USA's plan to decouple its tech with China lacks a strategy – report
- Reference: 1650990613
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/04/26/usas_plan_to_decouple_its/
- Source link:
"The United States cannot afford simply to muddle through technological decoupling, one of the most consequential global trends of the early twenty-first century," [1]wrote Bateman, a former senior intelligence analyst, policy adviser and speechwriter at the US Department of Defense, in the document, titled "US China Technological 'Decoupling', a Strategy and Policy Framework."
Bateman acknowledges there is bipartisan support for measures controlling China's access to US tech, but contends that the issue of which strategic technologies should be controlled and to what degree, are left undefined.
[2]
"Where is the responsible stopping point – the line beyond which technology restrictions aimed at China do more harm than good to America?" asked Bateman, who also asserted that "without a clear strategy, the US government risks doing too little or – more likely – too much to curb technological interdependence with China."
[3]
[4]
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace fellow advocated "sharper thinking" and "more informed debates" before criticizing the actions the US often does take, such as using jargon that doesn't convey much meaning (example "supply chain security") or silo-ing important decisions and leaving behind overall context.
"A strategy for technological decoupling should consider more than just tech-specific or China-specific concerns," wrote Bateman. "It should be rooted in a larger US grand strategy that reconciles decoupling with other national priorities, from international trade to domestic political stability to global climate change, that might be impacted directly or indirectly."
[5]
Bateman advocated a centrist strategy, one that "identifies the US-China tech relationship as complex and uncertain, with both zero-sum and non-zero-sum elements and mixed costs and benefits for both countries."
"A long list of policy aims is not the same as a strategy," said Bateman.
[6]Pony.ai lassos China's first autonomous taxi license
[7]European carriers push for more OpenRAN support... but it might not end in a win
[8]China now blocking ESNI-enabled TLS 1.3 connections, say Great-Firewall-watchers
[9]Two can play that game: China orders ban on US computers and software
[10]Top Chinese Uni fears Middle Kingdom way behind on tech – and US sanctions make catching up hard
[11]China, India face tech brain drain through US universities
"The fact is that America has been technologically dominant for so long that some US leaders came to take if for granted," wrote former Google CEO Eric Schmidt in the paper's forward.
Schmidt described an enmeshed China and America whose relationship contained both interdependence and conflict that will have to continually renegotiate its relationship.
Google parent Alphabet was [12]hit hard by the US placement of certain Chinese businesses on the US's entity list of firms with whom American companies could not trade. This cut Google's Play Store and other Google Mobile Services (GMS) from Huawei phones and tablets. At the time Huawei was the second-largest smartphone manufacturer globally, with every one of its cellphones running on Android. Google was later was denied an [13]exemption from adhering to the embargo , while others, such as Microsoft, were [14]given a pass – giving some credence to the notion that the policy has been uneven.
[15]
Bateman argues that developing a proper policy will require consideration of how the US aims to achieve several goals, such as maintaining a military edge over China, limiting espionage, preventing Chinese sabotage in a crisis, or countering IP theft.
Key strategies from Bateman do seem rather simple. For example, they include maintaining a military edge over China by modernizing US forces through measures like incorporating private sector innovations or designing new warfighting concepts for near-peer battle while beefing up cybersecurity in the military. However, he acknowledged that bureaucracy can get in the way of actually achieving these advancements.
"The coming wave of military-technological advances will likely produce a marathon competition that lasts many years or even decades," warned Bateman. He called technology controls that set back China's People Liberation Army "worthwhile," but called restrictions that degrade America's own technology base while only temporarily disrupting Chinese progress "counterproductive."
"The paradoxes of the US-China tech relationship are not going away," said Schmidt, who summed it up just right. ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/04/25/US-china-technological-decoupling-strategy-and-policy-framework-pub-86897
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Ymhrj56RwyuCgOm@hhPZngAAAFE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Ymhrj56RwyuCgOm@hhPZngAAAFE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Ymhrj56RwyuCgOm@hhPZngAAAFE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Ymhrj56RwyuCgOm@hhPZngAAAFE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/25/ponyai_lassos_first_autonomous_taxi/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/24/openran/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/11/china_blocking_tls_1_3_esni/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2019/12/09/china_orders_ban_on_us_computers_and_software/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/10/china_tech_lagging_report/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/07/most_foreign_nationals_who_earn/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2019/05/20/google_pulls_play_and_other_services_from_huawei/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/26/huawei_google_embargo_exemption_plea/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2019/11/22/microsoft_gets_green_light_for_sales_to_huawei/
[15] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Ymhrj56RwyuCgOm@hhPZngAAAFE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: USA decoupling From China
Whenever i order electronic components, sometimes it is difficult to determine the country of origin, but UK Farnell does seem to list it for most. Using Mouser (US based supplier) then no information for country of origin is provided.
The country listed on Farnell is just the last location the product was processed. So no guarantee of excluding China. A manufacturer could easily make in China and then label/encapsulate in another country and it would be listed other than China.
It would require all manufacturers to agree to a chain of manufacturing documentation, which is easy to ascertain too.
