<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 30 April 2018 01:16 PM,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:EF7850A96FCEC6A5.71C1AFB8-6023-4747-9AD9-284BC6A3F73E@mail.outlook.com"><!-- This file has been automatically generated. See web/README.md -->
<div id="compose-container" style="direction: ltr" itemscope=""
itemtype="https://schema.org/EmailMessage"> <span
itemprop="creator" itemscope=""
itemtype="https://schema.org/Organization"> <span
itemprop="name" content="Outlook Mobile for iOS"></span> </span>
<div>
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">So what do you propose,
introducing a narrow and slanted Chinese POV (which does
rather smack of propaganda) as some sort of balance?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Suresh, I have not ever responded to your emails for many many years
now bec our exchanges have tended not to go very well... But in the
interest of seeking a new beginning for these IG civil society
spaces, I'd make an exception. <br>
<br>
No, I do not propose introducing any "narrow and slanted Chinese
POV" to try and balance.... BTW, the referred article which you say
smacks of propaganda comes from Milton Mueller led IGP's (Internet
Governance Project) website, and there have been similar articles on
that website, and I understand it is within overall IGP's policy
direction.... I do not think anyone can plausibly characterise IGP's
policy orientation as being of promoting Chinese propaganda!<br>
<br>
On the other hand, as my note below characterising China as one of
the global digital power seeking to dominate the world shows, I am
equally critical of China's digital imperial tendencies.. For
instance I wrote <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/a-borderless-economy-that-will-be-controlled/article8581476.ece">this
oped on China's global e-commerce ambitions</a>. And a few hours
back forwarded to another elist <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2143899/forget-facebook-leak-china-mining-data-directly-workers-brains?utm_source=Mailer&utm_medium=ET_batch&utm_campaign=etcio_news_2018-04-30">this
article as a major horror in the making</a> .. <br>
<br>
What I propose is developing and implementing a genuinely global
public interest oriented strategy, with a marked partiality towards
the weaker and disadvantaged groups (as civil society should always
take) -- and in this regard to recognise and discard the habitual
pro US-led western powers and big business aligned stands that
global civil society in IG has become accustomed to take... <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:EF7850A96FCEC6A5.71C1AFB8-6023-4747-9AD9-284BC6A3F73E@mail.outlook.com">
<div id="compose-container" style="direction: ltr" itemscope=""
itemtype="https://schema.org/EmailMessage">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM +0530,
"parminder" <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="3D"ltr"">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><font face="Verdana">And it is not old history at all....
<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Just now I see this call by OECD for
a global dialogue on AI
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/42484-douglas-frantz/posts/21562-artificial-intelligence-why-a-global-dialogue-is-critical"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/42484-douglas-frantz/posts/21562-artificial-intelligence-why-a-global-dialogue-is-critical</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">But reading on one realises that
with a global dialogue, OECD means not a UN based one,
where are countries are equal, but an OECD led
dialogue... (which IG civil society has customarily
cheered and participated in, while condemning any
possible UN process)<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">One squirms to hear so many calls
now-a-days for global dialogues, rules and agreements,
just as an example, Wired carries one such all today "<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.wired.com/story/data-protection-standards-need-to-be-global">Data
protection standards need to be global</a>" ... There
are others on AI, and so on...<br>
</font></p>
<p>But wait a minute, was it not just this January of 2018,
that the UN WG on Enhanced Cooperation (on International
Internet-related polices) closed without a report because
not only the western countries and the big business but
also the Internet community and much of IG civil society
could not agree there really were Internet/ digital
governance issues that needed global addressing (other
than perhaps as they were already being addressed by the
OECD, World Economic Forum and the such)....</p>
<p>And the only comment one heard was from Milton at the IGP
cheering the failure of the WG on enhanced cooperation!
