Will China's Government-Subsidized Technology Ultimately Export Authoritarianism? (nytimes.com) 126
For 30 years David E. Sanger has been covering foreign policy and nuclear proliferation for The New York Times — twice working on Pulitzer Prize-winning teams. But now as American and Chinese officials meet in Alaska, Sanger argues that China's power doesn't come from weapons — nuclear or otherwise:
Instead, it arises from their expanding economic might and how they use their government-subsidized technology to wire nations be it Latin America or the Middle East, Africa or Eastern Europe, with 5G wireless networks intended to tie them ever closer to Beijing. It comes from the undersea cables they are spooling around the world so that those networks run on Chinese-owned circuits. Ultimately, it will come from how they use those networks to make other nations dependent on Chinese technology. Once that happens, the Chinese could export some of their authoritarianism by, for example, selling other nations facial recognition software that has enabled them to clamp down on dissent at home.
Which is why Jake Sullivan, Mr. Biden's national security adviser, who was with Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken for the meeting with their Chinese counterparts in Anchorage, warned in a series of writings in recent years that it could be a mistake to assume that China plans to prevail by directly taking on the United States military in the Pacific. "The central premises of this alternative approach would be that economic and technological power is fundamentally more important than traditional military power in establishing global leadership," he wrote, "and that a physical sphere of influence in East Asia is not a necessary precondition for sustaining such leadership...."
Part of the goal of the Alaska meeting was to convince the Chinese that the Biden administration is determined to compete with Beijing across the board to offer competitive technology, like semiconductor manufacturing and artificial intelligence, even if that means spending billions on government-led research and development projects, and new industrial partnerships with Europe, India, Japan and Australia... But it will take months, at best, to publish a broad new strategy, and it is unclear whether corporate America or major allies will get behind it.
Which is why Jake Sullivan, Mr. Biden's national security adviser, who was with Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken for the meeting with their Chinese counterparts in Anchorage, warned in a series of writings in recent years that it could be a mistake to assume that China plans to prevail by directly taking on the United States military in the Pacific. "The central premises of this alternative approach would be that economic and technological power is fundamentally more important than traditional military power in establishing global leadership," he wrote, "and that a physical sphere of influence in East Asia is not a necessary precondition for sustaining such leadership...."
Part of the goal of the Alaska meeting was to convince the Chinese that the Biden administration is determined to compete with Beijing across the board to offer competitive technology, like semiconductor manufacturing and artificial intelligence, even if that means spending billions on government-led research and development projects, and new industrial partnerships with Europe, India, Japan and Australia... But it will take months, at best, to publish a broad new strategy, and it is unclear whether corporate America or major allies will get behind it.
The Cold War is over (Score:1)
In the Cold War, the USSR and USA each sought to proselytize other countries to its political/economic systems.
Now only the USA is still doing that. China couldn't care less whether or not Laos and Democratic Republic of the Congo have freedom of speech.
Re:The Cold War is over (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can also look at how America treats its citizens, at least some, like the 2 million in prison or as your sig implies, the myriad ways of disenfranchising the wrong citizens. Then there was the lack of the usual peaceful transition of power after the last election.
The difference is that America has learned that it is fine allowing people to bitch about things, so isn't so anti-freedom of expression, but that is also changing as the last 4 years showed where the President himself attacked speech continuou
Re: (Score:3)
It's a bingo!
Politics in America is screwed and the disconnect we have sowed with our strongest allies has left us with no one who will stand with us. The classic words, "united we stand" have been completely ignored and here comes our fall from grace.
This is the type of reasonable discussion that should be heavily covered in America to better reform our political approaches but the normal replies to this would be we are defending China. No, we are just outlining the poor footing America has left itself wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I have seen no evidence of this. Can you share? If anything they are learning the inconsistency of making deals or relationships with America considering our polarized political system where everything will change in 4 to 8 years.
Re:The Cold War is over (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really the shits with the way America acted the last 4 years. The only way to confront China is as a united front. If most of the world had been united in being willing to suffer a bit to make a point, would China have done what they did in Hong Kong knowing that there would have been consequences, even if only economic?
Reading recently about the UK rejecting slavery in the early 1800's. It worked as the common person was willing to take an economic hit as they hated slavery. Dealing with China needs the same, the common person willing to forgo cheap shit to make a point.
