This is pretty much exactly how reciprocity works in other areas like travel and immigration. We treat their nationals as they treat ours. You can see examples worldwide right now with travel restrictions.
And these Chinese companies benefit from the lack of US-based competition at home. Would WeChat ever have gotten that big without China's restrictions on US companies? It's not arbitrary to counter that benefit with a loss of access to the US.
Congress specifically gives the president the power to counter unfair trade practices by foreign governments. The president executes the laws, he doesn't dictate them.
What? Which part of our immigration system is reciprocal?
It's also a fundamental principle of the EU's visa policy: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_...
Now it seems that you can do this all online, so ignoring the monetary component it was not any easier than a Brazilian person in my experience as a USC with many Brazilian friends.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/Visa-Rec...
China and the US reciprocally offer certain kinds of 10-year visas to each other's citizens.
The Congress has increasingly delegated rulemaking to the Executive through various forms of Authorization Act that empower the Executive to arbitrarily dictate Administrative Law.
I wouldn't exactly rank Congress highly in being the rulemaker here. There's been no great change, upset, or active reaffirmation of the process in years.
>It's not arbitrary to counter that benefit with a loss of access to the US.
Xiaomi and Huawei competes against Samsung and Apple within the Chinese market. Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, Cisco, etc are just some of the big tech companies that enjoy a ton of revenue from China.
>The president executes the laws
The law specifically says he cannot use it to restrict any personal communication to foreign entities. So yeah, he has no right to do this.
Try accessing Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Google, etc...
According to the article he is planning to restrict transactions with the companies, not personal communication.
Those two sentences are mutually contradictory. Who has the power, the President or Congress. If it's the former, then he does dictate them; if the later then they don't give the power to the President. Pick one?
> The Chinese government demanded that all businesses censor content, but...
To distinguish this further:
> The Chinese government demanded that all foreign businesses engage in a significant violation of basic human rights, but...
That distinction materially impacts the rest of the argument for me.
People usually reply here with the false equivalence that the US banning misleading advertisements or child pornography is somehow equivalent to Xi Jinping's campaign against what he calls "historical nihilism" (but the rest of the world calls "history"). I don't really understand how those are the same though.
It's not a "dictatorship", because Congress (elected every 2 years, approximately) sets the laws that the President acts under, and the President himself (so far!) is elected every 4 years.
It's not, though, because the President is neither delegated general arbitrary power in law not ruling with it despite the law. While constraints on executive authority in the law have significantly broken down and one might argue that it is on the road to dictatorship, arbitrary executive action despite the law still faces meaningful checks at least by the courts. There has been significant defiance of court orders without meaningful consequence (e.g., with regard to family separation policy) but the areas where that has occurred are still limited and noticeable, however deeply problematic, exceptions.
-Julius Nyerere
It is. There's a faction in the US that believes the US has to have a dictatorship to compete with China.
We've been here before. The USSR looked like an unstoppable juggernaut until the late 1960s / early 1970s. Like China they started from a state of relative backwardness and rapidly industrialized and modernized. The pace seemed incredible until they ran out of stuff to copy.
Totalitarian systems excel at execution, but they are not creative. A vertically integrated totalitarian state will always beat a liberal democracy at "see that? do a whole lot of that!" type challenges. Totalitarianism fails utterly when the leaders are incompetent or deluded, but when the leadership has at least basic competence they can appear formidable... as long as there is a "that" to "do a lot of." When totalitarianism runs out of clear obvious paths forward, it flounders.
Totalitarian systems find it very hard to innovate because innovation is disobedience. It goes against entrenched bureaucratic and monetary interests and sometimes even laws. The latter is why states with a minimalist doctrine of law (some version of "that which is not explicitly forbidden is permitted") tend to do better at innovation.
For a real world example of above: look at how ISPs which are state backed monopolies use the law to push against competitors be they local or municipal broadband or Starlink. In a totalitarian state, those sorts of entrenched interests almost always win. Once something becomes entrenched in the power structure it is immovable and competing with it becomes effectively illegal.
