They have every reason to view the survival of their tech sector as a vital economic security interest. Confiscating the value of their foreign tech assets without cause, or legitimate due process, will not make the Chinese change their behavior. It will only harden their position and make future conflict more likely because the US has demonstrated that it is not willing to respect the rule of law or act in good faith towards Chinese businesses.
Slow-walking into another cold war isn't in anyone's interest and the deplorable behavior of the Chinese government does not change this.
The general position from the US national security elite is that China should not be permitted to become powerful enough to have a completely independent foreign policy. This goal is probably impossible to achieve even trough military force.
For China's part, the Chinese need to learn how to get along with the rest of the world, including their immediate neighbors, without threatening other countries on a regular basis. The kind of respect China wants on the world stage can only be created through non-coercive soft power, and that's a skill the Chinese do not have.
Ultimately, I think both the US and China need to temper their expectations and learn to live with each other. This may not be politically possible in the long term, and is not politically possible in the US under Republican administrations.
In the short term, US moves to destroy Chinese tech firms and effectively transfer their assets to US firms are not helpful for global stability.
Chinese tech has no business in government networks, but consumer use of TikTok, WeChat, and Huawei phones is not a security threat and the rule of law should be respected with regard to these brands. If the US doesn't want people to use these tools, then it can make better alternatives.
Pervasive privacy abuses by TikTok et el should be addressed through comprehensive privacy legislation that applies equally to US surveillance capitalism firms (e.g. Facebook) and not through bans that exist only to transfer Chinese market share to US firms.
However, I struggle with this part.
> In the short term, US moves to destroy Chinese tech firms and effectively transfer their assets to US firms are not helpful for global stability.
I can concede that this action by the US doesn't help move the US-China relationship into a more cooperative one. To your point, however, the US is not willing to move into such a position anyways.
So, given the US desire to effect change in their existing US-China relationship, why should the US let things like Huawei and TikTok proceed? It's pretty much par for the course as far as US foreign business relations and policy created by the executive branch.
In an ideal world, however, it's not in the US interest to escalate tensions with China unnecessarily because a new cold war is something that should be avoided. One way or the other, China and the US will need to live with each other and reaching some kind of mutual understanding on this point without walking too far down the path towards potentially violent brinksmanship would be the best outcome for everyone.
Isn’t that what Trump thinks he is doing?
I mean, there is plenty of countries around Europe that are sort of doing worse than China, but are still strongarmed by these Chinese.
Maybe the EU should also get in on this, not allowing any Chinese firms onside our borders. After all, our companies are even more fragile.
A call for global protectionism, in other words.
European data should be controlled in Europe, not on US or Chinese clouds and subject to the CLOUD Act and its Chinese equivalent. Lack of data sovereignty is a major threat to European sovereignty in general.
Confiscating the economic value of existing non-EU tech sector firms in Europe, as the US is doing with TikTok and WeChat, isn't the best way to make this happen, however. Buying existing assets at market value is a fairer approach.
Is that actually true? China seems to be even using affirmative action to benefit its minorities:
It has some affirmative action laws on the books but they are 100% lip service and don’t result in anything meaningful.
Do you have first hand knowledge of this or are you just repeating what you think you know?
But you don't need firsthand experience to understand that significant discrimination exists. China is 92% Han Chinese, and official sources will tell you that the other 8% consists of 54 minority groups living in harmony. What degree of representation do those 8% have among business and government elite? Are there many Tibetan or Uighur CEO's in China? How about minority members of the CCP standing committee?
At a cultural level, widespread discrimination exists. People variously describe the minority groups as old-fashioned, dangerous, lazy, or as if they're attractions at a folk festival, with "great food," and "colorful clothes."
There are weakly designed and poorly enforced laws which are supposed to counteract that. For instance, people from minority regions get 10 extra points on their college entrance exam. But how much is that worth when no one will hire you because of your race? Unless that kind of affirmative action is followed up with something like enforceable laws around discriminatory hiring practices, or wrongful termination legislation, then its as ineffective as it is demeaning. Hence why I referred to it as "lip service." An insincere expression of a desire to solve a problem.
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?
The priority of the Chinese government is the benefit of its citizens (leaving aside that the CCP doesn't consider ethnic minorities in China to be full citizens, as this is a separate issue) and its domestic economy, not the benefit of the American tech sector's senior executives and shareholders.
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.
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.