America also has to make sacrifices, like not pushing their shitty IP BS when ever we try to unite, unluckily the IP people have too much power as the American electoral system depends on money, every 2 years.
Re: (Score:2)
About what, China catching up to the USA and UK in selling authoritarianism. How many authoritarian governments does the USA/UK support, ten, twenty, thirty, as long as the allow US/UK corporations to pillage that countries resources and people for a share of the action, no government is too authoritarian. So who supplies swords Saudi Arabia to chop of the heads of any one the criticises their insane monarchy, or bombs or machine guns, fighter jets missiles and authoritarian monitoring hardware and software
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly agree but,
All the worst authoritarians the most corrupt and the most violent are under the control of the USA/UK alliance.
should be many of the worst authoritarians are under the control of the US/UK alliance. Unluckily there are a lot of authoritarians to go around.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and by
Re:The Cold War is over (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, there are plenty of "rich people will save us" dreamers left in the Republican party. It's been consumed by tea-party acolytes espousing the values you described and tradionalists, such as Mitch McConnell, using bullying to control the senate. With its main role now the grabbing of power, it was only a matter of time until a psychopathic demagogue took control of the party: He was exactly what the tea-party admired. Republicans could have refused to endorse Trump, like they did for Bush Senior but Trump was a mouthpiece for their power-grabbing ideals, so they had to sink or swim with him. (This is what QAnon was about, if it was ever about anything.)
The Democrats are not entirely blameless: They ignored several popular candidates to endorse an old-school has-been, Hillary Clinton. The entire party had the delusion that they could choose the president. The people made it clear they would not tolerate such contempt. While they chose old-school again, Biden had experience in listening to the people and delivering change.
No, this is the power those voters want to grab and as always, they chose the Republican party because they thought 'jumping on the bandwagon' would make themselves important.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden had experience in listening to the people and delivering change.
Citation needed
Re: (Score:2)
The entire party had the delusion that they could choose the president.
The party insiders value experience, which Clinton had in spades. Voters don't seem to value experience, in fact it might even be a detriment in their eyes. Seems to be true for both Democratic and Republican voters. This is so bizarre to the people who run the party that they can't seem to accept it. I'm not sure I can blame them, it's fucking crazy, but that's how it is.
Re: (Score:3)
The Chinese people are not weak, they deserve the free speech that the rest of the world has.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: The Cold War is over (Score:2)
Bingo and white collar crime that leads to deaths can be punished with a death sentence.
China understand it's important to be harsh on certain crimes and corruption which America has become complacent too.
Re: (Score:1)
Dealing drugs leads to the death penalty. The communist government quickly solved the opium problem after siezing power, by executing all the addicts and dealers.
Being Muslim and not quiet about it leads to reeducation camp.
All those smelly homeless people on the streets? They would be swept away to camps or worse in China.
Political demonstrations? Better have permission first or here come the tanks and troops from a different region of the country who don't speak your language.
American leftists don't unde
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem being up on the wall. Being dead means I finally get to sleep, I don't have to deal with people's shits, and all I will achieve has been finally encapsulated. Death is liberation, if the worst an oppressive force can do is kill me, then I welcome Death.
"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
I mean about the only thing you mentioned that has a reasonable amount of supporting evidence is the matter of opium and drug use. Whether or not I agree with this position is
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not all free speech is good.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." Be wary of those who seek reasons to censor. That is you.
China prosecutes corporations that bribe politicians.
Bribing is action, not speech. Your goal is to stop an action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see you speak without understanding. You've read the propaganda, and quoted it, but you haven't understood the court case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You are some sort of heat laxative. We shake our heads and can't figure it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously think about it, if money were equivalent to speech, then it would be perfectly legal to buy anything. Don't be one of those people who says "The supreme court thinks corporations are actually people." No, the supreme court doesn't think that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all free speech is good.
but I would rather hear it and evaluate it on my own
China prosecutes corporations that bribe politicians.
should be China prosecutes corporations that don't bribe the right politicians or offend the CCP
Re: (Score:2)
but I would rather hear it and evaluate it on my own
You've already been "hearing" corporate free speech by witnessing dark money influencing elections. You haven't been "evaluating" it at all, which is the problem I'm pointing out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The Cold War is over (Score:2)
They treat their own citizens very well.
Both and more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech
Our first shipment of authoritarianism has already arrived. It's called cancel culture.