Not another word on the subject by anyone...</p>
<p>Is there any global civil society in any other area which
is so bereft of ideas, imagination, forward-looking
proposals, much less of accountability and progressive
notions like working for the weakest, social justice,
economic rights, and so on.... Could we yet reassemble and
take up our responsibilities... <br>
</p>
<p>parminder <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 30 April 2018 12:50
PM, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>I hardly ever post to these lists now-a-days, because
rarely are substantive issues posted here in any case,
but thought of forwarding this because this refers to my
- by now, favourite :) - issue of pointing to the
culpability of civil society actors in the IG space over
the last one decade or so in being partisan to narrow US
led western interests and having considerably forgotten
to promote global public interest, and the interests of
the weakest sections, groups and countries. And, as
often happens in the mid to long term, such partisanship
is no longer serving even western interests that well. <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container">My posting and
engagement on this issue are aimed at proposing and
promoting an effort at a collective rethink and
re-orientation among the IG civil society about its
politics and role, as we enter a digital society where
Internet or digital governance is one of the most
important political subjects. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT"
nowrap="nowrap">Subject: </th>
<td>[JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is
well and truly under-way</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT"
nowrap="nowrap">Date: </th>
<td>Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT"
nowrap="nowrap">From: </th>
<td>parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
moz-do-not-send="true"><parminder@itforchange.net></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT"
nowrap="nowrap">Reply-To: </th>
<td>Internet governance related discussions <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><forum@justnetcoalition.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT"
nowrap="nowrap">To: </th>
<td>Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><forum@justnetcoalition.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p><br>
</p>
<p>As in the earlier times, cold war alignments were
determined by, or determined, where a country acquired
its armaments from, in the digital cold war there is
going to be a similar schism in terms of whose digital
security equipment you finally trust and buy, as
everything gets underpinned by the 'digital'....
Coupled with the "digital security" based
polarisation will be data flows polarisation -- EU is
determining adequacy tests about where its data can
flow to, the new US CLOUD Act is determining adequacy
test about which countries can access data residing in
the US for regulatory and law enforcement
purposes..... <br>
</p>
<p>We were headed towards such a polarisation when, over
the last decade or so, we rejected global institutions
and agreements for Internet and digital governance...
What is significant is the role that civil society
groups played in such rejection, and thus must share
the blame of the oncoming digital polarisation which
leaves all countries that are not the US and China at
the abject mercy of these digital super powers ...
parminder<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><a id="reader-domain" class="domain"
href="https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/04/29/a-chinese-perspective-on-the-growing-high-tech-cold-war/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+internetgovernance%2FabwE+%28IGP+Blog%29"
moz-do-not-send="true">internetgovernance.org</a> </p>
<h1 id="reader-title">A Chinese Perspective on the
Growing High-Tech Cold War</h1>
<div id="reader-credits" class="credits">by Jinhe Liu</div>
<div id="meta-data" class="meta-data">
<div id="reader-estimated-time">9-12 minutes</div>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="content">
<div id="moz-reader-content" class="line-height4"
style="display: block;">
<div id="readability-page-1" class="page">
<div class="entry-content">
<p><span>In Chinese online discussions, many
people are using the expression “one sword
throat-slashing strike.” [一剑封喉] This
forbidding term refers to the United States’
seven-year export ban on China’s </span><a
href="https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/04/secretary-ross-announces-activation-zte-denial-order-response-repeated"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>second-largest
telecom supplier, ZTE</span></a><span>,
which threatens its very existence and has
put the company “</span><a
href="http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us-government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>in a state of
shock.</span></a><span>” In the Chinese
language, the “one sword throat-slashing
strike” means that in battle a master
swiftly strikes a death blow before the
victim has a chance to resist. Chinese use
of this idiom with high frequency in the
context of the Sino-US trade war shows that
there is both a feeling of helplessness and
a fighting atmosphere dispersing though the
Chinese society.</span></p>
<p><span>In January this year, the United States
blocked Chinese tech company Alibaba’s
acquisition of American remittance company
MoneyGram; also in the name of national
security it forced AT&T to end
cooperation with Huawei. At the same time,
the Trump administration ordered high
tariffs on imported steel and aluminum and
threatened several rounds of tariffs on
China. On March 22nd, Trump signed the
presidential memorandum and announced the
Section 301 investigation of China, which
was widely regarded as the focus of the
outbreak of trade disputes between China and
the United States. In April 16th, the United
States launched its “throat-slashing strike”
on ZTE. While some analysts are still
discussing whether a Sino-US trade war will
happen, on the other side of the Pacific the
war fire has already begun to burn, as a
sense of economic conflict develops between
the two largest economies in the world. The
</span><i><span>New York Times Chinese version</span></i><span>
characterized the Sino-US dispute over
technology and trade as a “</span><a
href="https://cn.nytimes.com/business/20180326/trump-china-tariffs-tech-cold-war/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>New Cold War
Era</span></a><span>.”</span></p>
<p><span>After the news of the US sanctions on
ZTE came on April 16, all of China is
engaged in a big discussion of this event. A
large number of articles about it emerge in
the mainstream media and social media
platforms every day. The strength of the
reaction have probably exceeded the
expectations of American society, and even
China’s own. On the whole, Chinese society
has discovered that its high-tech industry
is weak and unable to resist the US punch,
especially because of its dependence on US
semiconductors. It has been pointed out that
none of the 20 top semiconductor companies
in the world is in mainland China (see the
table below, which shows only the top 10).
