just two examples: the illegal invasion of Iraq (the US knew the UNSC would reject any war authorization, so the Bush administration declared the UN irrelevant and went ahead with the invasion anyways), and Trump's trade wars (which obviously went against WTO rules, though the US also purposely lamed the WTO by blocking the appointment of appeals judges). I suspect that the reason the State Department likes the term "rules-based international order" is that it doesn't explicitly refer to the actual, established international system (the UN), and is vague enough that it can refer to really whatever the US wants to. > It seems China seeks to return to pre-WWII conditions, where great powers have the opportunity to pursue their ambitions in absence of any group uniting to keep them in check. China is one of the most vocal supporters of the UN as the central organization for regulating international affairs, and of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. I don't see where you're getting the idea that China wants to overturn the international system.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

> This situation is regrettable for both parties. But resorting to "US bad" and "China victim" here is a gross simplification of the situation. It's clear which side is the aggressor here. The Chinese government doesn't want a tech war or a trade war, because every year that China can stably develop its economy plays in its favor. The US sees the same situation in exactly the opposite way: every year that China develops economically lessens American dominance. > Widescale IP theft certainly isn't helping the US tech economy. You're vastly overstating the importance of IP theft. This is a minor annoyance in the US-China relationship now. China used to have weak IP protections, like most developing countries, but now it has much stricter IP enforcement. If this were just a question of reducing IP theft, China and the US would have little difficulty negotiating a deal. The issue is much deeper: American anxiety about being displaced as the world's top power.

lordfrito 4y ago
I don't understand how you can complain about unfair economic warfare being waged by the west, while at the same time downplay the systemic theft of western IP to build the Chinese economy. One is "economic warfare" and the other is a "minor annoyance"? Guess it depends on whose side you're on? As for "American anxiety about being displaced as the world's top power". It's no secret that China wants to replace the western/liberal rules based system of international order with one of their own design. Whether or not they will succeed in doing this one thing is certain: it wont happen without major conflicts along the way, and will likely require a world war. The system put in place after WWII has served the world well enough, it's given the world relative peace and prosperity, and helped the great powers avoid major conflicts for a good 75 years. In many ways there's never been a better time to be alive. It seems China seeks to return to pre-WWII conditions, where great powers have the opportunity to pursue their ambitions in absence of any group uniting to keep them in check. This will inevitably lead to rising tensions and conflict between overlapping spheres of influence. If this isn't a recipe for war, I don't know what is. There is a period of conflict that is coming (and in some ways is already here). Russia invaded Ukraine shortly after announcing the Russian-China friendship was was "without limits". Russia wants to be free to pursue it's Imperial goals in eastern Europe, and China is willing to look the other way as they have their own designs on the pan-Asia geopolitical sphere. In many ways the invasion of Ukraine was a shot across the bow to the current world order, announcing that some power blocks are done playing by the current set of rules, and signaling to everyone that the period of relative stability may be over. We've moved from the "post WW-II" phase of history to the "pre WW-III" phase. That fact alone is definitely anxiety producing.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  > the systemic theft of western IP to build the Chinese economy As I said, you're hugely exaggerating the scale and significance of IP theft. IP theft was not important to the development of the Chinese economy. There is weak IP protection in practically every developing economy, and China was not unusual in this regard. China now has relatively strong IP protections, which are better than what most countries at its developmental stage have. > It's no secret that China wants to replace the western/liberal rules based system of international order with one of their own design. The phrase "rules-based international order" has become a buzzword at the State Department over the last few years. China buys into the international system, centered on the UN, but also including the WTO and other multilateral organizations. The US has a very bad record of respecting these organizations, particularly since the late 1990s. Just two examples: the illegal invasion of Iraq (the US knew the UNSC would reject any war authorization, so the Bush administration declared the UN irrelevant and went ahead with the invasion anyways), and Trump's trade wars (which obviously went against WTO rules, though the US also purposely lamed the WTO by blocking the appointment of appeals judges). I suspect that the reason the State Department likes the term "rules-based international order" is that it doesn't explicitly refer to the actual, established international system (the UN), and is vague enough that it can refer to really whatever the US wants to. > It seems China seeks to return to pre-WWII conditions, where great powers have the opportunity to pursue their ambitions in absence of any group uniting to keep them in check. China is one of the most vocal supporters of the UN as the central organization for regulating international affairs, and of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. I don't see where you're getting the idea that China wants to overturn the international system.