Re:The Cold War is over (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently statistics show that China treats their citizens pretty well in comparison to the US. After all the percent of "incarcerated" Uyghurs are far lower than Blacks in the US, where more than 7% of their population in 2019 was arrested alone. Where more than 25% of their population in their lifetime spends time in jail. Yet China attempts to provide economic "training" to the Uyghurs so time spent incarcerated isn't totally wasted. Compared to Blacks in the US where recidivist rates are extremely high because jails are increasingly a private industry.
Of course Fascist Schumann is always more interested in throwing stones, and pointing at other countries flaws, rather than trying to fix the US glaring flaws.
Difference is the people in jail in America are guilty of crimes while Uyghurs are only guilty of being Uyghurs.
Re: (Score:1)
... while Uyghurs are only guilty of being Uyghurs.
Or they could be "unlawful combatants" [uighur.nl]. There's a territorial dispute in the region also. The borders aren't exactly set in stone.
Re:The Cold War is over (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who defends the things the Chinese government does is either a fool or being paid by them.
Re: (Score:1)
What's happening in the US is also an abomination if not a worse one considering how the US is suppose to be the "leader" of the "free world", but you choose to ignore the issue and simply point fingers like a 500lb fat obese man yelling at a 250lb fat obese man that he's fat to cover up his obesity.
Re: (Score:1)
what's being done to the Uyghurs is an abomination.
Yeah, really. Is that any way to treat returning veterans [apnews.com]? Things aren't quite as one sided as the media portrays
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, crimes like being in possession of a plant, rather then worshiping the wrong god.
Then there is the long history of the treatment of native Americans, who were guilty of being the wrong colour. Not to mention countries like Hawaii and how they were annexed.
Well... yes and no... (Score:2)
I'm not trying to downplay what China's doing, and it's certainly worse, just saying if you're American don't go throwing stones in your glass house. We don't just jail people for crimes, we create crimes to jail people with.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close. About 3/4 of people in American jails have not been convicted of any crime. Most of them cannot afford bail. And while inside, they're often given a choice: plead guilty and get released, or stay in jail until a trial is scheduled, and hope they're proven innocent (Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com])
I miss the old America.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like you're just making up your statistics. After a quick search, I'm seeing the number of blacks in US prison is around 500,000. Out of a population of 4.5 million, that's just around 1%. As for Uyghurs in China, I've seen figures that claim various estimates between 1 and 3 million out of a population of 13.5 million, which could be as high as 22%. Blacks in US prisons are also not subject to forced organ harvesting, or being forced to eat pork if they're Muslim. The US government also does n
Re: (Score:2)
Incarceration rate doesn't tell the whole story. Here are US incarceration rates without reference to race. [wikipedia.org]. Look how low the rate was during the Jim Crow era. It's so low that even if all the prisoners back then were Black (obviously they weren't), there would have been a much lower rate for them at that time. Now, if you were Black which era would you rather live in?
Very few people were actually lynched in those days, but the lynching was a powerful propaganda tool that kept the people in line. You d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The Cold War is over (Score:2)
Re:The Cold War is over (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm... As FPs go, I guess it's okay, but kind of reductionist. Sanger recently wrote a book called The Perfect Weapon that largely disagrees with your position. As regards Africa in particular, I'd recommend China's Second Continent by Howard French.
My own take is quite complicated. For one thing, "communism" is just a distraction. It was a transient label of convenience, and some of the "communist" ideas even meshed well with some traditional Chinese philosophies, but it never fit well and now it's just a dead brand. Kind of like "Republican" in the States. The real objective is winning the LONG race, and from the Chinese perspective the normal situation is China as #1 in the world in every category. It's just that they are only now coming back after a couple of bad centuries.
From that perspective, I'm speculating that they engineered the Myanmar situation as a first test of the Biden administration. I hope that Biden's team understands the implications, but I admit that I would fail the test. Right now I don't see any good solution approach.
Re: (Score:3)
In the Cold War, the USSR and USA each sought to proselytize other countries to its political/economic systems. Now only the USA is still doing that. China couldn't care less whether or not Laos and Democratic Republic of the Congo have freedom of speech.
Really? Lets put that to the test and have Laos or Congo comment about the right of the Uighurs, the independence of Tibet or Taiwan, freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, mineral and oil rights in the South China Sea, etc.
Also you don't seem to understand the Cold War. It was always a three party affair. Two major parties and a third minor party. Russia and China merely swapped roles.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because China is just buying infrastructure and control over those countries. They don't care how the peons rule amongst themselves as long as all the value and true control remains with China.
