7 ms·

Nortel networks haven't been around for nearly a decade. I've seen lots of news about 5G/Huaewi and 'core networks' only in the recent years in western countrie

• heavyset_go 4y ago
  People are taking action now because the West spent decades underestimating China, probably for xenophobic reasons. I'm willing to bet a lot of people assumed they weren't as capable as westerners and now it can't be denied. IMO, it was a classic mistake of underestimating a potential rival while stroking our own egos about how smart, capable and powerful we are in comparison. Reality finally trumped hubris.
  • seydor 4y ago
    in what sense is a rival?
    • SSJPython 4y ago
      A rival for hegemony in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. The current hegemon in this region is the US. It is the strongest APAC power by far due to its numerous military bases as well as its network of strong allies (Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea). China seeks to displace the US as the hegemon in APAC. Naturally, the current hegemon doesn't take too kindly to that. So they view China as a rival.
      • seydor 4y ago
        What about the rest of the West
        • SSJPython 4y ago
          What about it? The US is also the hegemon in Europe. The "West" just means the US and its network of alliances. Other Western countries may want good relations with China, but they need to take US views into account because the US bankrolls their defense and is also a very important trade partner. Large, strong countries do what they want and small, weak countries do what they must. That's the way it is and the way it's always been.
          • seydor 4y ago
            Don't you think that 's a bit too arrogant? Why should germany support the US domination over Japan, when all they want is industrial materials through the indo-pacific route. I think the world was more fair during cold war, having 2 superpowers pushed both of them to keep each other in check. This one state world, seems worse
            • rgbrenner 4y ago
              Since you brought it up in your example: US, Germany and Japans interests are aligned against China regarding the indo pacific trade route… china’s ambitions to claim all of the South China Sea seek to disrupt the trade route.. and the us helps protect that route by performing freedom of navigation exercises (which have a very real chance of sparking a war that the us alone would be responsible for).
      • rgbrenner 4y ago
        China—so powerful that they believe they can rival the US… but also so weak that they should qualify for WTO protections for developing markets. At a certain point you have to question whether they believe in free trade at all.. or just paying lip service to it to make themselves rich.
        • chrischen 4y ago
          The whole point of free trade is a no rules game to make yourself rich.
          • rgbrenner 4y ago
            No. There are definitely rules.. like equal access to markets, limits on tariffs, etc.
            • chrischen 4y ago
              Forcing equal access to markets is a limit on sovereignty (freedom). That's why the TPP got shut down. Equal access to markets in many cases just means total economic subjugation of weaker nations by commercial interests like the whole India colonial period.
              • rgbrenner 4y ago
                Yeah sure… the worlds largest economy is too weak to import roughly 300b a year in goods to balance us/China trade. 300b/yr is enough to subjugate a 27 trillion/yr (gdp ppp) economy. rofl
                • chrischen 4y ago
                  My point is rather than deciding which economy is large enough to decide for itself how to tariff, you let everyone decide for themselves. And in fact this is how the world works by default, and even the US chooses selective tariffs… so what does it mean to selectively cry “fair trade” only when it benefits your local corporate interests? Think about the opposite of what you are suggesting… should China now start subsidizing US businesses by buying made in USA when they don’t have to? If we make good products, they have no choice but to buy it because their citizens will demand it.
    • Trombone12 4y ago
      In the sense that it is official US government policy to describe China as a rival, as distinct from even the neutral "partner". Most recently this is said in the US national security strategy from October, which declares that it is a central task of US foreign policy to oppose Chinas vision for the world. Another examples is that the DoD has for quite a long time declared China as the primary adversary, or as they politely say it "pacing challenge".
  • rgbrenner 4y ago
    I don’t think it’s xenophobia. The US helped China into the WTO. The dispute is really about the status of China. The wto allows developing countries to impose import restrictions and various other protections. China—number one by gdp ppp, or #72 by gdp ppp per capita- says they are still a developing country and don’t have to give other countries equal access to their market. The US disagrees. I know there are other complaints, but this is the core issue.. and I strongly suspect the us would look the other way on those issues if there was equal access, like they have in the past (to maintain access to the market).
    • chrischen 4y ago
      The US isn’t a single consistent entity. US basically enabled modern day China by opening trade, but now that they are catching up it’s no longer advantageous to help them forward.
      • ashwagary 4y ago
        The US benefited from opening up to China. It returning to the dominant economy in the world was an inevitability with or without US support. Being on good terms with them and dealing with inflation by using their labor force bought the US some time but US politicians just acted more irresponsibly (warmongering) instead of capitalizing on the temporary windfall.