During the Cold War there were always factions in the USA and Western Europe who argued that we must become more like the USSR. The right pushed for more militarization and executive power, while the left pushed for more central management and central planning. They were really pushing for "right" and "left" variants of the same thing: a vertically integrated totalitarian system like the Soviet state.
The same thing is happening now. I think a major reason many at the top of the financial and intelligence world pushed (sometimes covertly) for Trump is as an answer to Xi Jinpeng. There is always a temptation in any conflict or tension to emulate the adversary. It won't work. The real answer is to encourage and protect our ability to innovate while waiting for China to run out of things to copy.
That being said, I am all for cutting China off from easy access to inside knowledge and training. We shouldn't make it easy for the CCP to copy everything. As such I am not opposed to disengagement. We should move production to places like India, Africa, Indonesia, etc. so as not to readily share industrial and technological expertise.
Edit: I mean no racism here. The Chinese can innovate just fine. China under Xinpeng finds it hard to do anything but copy, because it's a dictatorship.
The thing is that this order is about TikTok which comes from a Chinese company, has a US company currently trying to buy it while another has just released a shameless clone of it to their users. Maybe in this situation it is different because China aren't the ones doing the copying?
Even without consciously intending to become like them, this is what inevitably happens when you focus on a competitor. Racing on beating them at whatever they are good at means you take on whatever aspects make them good at such pursuits. E.g. the space race meant centrally dumping tons into research funding, a system which of course never went away after the race was won because governments mostly only prefer to take power, they rarely give it up.
When did you last visit China? That train has long left the station :-)
Advanced materials research, Aerospace and Chip Fabs are pretty much the only areas where technological areas where I currently see US having a lead
Anyway, the US blew up SS Columbia over Texas.
I'm sure China will manage to copy a Boeing 737 pretty soon, which is 1960s technology. Meanwhile we are doing:
... and who-knows-what at places like Area 51. :)
Last I checked China's most advanced fabs were doing 28nm, but that was in 2019. By now they've probably started to get EUV working as they feverishly race to copy TSMC. I would not be surprised if Chinese fabs are literal exact copies of prior generation TSMC and Intel fabs, since it takes time to steal inside information.
I think it is hardly arguable that China has the most technologically advanced retail market in the world. - Ordering everything online from food to furniture, paying everywhere else by mobile phone, introducing state-sanctioned digital currency [3], and it is closing the gap or even pulling ahead in many other fields as well.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/01/03/china-land...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53504797
[3] https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3096296/c...
Well, good enough is good enough. Boeing 737 is currently the most popular plane, and if China's regime manages to steal enough tech to be able build an equivalent product, even if it steals only 60s technology, then China's regime will be in a position to outcompete Boeing based on metrics that matter such as cost or soft power.
It really doesn't matter who has the cutting-edge after a point of diminishing returns. When that point is reached, good old economics start to become the leading criteria.
Having survived the Soviet Union, I say with full certainty that you could not be more wrong about the execution part.
In 1950s peasants were basically slaves who could not even leave their kolkhoz without party permission. The vast majority of citizens lived in atrocious conditions in communal flats or barracks [1] (a type of temporary housing with no sanitation and basic heating).
[1]: https://ribalych.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/baraki-_552.j... - such buildings can be commonly found in Russia even today.
I'd say it's Americans, moreso than anyone else, who took the wrong lesson from that collapse. History isn't on anyone's 'side' and destiny doesn't exist. We take too much for granted.
He thought that Russia would become prosperous by adopting capitalism. Instead, GDP shrank by 50% and Russia went from a global superpower to being encircled in its own backyard.
The economy didn't work well under either of them, but Kruschev is credited for leaving things much better than he found them.
Gorbachev liked social democracy, but the Communist Party warlords like Putin didn't disappear in the revolution, they hung back and then took over again.
WeChat is vastly more innovative than any of the American social media platforms. China makes and buys more electric vehicles than Europe, the US and Japan combined. DJI almost single-handedly created the civilian drone market. Chinese smartphone brands are regularly first-to-market with new features. The "innovative" Just Walk Out retail concept of Amazon Go is commonplace in China.
There's no doubt that China plays fast-and-loose with intellectual property laws, but the idea that they can't innovate is at least a decade out of date.