Re: The Cold War is over (Score:2)
That's the same with the USA, and yet to be shown with China.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds familiar (Score:3, Interesting)
They are not the first nation to do it. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
China's policy is to not force countries it trades with to adopt its political policies. If you want to buy some surveillance gear then China will sell it to you, just like US and European and Israeli companies will. But they won't force you to have it.
That's how they are competing against the US, where if you do business with them or use USD then you have much are forced to follow US rules and regulations globally. Like say you want to use an American part in your widget, well now you can't export it to ce
What's to export? (Score:3, Insightful)
Authoritarianism is everywhere. China exports products. The US exports politics
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The problem is not the products China may or may not export. The problem is the _buyers_.
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same reason Russia can invade the Ukraine and Saudi Arabia can invade Yemen. Money talks. And since most of us are paycheck to paycheck [cnbc.com] we're not gonna speak up, and we're gonna vote for conservative (little 'c') candidates who'll maintain the status quo rather than risk an economic disruption that might push us over the edge.
This, along with a variety of wedge issues plus various forms [wikipedia.org] of organized [wikipedia.org] bigotry [wikipedia.org] is how and why 1% of the population can claim over 50% of the wealth. They're tactics for controlling and ruling over large groups of people developed and honed over centuries.
Sure would be nice if we taught all this in schools, we'd have a much sharper citizenry. But, well, it's not hard to see why we don't.
Re: No. (Score:2, Insightful)
So your solution is to hand over even more monopoly power to the government and allow them to own vast industries? Socialism is literally capitalism with one monopoly player â" the government.
A better system is capitalism and competition with regulatory oversight.
Re: No. (Score:1, Insightful)
So you rail against capitalism by pointing to a bunch of regulatory constructs created to curtail capitalism.
The only reason we have copyright for 200 years is that we have the idea of copyright beyond the original creator in the first place. That isnâ(TM)t capitalism, that is corporate socialism. Once you have yielded the fruits of your labor to either death or an exchange of goods, you should no longer have the right to own it. Corporations shouldnâ(TM)t even exist as a âoepersonâ they
Re: No. (Score:4, Insightful)
So you rail against capitalism by pointing to a bunch of regulatory constructs created to curtail capitalism.
You don't grasp the regulatory constructs weren't made by the public, the regulation is a fig leaf, only the cold war and a competing ideology forced america to get things like social security, it wasn't because the upper class wanted it. Intellectual property law was made by big business. You don't seem to grasp our societies were founded by big business imperialists, they weren't founded by nice people. With the end of the cold war there was no ideological competition so companies have run roughshod over the rule of law. That's why we're being spied on in our operating systems, and our games/culture are being stolen in broad daylight. Steam/uplay and any client-server backended software is irrational for the home user.
We now live in a world where software can be "shut down" an absurdity because we didn't get basic property rights to own our software and PC's because corporate lobbyists made sure of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read up. [wikipedia.org]
Dude copyright from the past has very little to do with copyright in the future, copyright as applied to software and technology allowing them to steal software and shut down games. It is of no relevance because we live in society with radically different technologies then existed back in the days of the printed word.
Modern copyright + internet allows companies to steal files and game code and call them "services" Transformers Fall of cybertron is an unreal engine game, so it should have multiplayer the sa
Re: (Score:3)
Corporations love socialism
You don't grasp property rights are inherent to capitalism and they've written the laws in such one sided ways as to take us to a draconian society. Look at the copyright draft below to turn copyright infringement from a civil matter into a criminal one.
Draconian copyright enforcement coming in the future [fipr.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Again, you are too dumb to understand these concepts so just do something else ok. If you think someone who wants to own a corporation and get tons of money is bad and cannot be trusted, why are you so stupid to put your trust in someone who wants not only tons of money but also to make laws and own an army? Cause that is what a politician is. You think Bernie Sanders would be a better at providing services than Amazon or Tesla? You don't think he has the same exact goals as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk .. you
Re: (Score:2)
How can you be so dumb to want the government to administer industries?
Dude, we already have corporations running the world pay attention, the people with the money determine whether society functions. It's not a matter of government running industries, it's the issue of CEO's having too much control. Activision and EA have gained new political powers since the arrival of the internet because two or more computers in a network become and behave as a single computer, that means they can literally hack into all of our pc's becuase client-server apps by definition mean you are
Re: (Score:2)
And your solution is to make things worse by giving centralizing all of that into the government?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Read a damn book
Ben Shapiro
I like what you did there.