Another annoying thing, is that Amazon does not list the country of origin, so you can only determine this by delving into the site, or that the delivery time is long.
Re: USA decoupling From China
I agree with your comments although I would describe it less as a 'wish list' and more of a 'throw it at the wall and see what sticks' list.
The West's attempt to decouple from Russia over Ukraine and the difficulties and costs associated with it should serve as an object lesson.
We also need to keep in mind that China was our biggest trading partner in 2021, both in imports and exports.
Even limiting it to technology presents problems. NASA's decoupling the Chinese space program led to them focusing their efforts and they now have their own space station, not to mention the only rover on the moon. Huawei, despite sanctions, remains a technological leader in both hardware and software (if not in profit).
For better or worse, the Chinese have smart people, just like the US, and too often this seems to be overlooked.
The inability of the US to decouple from China
Is only matched by China's inability to decouple from the US.
Both sides will do it partway, but neither will ever come close to achieving it. And that is good, it will force us to find ways to live with each other.
Re: The inability of the US to decouple from China
Yeah, that's what the Germans said about Russia. Look where it's got them.
This paper can be summarized in one line
"Without China cheap labour our large shareholder profits and executive bonuses are gone!!!"
Also look at the sentence "modernizing US forces through measures like incorporating private sector innovations" - as if US forces became stronger after relying on a huge mass of contractors... that's the pure entity about which Eisenhower warned about.
Re: This paper can be summarized in one line
During wars like Vietnam and WW2 it was reckoned that for every person actually doing the fighting eight or nine were involved in support roles. Its those support roles that have been privatized and also out sourced since there's no requirement for contractors or their employing organizations to be American.
Chinese labor isn't particularly cheap these days. Its difficult to get an accurate mapping but from Chinese colleagues it appears that middle class / professional wages are comparable with those in the US while the overall cost of living (taxes, housing etc.) is quite a bit lower. It would be interesting to see an unbiased comparison of costs between the two countries -- like the UK we can't keep driving wages down because we've hit poverty levels, the point where its pointless to voluntarily go to work.
Re: This paper can be summarized in one line
" Its those support roles that have been privatized and also out sourced"
Exactly. To companies that do that for profit - which means they need to deliver the worst service they could without being replaced with another (but that depends on how good your lobbyists are) to maximize profits. WW2 wasn't won using contractors. An armed force can't be run "maximizing shareholder value". Actually it looks what happened in Russia - and the battlefield results show it. But hey, my yacht is longer than yours! The Pentagon has a lot of issues, but it won't be the "private sector" to save it.
"Chinese labor isn't particularly cheap these days."
Still far cheaper than in US or EU. Plus there are not much of those pesky regulations to avoid pollution or the like.
"it appears that middle class / professional wages"
They aren't the masses assembling and delivering the goods resold with a huge profit.
Futile political-speak
This is just another example of how corporate and political America is increasingly detached from reality. As in the UK the "financialization" of corporate America saw a shift from 'manufacturing' to 'services', a realignment of the economy that saw a shift from 'making' to 'marketing' over a generation or more. Most of us in the 'making' biz just shook our heads and said "this will all end in tears - short term profit over long term security" and I think we were right. The problem the pols have, though, is that what took a generation to undo is going to take more than a generation to redo -- we not only have to re-develop both the skills and the work culture but also do this in the face of intense competition from abroad.
We in the US are going through a phase that's all to familiar to British people. A factory (larded with subsidies) will open, there will be much trumpeting about 'jobs created' but it will often be no more than a glorified warehouse/localizing plant for an overseas corporation. It may work, especially as often its more a marketing expense than a productive business unit ("cost of doing business is that it needs to have x% local content"). Meanwhile, nothing really changes.
You want trade, but you don't want dependency. That means 2nd sources (at a country/control level if not in your own jurisdiction) for all things along your supply and manufacturing chain, etc.
But then people want cheap and new-shiny, and that means short-lived designs and no 2nd source.
Sigh.
Not New, Not Clear, Not Honest
When I was at IBM in the early 2000's, I took to referring to us (IBM) as "rope sellers"--as in "When it comes time to hang the capitalists, one of them will sell us the rope."
China's official rhetoric towards the US has been consistent in that we are the enemy, and the focus of their struggle. It takes a special kind of stupid to ignore that talk.
I was at Google in 2015, when the Chinese dictator had a meet & greet with some of our biggest rope sellers. Google was not in attendance, and some Googlers were unhappy that we were not on that stage. Of course, this was three years after China was caught stealing Google's source code wholesale. It takes a special kind of stupid to ignore those actions.
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
And make no mistake that China's treatment of their Uyghur and Tibetian populations is the template, not an exception.
USA decoupling From China
"The USA's policy of decoupling its technology industries from China lacks a strategy, a theory of success, and an understanding of how to achieve its ill-defined goals, ..."
A pretty damning assessment. Makes it sound like more of a 'wish list' that an actual policy. My personal experience of plans is that the ones without clearly defined goals invariably make things worse, not better. The relationship is so complicated and involves not only China, but also lots of other intermediary countries, decoupling would take decades, if it is at all possible.