<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>But we cannot despair into paralysis and inaction... Civil
society is the place where the highest and the best ideas,
advocacies and social struggles are shaped . And more than a
decade of history invests in this particular space/ assemblage a
certain burden of responsibility and gravity of being, that cannot
be easily developed anew... We, further, stand at a crucial
historical juncture of formation of new social, economic,
political and cultural structures that will provide the dominant
pattern for many many decades. This makes the responsibility even
heavier, and criminal to abdicate. <br>
</p>
<p>People here must think of a way out if this hole that we find
ourselves in ... <br>
</p>
<p>parminder <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 30 April 2018 02:23 PM,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C57108BF-E462-4082-8196-59467D2B9201@hserus.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:MingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MingLiU";
panose-1:2 1 6 9 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
color:#2F5496;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Consolas",serif;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Good for you for being
critical. However I am yet to find a single civil society
led article on either side of this debate that achieves a
genuine balance and actually tries to build bridges rather
than push a single point of view.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Given this, a meeting of
minds does not appear possible due to vested interests
across the board – and so multistakeholder engagements
beyond a certain scale look doomed to collapse under these
influences, or be so neutral as to go nowhere in particular
at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">An interesting problem
to solve, because goodwill appears sadly lacking among many
players in this space.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">parminder
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, 30 April 2018 at 1:44 PM<br>
<b>To: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net">"suresh@hserus.net"</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net"><suresh@hserus.net></a>,
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net"><governance@lists.riseup.net></a>, BestBitsList
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum]
US-China digital cold war is well and truly under-way<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Monday 30 April 2018 01:16 PM, Suresh
Ramasubramanian wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div id="compose-container">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So what do you propose,
introducing a narrow and slanted Chinese POV (which
does rather smack of propaganda) as some sort of
balance?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/a-borderless-economy-that-will-be-controlled/article8581476.ece"
moz-do-not-send="true">this oped on China's global
e-commerce ambitions</a>. And a few hours back forwarded to
another elist <a
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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div id="compose-container">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On Mon,
Apr 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM +0530, "parminder" <<a
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">And
it is not old history at all.... </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Just
now I see this call by OECD for a global dialogue on
AI <a
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></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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
href="https://www.wired.com/story/data-protection-standards-need-to-be-global"
moz-do-not-send="true">Data protection standards
need to be global</a>" ... There are others on AI,
and so on...</span><o:p></o:p></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)....<o:p></o:p></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...<o:p></o:p></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...
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>parminder <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Monday 30 April 2018 12:50 PM,
parminder wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 -------- <o:p></o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"
valign="top" nowrap="nowrap">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:right" align="right"><b>Subject:
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">[JNC - Forum] US-China
digital cold war is well and truly
under-way<o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"
valign="top" nowrap="nowrap">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:right" align="right"><b>Date:
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">Mon, 30 Apr 2018
12:34:50 +0530<o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"
valign="top" nowrap="nowrap">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:right" align="right"><b>From:
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">parminder <a
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
moz-do-not-send="true"><parminder@itforchange.net></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"
valign="top" nowrap="nowrap">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:right" align="right"><b>Reply-To:
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">Internet governance
related discussions <a
href="mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><forum@justnetcoalition.org></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"
valign="top" nowrap="nowrap">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:right" align="right"><b>To:
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">Forum@Justnetcoalition.
Org <a
href="mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><forum@justnetcoalition.org></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></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..... <o:p></o:p></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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><a
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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<h1 id="reader-title">A Chinese Perspective on the
Growing High-Tech Cold War<o:p></o:p></h1>
<div id="reader-credits">
<p class="MsoNormal">by Jinhe Liu<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="meta-data">
<div id="reader-estimated-time">
<p class="MsoNormal">9-12 minutes<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr size="0" align="center" width="100%"></div>
<div>
<div id="moz-reader-content">
<div id="readability-page-1">
<div>
<p>In Chinese online discussions, many
people are using the expression “one sword
throat-slashing strike.” [<span
style="font-family:"MS
Gothic"" lang="EN-US">一</span><span
style="font-family:MingLiU" lang="EN-US">剑</span><span
style="font-family:"MS
Gothic"" lang="EN-US">封喉</span>]
This forbidding term refers to the United
States’ seven-year export ban on China’s <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">second-largest
telecom supplier, ZTE</a>, which
threatens its very existence and has put
the company “<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">in a state of
shock.</a>” 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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 <i>New
York Times Chinese version</i>
characterized the Sino-US dispute over
technology and trade as a “<a
href="https://cn.nytimes.com/business/20180326/trump-china-tariffs-tech-cold-war/"
moz-do-not-send="true">New Cold War Era</a>.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>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 <i>Wall Street Journal</i>,
the US Trade Representative Office (USTR)
is <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">considering
actions against the business of Alibaba
Cloud</a> in the US. <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">A US
congressional report </a>also accuses
other Chinese companies, such as Huawei
and Lenovo, of facilitating commercial
espionage. The latest news shows that the
US Justice Department <a
href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-under-criminal-investigation-over-iran-sanctions-1524663728"
moz-do-not-send="true">has launched an
investigation</a> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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!” [<span style="font-family:"MS
Gothic"" lang="EN-US">勿</span><span
style="font-family:MingLiU" lang="EN-US">谓</span><span
style="font-family:"MS
Gothic"" lang="EN-US">言之不</span><span
style="font-family:MingLiU" lang="EN-US">预</span><span
style="font-family:"MS
Gothic"" lang="EN-US">！</span>]
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 <a
href="https://m.21jingji.com/article/20180419/herald/2778441bb91bbbe0189f188b09405445.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">a picture </a>spread
widely in WeChat, the biggest social media
in China . Then ZTE further issued <a
href="http://www.zte.com.cn/global/about/press-center/news/201804CZY/20180420-1"
moz-do-not-send="true">a statement </a>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 <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">article in Forbes</a>
which suggests that if China retaliates
against Apple, it will cause massive
layoffs and crash in its stock price. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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 21st 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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 <a
href="https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/WTO_Chapter_03_e.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">the statistics of
the World Bank</a>, 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. <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">Research by
Brookings </a>also points out that
China’s proposed tariffs would affect
about 2.1 million jobs spread across 2,783
US counties.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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, <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">Xi Jinping
announced further opening up </a>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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. <a
href="https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/01/05/cfius-blocks-deal-u-s-becoming-chinese/"
moz-do-not-send="true">The United States
is becoming Chinese</a>. 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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>---<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>To unsubscribe: <a href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" moz-do-not-send="true"><mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>List help: <a href="https://riseup.net/lists" moz-do-not-send="true"><https://riseup.net/lists></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>