4 ms·

Everyone seems to be ignoring the core thesis of this article and seems to only be discussing the title > America’s policymakers are also learning from their m

Everyone seems to be ignoring the core thesis of this article and seems to only be discussing the title > America’s policymakers are also learning from their mistakes. The gradual ratcheting-up of sanctions on Huawei, and especially the 28-month gap between the announcement of the most severe measures in 2018 and their implementation in 2020, gave the firm lots of time to prepare, China hawks lament. But the bigger lesson from Huawei’s torment has not yet sunk in: that cutting the firm off from Western technology did not stifle it, but instead increased its incentives to innovate. China is still years behind the West in chipmaking. Sanctions on high-powered semiconductors have raised costs and slowed the uptake of ai for thousands of firms, as intended. Hubble’s investments are still far from replacing Western lithography machines and other components. But if Huawei was a worry when America first declared war, it is a bigger one now. Basically, the ad hoc and imprecise sanctions regime used by the Trump admin gave too much lead time for Huawei to begin indigenizing its capabilities. This is a mistake the US learned from and can be seen with SMIC, YMTC, and other state run champions (BYD is a domestic champion but NOT state run). I'd highly recommend listening to Rush Doshi if you want to understand the US's China policy - he's the NSC Advisor who was in charge of China policy in the Biden admin until a couple weeks ago.

tw04 2y ago
I don’t know if people are ignorant or just misinformed. Do you really think China wasn’t already actively building and/or stealing this tech while still doing business with American companies? This has been their MO for a decade now and people are still trying to claim America fighting back is somehow helping China. Such a ridiculous take. I’m not in a spot to dig it up, but processor tech was something the party decided was a national security issue long, long before any sanction was even whispered about.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > Do you really think China wasn’t already actively building and/or stealing this tech while still doing business with American companies No. I and policymakers I used to work with have been cognizant about this for around a decade now. Check out the Sullivan Principle - technology will diffuse, but putting roadblocks to maintain the existing lead is critical. > but processor tech was something the party decided was a national security issue long, long before any sanction was even whispered about Absolutely, yet 10 years ago China was 2 generations behind, and with Huawei's announcement, they are still 2 generations behind. The difference is almost $100B was spent by the PRC just to keep the status quo. These are hard problems, and very targeted and swift sanctions DO make it harder
throwaway4good 2y ago
The October 7 sanctions seem to be a change to a shock and awe strategy. I am not sure that it worked for the bigger players. Both YMTC and SMIC seem to be making new technological breakthroughs still.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  The stated goal was to prevent coins from breaking through 14nm. With the 7nm chips that SMIC has been manufacturing for Huawei, that policy has failed. The entire strategy being pursued by the Biden administration is extremely dangerous. Sullivan seems to believe that he's some sort of guru, but the goal he's pursuing - of wrecking Chinese high-tech sectors using blunt American power - will not only fail, but will also lead to enormous tensions between the US and China. You simply can't behave in that sort of arrogant way towards another major power. China isn't some little country like Venezuela or Cuba.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > The stated goal was to prevent coins from breaking through 14nm Who said that? The goal of the Sullivan principle was always a 2 Gen lead at scale [0] [0] - https://www.belfercenter.org/event/competition-without-catastrophe-how-america-can-both-challenge-and-coexist-china-belfer https://www.belfercenter.org/event/competition-without-catas...
    - throwaway4good 2y ago
      Sullivan said that in later speeches - have them freeze at current levels and get a forever growing lead.
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        I've never heard of the 14nm barrier in policymaking and cannot remember of one. If you can link me a first hand source I'd appreciate it. I might be misremembering. Anyhow, this is the core of the Sullivan Principle from back in 2019 (and in development even earlier) "The United States will also have to safeguard its technological advantages in the face of China’s intellectual property theft, targeted industrial policies, and commingling of its economic and security sectors. Doing so will require some enhanced restrictions on the flow of technology investment and trade in both directions, but these efforts should be pursued selectively rather than wholesale, imposing curbs on technologies that are critical to national security and human rights and allowing regular trade and investment to continue for those that are not. Even these targeted restrictions must be undertaken in consultation with industry and other governments; failing to do so could Balkanize the global technology ecosystem by impeding flows of knowledge and talent. Such a development would neutralize a key U.S. competitive advantage relative to China: an open economy that can source the best global talent and synthesize the biggest breakthroughs from around the world. Meanwhile, overreach on technology restrictions could drive other countries toward China, especially since China is already the largest trading partner for most. In this respect, the Trump administration’s loud and largely unilateral campaign against the participation of the Chinese company Huawei in the development of 5G infrastructure may provide a cautionary lesson. Had the administration coordinated with allies and partners in advance and tried some creative policymaking—for example, establishing a multilateral lending initiative to subsidize the purchase of alternatives to Huawei’s equipment—it might have had more success in convincing states to consider other vendors. It then might have been able to make the most of the two-year delay Huawei now faces in rolling out 5G following its placement on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s list of entities that cannot be supplied with American technology. Future efforts to restrict trade with China in the technology sector will require careful deliberation, advance planning, and multilateral support if they are to be successful; otherwise, they will risk undermining U.S. innovation." - Jake Sullivan, 2019
fspeech 2y ago
This is not really what happened. American policy makers weren't being lenient because they didn't how to kill Huawei, but because they wanted to keep the damages below the level that they believe would induce Chinese retaliations. Killing Huawei would have generated enormous collateral damages, when many of their allies depended on Huawei. Additionally US depends on China too. In an economic MAD world it is not at all clear people would care about 5G or 7nm chips.