My solution is democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Also education. Like I said, we should be teaching those tricks used against us in schools.
Re: (Score:3)
The government is already in bed with most large corporations. Look how much Uber spent getting special laws passed just to benefit themselves. Same deal with these politicians who "retire" and then magically end up as board members for the company they just helped out.
Re: (Score:2)
The government is already in bed with most large corporations. Look how much Uber spent getting special laws passed just to benefit themselves. Same deal with these politicians who "retire" and then magically end up as board members for the company they just helped out.
That wasn't Uber in bed with the California government; it was Uber in bed with the people of California [ca.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is - literally - employee owned corporations, aka cooperatives.
only in immagination. (Score:1)
Also, no scotsman can rape a woman. It has never happend !
Re:No (capitalism vs corporatism) (Score:2)
Nothing works when corporations are defined as and equated with individuals. Not capitalism, not democracy. Except tyranny, which is what our current status quo corporatism does really well.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia can invade Ukraine because nobody gives enough damn about Ukraine to start a nuclear war with Russia. Ukraine's government and politics are just as corrupt as Russian. It remains the most corrupt and poorest country in Europe, despite years of massive western economic, military, and diplomatic support. The only difference between Russia and Ukraine is that Ukraine's corruption is still stuck where 1990s Russia was, clans of oligarchs and politicians fighting each other while stealing billions (Russia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't need technology, already own U entertainment (Score:2, Insightful)
NBA, Disney, etc are already setting precedents for current Chinese authoritarianism in US culture.
Wake me up when Lebron stops railing against Hong Kong freedom...or Tom Cruise gets his Taiwan patch back on his flight jacket in Top Gun 2.
Remember when celebrities we're all "Free Tibet"? Pretty quiet about that all of a sudden...
Yes (Score:3)
Next question.
No (Score:2, Flamebait)
No need to for cheap Chinese imports, not when we have our domestic brands of authoritarian that are far more authoritarianier than the Chinese version that falls apart easily.
Export authoritarianism? (Score:2)
Hardly. China's not in the business of exporting authoritarianism. It's in the business of fortifying its own power. Whatever else happens in the mean time is just collateral damage.
Re:Export authoritarianism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, it likely figures in some small way into their foreign relations calculus regarding North Korea - Xi Jinping looks like Gandhi when you stack him up against Kim Jong Un.
I would argue the opposite.
China has issues with persecuting political dissidents, silencing members of the press, committing genocide against people who want to practice their religion and ethnic groups. They are making territorial expansions in Tibet, Hong Kong, and manmade islands in the sea. They are influencing Hollywood to not make movies that would make China look bad or go against what they want. Nazi German did literally all of these things.
North Korea also has issues with persecuting poli
American corporate aristocracy... (Score:1)
Define subsidization (Score:2)
"Tie them with 5G" (Score:1)
Competing with the USA?! (Score:2)
Sure they will (Score:2)
They graduate as many engineers EVERY YEAR as the US has in total.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why shoudld US import Chinese authoritarism? (Score:2)
Google and Facebook produce enough of domestic, modern, high-tech authoritarism.
Look at acedemia. (Score:2)
At Least on Slashdot I Know I'm Free (Score:2)
Political criticism is illegal in China with laws such as Picking Quarrels and Provoking Troubles [wikipedia.org] and Inciting subversion of state power [wikipedia.org]. I wonder if any of the commenters that draw a false equivalency between the US and China have given any thought of what the ramifications of their posts would be if they were held accountable to an authoritarian government?
Even business tycoon Jack Ma [yahoo.com] is not immune.
Water and Power (Score:2)
David Sanger is right in that China must be evaluated as an economic power much more so than a military power. China operates like a ruthless oligarchy controlled BUSINESS that happens to control an entire country including the military, the universities and the schools. Chinese businesses will lose money at the request of the communist party. The Chinese military and universities are far more intertwined than in the west. Everything is coordinated for national economic objectives. Businessmen that ar
sed s/china/usa/g (Score:2)
All this is exactly the same as the USA have been doing all this years and the USA are already imploding, because every time 1% of the people control the other 99%, sooner or later trouble will show up
Re: (Score:2)