  • kelnos 4y ago
    It has nothing to do with xenophobia. The Chinese government doesn't play fair, and the West has been letting them get away with it for decades. They take full advantage of open markets available in the rest of the world, but close their markets to outsiders; at best, outsiders can get a piece of the action, but only through the oversight and partial ownership of a local company. The idea that China is still a "developing nation" and should have special status and privileges is a joke. While I won't claim that Western nations don't have issues with censorship and freedom of speech, the Chinese government punishes foreign corporations (economically) that say anything critical of China or its government. The Chinese government exports its propaganda and censorship policies through informal economic sanctions. I'm not particularly interested in allowing an authoritarian government that pushes pervasive propaganda and censorship to become the next world hegemon. (I'll freely admit that the US is no saint in that role, but I think it should be obvious and defensible why I'd prefer the US in that position rather than China.) Note that this is all about the Chinese government. I have no problems with Chinese people; by and large, those I've met on my few trips to China (granted, my last trip was over 10 years ago) and those I've met who travel to and live in the US have been good, friendly, intelligent people. It's perfectly reasonable to be against the constant, widespread actions of a foreign government without being branded a xenophobe.
    • zerocrates 4y ago
      The parent comment isn't saying anti-China actions and suspicions by the government are xenophobic. It's instead saying more or less the opposite: that the delay in these kinds of actions is possibly down to policymakers seeing China as lesser and not worth concern.
      • JamesianP 4y ago
        That also sounds like the opposite of xenophobia. And the US befriended China for important strategic reasons starting with Nixon. If they underestimated anything it was the ability of an authoritarian regime to retain power through such a period of economic growth. Middle classes tend to want western products and media. But the economic growth itself was a deliberate goal of US policy.
  • steve76 4y ago
    [dead]
  • dotnet00 4y ago
    It wasn't xenophobia, the West has been gradually waking up to the realization that their idea of converting countries into more ideal partners by building strong trade is not really working as the countries they're trying to influence will just take the benefits and not reciprocate. It has become especially clear over the past few years, first with COVID highlighting the fragility of supply chains dependent on such one-sided relations and now with the invasion of Ukraine showing that such relations may also not be as strong of a deterrent against war as previously hoped.
    • _tik_ 4y ago
      The traded deals are very far from the charity of the west. The traded deals by the west were based on the benefit to the western countries. It is not a charity. The low inflation, the record profit of the western companies and bonuses are from cheap labour and resources from more desperate countries.
      • dotnet00 4y ago
        Of course they weren't charity, they were mutually beneficial. The entire point being that offering mutually beneficial deals would lead to reciprocation with more mutually beneficial deals, building a dependency on maintaining such mutual deals. In the same way that the US and EU going to war or even just breaking off diplomatic ties is extremely unlikely to happen due to how much they have integrated with each other on the back of mutual benefit.
        • _tik_ 4y ago
          I wish this this true : "deals on mutual benefit". The Relationship are based on leverage though. There is no way my country able to ban US product or prevent US taking over strategic company based on security concern. Election interference and fake news from the West is also a normal things.
    • heavyset_go 4y ago
      Imposition of market liberalism, to me at least, feels like an extension of that perceived Western superiority, especially combined with the hubris that The End of History drew from.
  • chihuahua 4y ago
    It reminds me of how the U.S. and Britain underestimated Japan just before WW2. They thought Japan was a bunch of funny little men, not really competent at fighting. This led to a very rude awakening in Dec 1941 and throughout much of 1942 when the Japanese Navy proved to be extremely competent and, together with the Army, seized a lot of territory across the Pacific (Singapore, Philippines, etc)
• Spooky23 4y ago
  Assuming you are male, if someone walked up to you, kicked you in the nuts, took your work and used it to get you run out of business, would you be ok hiring that person a decade later to perform a critical function?
  • 2devnull 4y ago
    Some people will pay good money to be kicked in the balls. I don’t agree with it, but those who enjoy it will make a strong case that the market be free for that sort of thing. Getting peed on also. There’s a market for everything.
  • seydor 4y ago
    if that person worked for decades for pennies to make me rich, and is unlikely to make me poor , maybe yes
  • flumpcakes 4y ago
    I would say the whole Arm situation in China is a much more clear-cut example of this. I haven't seen the west do anything about it.
• FpUser 4y ago
  >"but there must be some reason people are only taking action now?" I am sure there are legitimate concerns as all countries spy on each other. But China has become a real industrial and scientific competitor to China and the US just simply would not tolerate a threat to their leading position. I think they are quite explicit about this. We hear all the time about "vital interests".