Hacker News Reader

Comment by bleepblorp | Hacker News Reader

It's pretty much impossible for lower-income countries to develop economically without protecting their emerging businesses from being slaughtered by established foreign competition.

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.

View on HN

I would have agreed with you 20 years ago, but China is now the second largest economy in the world, and on track to becoming the largest. Combine that with its gross domestic human rights violations, censorship, IP theft, and expansionist foreign policy (looking at the South China Sea, NE India, SE Asia, Africa etc.), and they aren't getting any sympathy from me.

The Chinese government isn't made up of nice people by any stretch but it's vitally important to understand their position so as to avoid escalation, possibly into armed conflict in future decades.

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.

So what is the other option? We stay in the abusive relationship just out of fear of confrontation? How about we take care of our interests and if cold war starts we make sure we win it.

I don't know if there are any good options at this point.

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you're saying and think this is excellent analysis.

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.

Realistically, I don't believe any reversal of policy is possible under a Republican White House or even probable under a Democratic White House.

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.

But does this exact argument not also justify the US and Europe to pursue their own interests?

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.

There's a very good case that the EU should limit both Chinese and US tech sector market access both for security reasons and to help build a viable European tech sector.

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.

The EU protects all sorts of industries, glaringly agriculture with CAP. I can see a case why we should have regulated social media, search and shopping platforms (which are highly monopolistic) a decade ago. The EU did not do any of that, and it's left with virtually zero digital footprint. Considering the importance of the digital economy for growth, it's quite logical to regulate itself to the the creation of a local market.

Half joke question, if EU managed to deliver their own social media restricted in EU, what will be the main language?

Klingon

> leaving aside that the CCP doesn't consider ethnic minorities in China to be full citizens

Is that actually true? China seems to be even using affirmative action to benefit its minorities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_China

China is literally putting ethnic minorities in concentration camps by the millions.

It has some affirmative action laws on the books but they are 100% lip service and don’t result in anything meaningful.

> they are 100% lip service

Do you have first hand knowledge of this or are you just repeating what you think you know?

I lived and worked in China for nearly a decade, which I would say is first hand experience of this.

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.

> 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.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com