tw04 2y ago

I don’t know if people are ignorant or just misinformed. Do you really think China wasn’t already actively building and/or stealing this tech while still doing business with American companies? This has been their MO for a decade now and people are still trying to claim America fighting back is somehow helping China. Such a ridiculous take. I’m not in a spot to dig it up, but processor tech was something the party decided was a national security issue long, long before any sanction was even whispered about.

alephnerd 2y ago
> Do you really think China wasn’t already actively building and/or stealing this tech while still doing business with American companies No. I and policymakers I used to work with have been cognizant about this for around a decade now. Check out the Sullivan Principle - technology will diffuse, but putting roadblocks to maintain the existing lead is critical. > but processor tech was something the party decided was a national security issue long, long before any sanction was even whispered about Absolutely, yet 10 years ago China was 2 generations behind, and with Huawei's announcement, they are still 2 generations behind. The difference is almost $100B was spent by the PRC just to keep the status quo. These are hard problems, and very targeted and swift sanctions DO make it harder

throwaway4good 2y ago

The October 7 sanctions seem to be a change to a shock and awe strategy. I am not sure that it worked for the bigger players. Both YMTC and SMIC seem to be making new technological breakthroughs still.

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
The stated goal was to prevent coins from breaking through 14nm. With the 7nm chips that SMIC has been manufacturing for Huawei, that policy has failed. The entire strategy being pursued by the Biden administration is extremely dangerous. Sullivan seems to believe that he's some sort of guru, but the goal he's pursuing - of wrecking Chinese high-tech sectors using blunt American power - will not only fail, but will also lead to enormous tensions between the US and China. You simply can't behave in that sort of arrogant way towards another major power. China isn't some little country like Venezuela or Cuba.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > The stated goal was to prevent coins from breaking through 14nm Who said that? The goal of the Sullivan principle was always a 2 Gen lead at scale [0] [0] - https://www.belfercenter.org/event/competition-without-catastrophe-how-america-can-both-challenge-and-coexist-china-belfer https://www.belfercenter.org/event/competition-without-catas...
  - throwaway4good 2y ago
    Sullivan said that in later speeches - have them freeze at current levels and get a forever growing lead.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      I've never heard of the 14nm barrier in policymaking and cannot remember of one. If you can link me a first hand source I'd appreciate it. I might be misremembering. Anyhow, this is the core of the Sullivan Principle from back in 2019 (and in development even earlier) "The United States will also have to safeguard its technological advantages in the face of China’s intellectual property theft, targeted industrial policies, and commingling of its economic and security sectors. Doing so will require some enhanced restrictions on the flow of technology investment and trade in both directions, but these efforts should be pursued selectively rather than wholesale, imposing curbs on technologies that are critical to national security and human rights and allowing regular trade and investment to continue for those that are not. Even these targeted restrictions must be undertaken in consultation with industry and other governments; failing to do so could Balkanize the global technology ecosystem by impeding flows of knowledge and talent. Such a development would neutralize a key U.S. competitive advantage relative to China: an open economy that can source the best global talent and synthesize the biggest breakthroughs from around the world. Meanwhile, overreach on technology restrictions could drive other countries toward China, especially since China is already the largest trading partner for most. In this respect, the Trump administration’s loud and largely unilateral campaign against the participation of the Chinese company Huawei in the development of 5G infrastructure may provide a cautionary lesson. Had the administration coordinated with allies and partners in advance and tried some creative policymaking—for example, establishing a multilateral lending initiative to subsidize the purchase of alternatives to Huawei’s equipment—it might have had more success in convincing states to consider other vendors. It then might have been able to make the most of the two-year delay Huawei now faces in rolling out 5G following its placement on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s list of entities that cannot be supplied with American technology. Future efforts to restrict trade with China in the technology sector will require careful deliberation, advance planning, and multilateral support if they are to be successful; otherwise, they will risk undermining U.S. innovation." - Jake Sullivan, 2019

fspeech 2y ago

This is not really what happened. American policy makers weren't being lenient because they didn't how to kill Huawei, but because they wanted to keep the damages below the level that they believe would induce Chinese retaliations. Killing Huawei would have generated enormous collateral damages, when many of their allies depended on Huawei. Additionally US depends on China too. In an economic MAD world it is not at all clear people would care about 5G or 7nm chips.