To your point "free-er" states can give rise to the lone wolf innovators who force changed by the power of a new, better idea. (and a solid business plan)
Innovative genius is older than free societies.
USA will polarise things until a war with China becomes inevitable forcing those who want to trade freely with both parties to pick a side.
So you are saying Chinese hate rest of the world so much that they have to block them from their internet?
I am ok with cutting of people who hate me. Does that make sense?
This is a spurious comparison. Every time someone accuses someone else of racism in this thread, there should be the same answer: The US (after a looong while!) is doing to Chinese companies the same China does to US companies. To ensure the benefits of globalization are not concentrated by China's protectionist policies
No, if there's some other reason you could explain it. But my working hypothesis is that you hate Chinese people for some reason: perhaps through media conditioning against anything labelled communist.
Their reason, in theory is they hate Western Capitalism. So an alternate hypothesis is that you want the oligarchic rule that Western Capitalism is heading full-throttle towards?
This is a spurious comparison. Every time someone accuses someone else of racism in this thread, there should be the same answer: The US (after a looong while!) is doing to Chinese companies the same China does to US companies. To ensure the benefits of globalization are not concentrated by China's protectionist policies
To every country which is actually in China's proximity, what China has been doing has been nothing short of imperial - in the bad sense of the word.
The "China tribe", if you look a little closely, consists of two types of people - those who are so far away that their notion of China is mostly in the abstract - in the same way I might (not at all) be alarmed if Somalia and Kenya had a war, say. The second group is the "satellite" which depends on China to counter a common enemy - a good example being Pakistan which needs China to counterbalance India's power in the region. Interestingly, but only anecdotally, I have never once heard anyone from Pakistan criticize China's treatment of Uighur Muslims, even though the world is finally catching on that something really fishy is going on. I mention this because the same folks are often seen loudly complaining about the treatment of Muslims in pretty much every other part of the world.
Its just capitalism.
Patagonia made a big fuss about facebook ads but their official policy is to no mix business with politics only when it comes to china.
Patagonia was widely celebrated( including here on HN) for their facebook ad stunt. Really pathetic hypocrites live here in USA unfortunately.
https://www.patagonia.com/static/on/demandware.static/-/Libr...
> Far more of our products are made by those Chinese suppliers than they are by the U.S factories because of their expertise and price
> We’ve made the choice not to disengage from countries on the basis of their policies.
So no - this is not it at all.
Reciprocity is a much more appropriate term.
Trade is a big deal, trade deals are big deals.
'Free Trade' deals usually imply reciprocity on all fronts, otherwise, it's a lop-sided situation.
Nation A selling services into nation B, but B not allowed to sell such services back is usually an untenable situation.
If this were any other sector this 'tit for tat' would have happened a long time ago.
It seems a little outlandish because these app bans affect our lives directly, instead of say a 'steel tariff of 50%' which we don't materially witness.
And of course, despite the legitimacy or not of this ... this is a least 50% 'Donald Trump Campaigning'.
The 'censorship' and or 'TikTok' having done something wrong are side issues.
Purely on a trade basis, this is fair.
Now enter the security issue, which is very real: China wants to control everyone's lives down to every passing thought. They observe, control, censor every single conversation in China. They have the means and wherewithal to do it around the world. Large Chinese companies are 'state organs' and the notion that TikTok data would be used for all sorts of advantage is legit. Google and FB can be used as tools of the US, but this is not remotely the same comparison.
It's a new world order, and this action only seems unreasonable because of the person doing it, and the shocking terms.
I expect a little bit more of this to happen, not less.
The national security trope really only affects the government. The global pandemic has had a far greater effect on the economy and has caused far more deaths than any national security incident or terrorist attack.
This is like saying "don't bother locking your door, you're much more likely to get mugged outside your house than robbed inside it."
B being more likely than A does not form an argument against protecting yourself from A.
The opposite - it affects everyone.
China is using their networks to steal anything they can get their hands on, influence and bully politicians, students, expats, companies, administrators, researchers.
They are surveilling and collecting information on anyone and everyone for the purposes of pursuing their strategic objectives.