Civil society, academia, industry, and even
the government are contemplating the
fragility of China’s industrial development
and trying to provide effective solutions.
The fact that ZTE violated American law has
not been evaded in China. But China fears
that just as a few days ago America
launched a precise strike against Syria, the
United States is now launching an accurate
and fatal strike to Chinese national
enterprises.</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><span>After ZTE’s violation of the embargo
two years ago, it has paid 892 million US
dollars for its mistakes and has reached a
settlement agreement with the US government.
Because this strong penalty against ZTE was
closely followed by the fierce Sino-US
tariff war, Chinese people do not believe
that America’s main concern is just ZTE’s
violation of the sanctions. According to the
</span><i><span>Wall Street Journal</span></i><span>,
the US Trade Representative Office (USTR) is
</span><a
href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-examining-ways-to-retaliate-against-chinese-restrictions-on-u-s-tech-companies-1523910784?"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>considering
actions against the business of Alibaba
Cloud</span></a><span> in the US. </span><a
href="https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Interos_Supply%20Chain%20Vulnerabilities%20from%20China%20in%20U.S.%20Federal%20ICT.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>A US
congressional report </span></a><span>also
accuses other Chinese companies, such as
Huawei and Lenovo, of facilitating
commercial espionage. The latest news shows
that the US Justice Department </span><a
href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-under-criminal-investigation-over-iran-sanctions-1524663728"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>has launched an
investigation</span></a><span> into
whether Huawei breaks the Iran embargo. This
series of actions make the Chinese worry
that ZTE is just the first step in a bigger
war.</span></p>
<p><span>Americans may not realize that these
actions can be counterproductive. They
provoke nationalistic sentiment in Chinese
society. In history, whenever China has
encountered damaging and perceived unfair
treatment from outside, there was always a
strong nationalistic reaction. Signs of this
familiar pattern are appearing again. On
April 6, China’s central news agency used
very tough words and phrases after the extra
tariff on China’s $100 billion exports to
the US was announced, such as “the Chinese
will struggle resolutely! And do not blame
us for not having forewarned you!” [勿谓言之不预！]
These words are generally used for the
announcement of a war in Chinese diplomatic
rhetoric. The ZTE chairman said that “we
have the support of 1.3 billion (Chinese)
people, and we have the ability and
determination to tide over this difficulty,”
after Hou Weigui, the founder of ZTE,
retired and at 76 years old, rushed to the
United States to plead but without any
fruit, which aroused huge empathy by </span><a
href="https://m.21jingji.com/article/20180419/herald/2778441bb91bbbe0189f188b09405445.html"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>a picture </span></a><span>spread
widely in WeChat, the biggest social media
in China . Then ZTE further issued </span><a
href="http://www.zte.com.cn/global/about/press-center/news/201804CZY/20180420-1"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>a statement </span></a><span>that
the sanction was “unacceptable.”
Subsequently, a spokesman for China’s
Ministry of Commerce also made a strong
statement, saying that China is “ready to
take necessary measures to safeguard the
legitimate rights and interests of Chinese
enterprises.” Chinese netizens even began to
discuss whether the country should take
corresponding measures on Apple, widely
quoting an </span><a
href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/18/study-what-if-china-bans-apple-to-retaliate-for-u-s-sanctions-against-huawei-zte/#49d1bf0b1e5d"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>article in
Forbes</span></a><span> which suggests
that if China retaliates against Apple, it
will cause massive layoffs and crash in its
stock price. </span></p>
<p><span>The US moves have also encouraged
high-level political leaders in China to
push for abandoning American products and
developing their own high-tech industries.
Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed on
April 21</span><span>st</span><span> that
“core technology is the pillar of the
country” at the national network security
and information conference. And the Premier
Li Keqiang also spoke at the Executive
meeting of the State Council to promote a
national innovation system aiming at science
and technology development. In fact, Chinese
are concerned not only about the economic
losses of the US sanctions, but also about
inadequate self-protection, and, what is
more, about the future of international
trade.</span></p>
<p><span>In a more profound context, these
actions of China and the United States are
not only solutions to the trade deficit, but
an abandonment of globalization. Since the
end of the US-Soviet Cold War, the world
entered a golden age of “neoliberal”
globalization. International trade promoted
the growth of the world economy. According
to </span><a
href="https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/WTO_Chapter_03_e.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>the statistics
of the World Bank</span></a><span>,
whereas the average growth rate of world
trade in goods was 1.5 times that of the
world’s GDP since the end of World War II,
and in the 1990s trade grew more than twice
as fast as GDP. Trade exchanges between
China and the United States have brought
great benefits to both sides. The low-cost
manufacturing industry in China provides a
continuous supply for the high consumption
society of the United States. The huge
demand and advanced industrial technology of
the United States have brought a strong pull
to the Chinese economy. While the order of
economic globalization was established by
the United States, it is now the United
States who destroys it. Today’s trading
system is so closely intertwined that it is
not all beneficial for the US to undermine
the order it built. The share prices of
ZTE’s U.S. suppliers fell on the news of the
ZTE ban. </span><a
href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/04/09/how-chinas-tariffs-could-affect-u-s-workers-and-industries/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>Research by
Brookings </span></a><span>also points
out that China’s proposed tariffs would
affect about 2.1 million jobs spread across
2,783 US counties.</span></p>
<p><span>The damage wrought to the Sino-US
economy and the global economy by a trade
war will be huge, but it is even more
worrying that the global free trade order is
being disrupted. On the Boao Asia Forum on
April 10th, </span><a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/xi-jinping-china-trade-boao.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=D31A11675F599E1C6551FFB29003BCA7&gwt=pay"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>Xi Jinping
announced further opening up </span></a><span>of
the Chinese market and strengthening the
protection of intellectual property to
integrate China deeper into the world trade
system. But the Trump administration seems
to ignore this deliberately. As mentioned
above, Chinese society is worried mainly
about the prospect of its national
development in the context of the times.
Therefore, if more trade wars happen, it is
not only likely to lead to China’s
aggressive self-protection measures but also
is likely to have a far-reaching impact on
how Chinese understand international rules.
Solving the impartiality of trade rules is a
process that requires stakeholders to sit
down and negotiate. A direct blockade might
well backfire.</span></p>
<p><span>If we look at the Sino-US trade dispute
from the perspective of Internet governance,
it can be found that the Internet seems to
be splitting up. A one-world Internet should
be interconnected across the borders of
states, but now territorial governments are
trying to strengthen their control by
aligning the Internet with national
jurisdictions. China has selectively
rejected the products of some American
Internet giants, and now, the United States
has also begun to block China’s products. </span><a
href="https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/01/05/cfius-blocks-deal-u-s-becoming-chinese/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>The United
States is becoming Chinese</span></a><span>.
The state has labeled Internet equipment one
by one and excludes it from its own
territory in the name of national security
or the protection of its own industries.
Some commentaries assert that the actions by
the United States against Huawei and ZTE are
trying to keep the US the leading position
in the 5G technology. But the establishment
of walls to exclude competition deviates
from liberalism. The United States is a
strong advocate of the freedom of the
Internet. It developed the multi-stakeholder
model, advocated bottom-up technical
autonomy and open industrial competition; it
has resisted giving governments too much
control of the Internet. But now, on the
contrary, the government of the world’s most
powerful Internet country is holding high
the banner of national security to expel
market actors who place it at a competitive
disadvantage. </span></p>
<p><span>When the advocates of rules break the
rules, global confidence is badly damaged.
But it is still hopeful that United States
Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin is on his
way to China to negotiate. So the rule of
free trade and Internet openness has not
been completely abandoned yet.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">---
To unsubscribe: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" moz-do-not-send="true"><mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net></a>
List help: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://riseup.net/lists" moz-do-not-send="true"><https://riseup.net/lists></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>