For example - if you have ever spoken out against treatment of Uighurs - you may never be able to enter China. You may get various accounts banned. You may get your peers in trouble (ie WeChat requires someone to 'vouch' for you - if someone vouches for you, and you do something bad, they could face problems).
Depending on how important you are, they could lobby to have your research defunded, slander you in the press, use political leverage. You may never get a chance to work at a Chinese-owned firm.
If you have IP they will nab it, or use leverage information against you should you wish to export into China.
If they can influence your elections, or buy your politicians - they will. See: Belt and Road corruption. [1]
If you know or interact with anyone in HK, and they can use that information in any way to leverage against and compromise the democracy movement, they absolutely will.
Their strategy is bald-faced, it's right out there for everyone to see, there's nothing hidden. The only surprising issue is that there are so many Westerners who weirdly want to believe China is playing the 'modern global citizen' game - when they are obviously playing hardball realpolitik. It's fine if they want to do that, but we have to adjust accordingly.
[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/15/the-belt-and-road-initi...
Extremely naive view. China is a totalitarian state that can compel its companies to hand over all private data if asked. In your rosy "presumption of innocence" scenario, by the time they're proven guilty it's too late.
This is preemptive measure that is a prelude to greater 'decoupling' from China. If a hot war breaks out, you don't want the country dubbed the number one strategic threat having access to 25% of citizens phones.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/other/national-security-letters [2] https://www.theregister.com/2018/08/14/oz_encryption_backdoo...
This is literally the opposite of what is true in a democracy. Of the people, by the people and for the people. You can be cynical as hell, sure, but that will require significantly more justification and evidence to make such an incredibly broad assertion.
To give a clear example: why does the US get data from Apple, Google? To catch criminals. Why does CCP do the same?
I honestly don't see how this rhetoric is coherent or persuasive
Isn't it more like someone from the leaders of the tribe did something so we are holding leadership of the tribe responsible, given the extent that private companies are really extensions of the government?
>But having the president order arbitrary punishment without proof of guilt
Plea deals means that most people never have their guilt proven, only that they are strong armed into confessing so that harsher punishment isn't given. This is already the norm in any country that practices plea deals.
Also, if "all companies in China are really extensions of the government", then what do you call this relationship where Trump forces Bytedance to sell Tiktok to Microsoft and give the U.S. government a share of the profit?
Thomas Jefferson wanted to invade Canada because of the Union Jack flag flying over North America.
We are a government based on natural rights. Part of our responsibility is to defend Western Civilization. It's dangerous to say that China bans US companies for merely failing to censor content. It is the US that is defending innate human rights -- we shouldn't diminish them.
We shouldn't even do business with Saudi Arabia nor China at any level. Then we could build a world based on broader principles.
Working with corrupt authoritarian governments and propping them up to create new markets is just a financial strategy of the US business class. It's why the world is so conflicted and unstable. The US supports any foreign power as long as they help the US. That's fundamentally wrong.
It ceases to be reciprocal if you distinguish groups at an only slightly higher resolution: Chinese businesses like TikTok and WeChat and American businesses like Google and Facebook in addition to the Chinese and American governments. The Chinese government demanded that all businesses censor content, but Google and Facebook had most of their users outside China, so they could choose not to comply and still survive. Whereas TikTok and WeChat didn't have that luxury and censor their Chinese users (TikTok by offering Douyin as a separate product and making TikTok unavailable in China, WeChat by censoring messages in conversations with at least one Chinese participant). So far, both Chinese and American businesses were bullied by the Chinese government. Now the US government decided to "reciprocate" and ... decides to bully businesses as well, but only Chinese ones. Great justice.
If TikTok or WeChat have done anything wrong they deserve to be punished for, then sue them, or, if it's not illegal, make a new law that requires them to stop doing whatever it is. That law should then also apply to Google and Facebook, just in case they might be tempted to try the same thing.
But having the president order arbitrary punishment without proof of guilt (what happened to presumption of innocence?) looks like a dictatorship to me. Maybe I'm just biased by living in a parliamentary democracy where the voting system aims for proportional representation.