[governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly under-way
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Apr 30 05:08:23 EDT 2018
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.
People here must think of a way out if this hole that we find ourselves
in ...
parminder
On Monday 30 April 2018 02:23 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> An interesting problem to solve, because goodwill appears sadly
> lacking among many players in this space.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Date: *Monday, 30 April 2018 at 1:44 PM
> *To: *"suresh at hserus.net" <suresh at hserus.net>,
> <governance at lists.riseup.net>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold
> war is well and truly under-way
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday 30 April 2018 01:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> So what do you propose, introducing a narrow and slanted Chinese
> POV (which does rather smack of propaganda) as some sort of balance?
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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!
>
> 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
> this oped on China's global e-commerce ambitions
> <http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/a-borderless-economy-that-will-be-controlled/article8581476.ece>.
> And a few hours back forwarded to another elist this article as a
> major horror in the making
> <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>
> ..
>
> 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...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM +0530, "parminder"
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
> And it is not old history at all....
>
> Just now I see this call by OECD for a global dialogue on AI
> https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/42484-douglas-frantz/posts/21562-artificial-intelligence-why-a-global-dialogue-is-critical
>
> 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)
>
> 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 "Data protection standards need to
> be global
> <https://www.wired.com/story/data-protection-standards-need-to-be-global>"
> ... There are others on AI, and so on...
>
> 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)....
>
> 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...
>
> 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...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Monday 30 April 2018 12:50 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> parminder
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
> *Subject: *
>
>
>
> [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly
> under-way
>
> *Date: *
>
>
>
> Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530
>
> *From: *
>
>
>
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>
> *Reply-To: *
>
>
>
> Internet governance related discussions
> <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
> <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>
> *To: *
>
>
>
> Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
> <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.....
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> internetgovernance.org
> <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>
>
>
>
> A Chinese Perspective on the Growing High-Tech Cold War
>
> by Jinhe Liu
>
> 9-12 minutes
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 second-largest telecom supplier, ZTE
> <https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/04/secretary-ross-announces-activation-zte-denial-order-response-repeated>,
> which threatens its very existence and has put the company
> “in a state of shock.
> <http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us-government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights>”
> 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.
>
> 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 /New York Times Chinese version/ characterized the
> Sino-US dispute over technology and trade as a “New Cold
> War Era
> <https://cn.nytimes.com/business/20180326/trump-china-tariffs-tech-cold-war/>.”
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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 /Wall Street
> Journal/, the US Trade Representative Office (USTR) is
> considering actions against the business of Alibaba Cloud
> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-examining-ways-to-retaliate-against-chinese-restrictions-on-u-s-tech-companies-1523910784?>
> in the US. A US congressional report
> <https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Interos_Supply%20Chain%20Vulnerabilities%20from%20China%20in%20U.S.%20Federal%20ICT.pdf>also
> accuses other Chinese companies, such as Huawei and
> Lenovo, of facilitating commercial espionage. The latest
> news shows that the US Justice Department has launched an
> investigation
> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-under-criminal-investigation-over-iran-sanctions-1524663728>
> 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.
>
> 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 a picture
> <https://m.21jingji.com/article/20180419/herald/2778441bb91bbbe0189f188b09405445.html>spread
> widely in WeChat, the biggest social media in China . Then
> ZTE further issued a statement
> <http://www.zte.com.cn/global/about/press-center/news/201804CZY/20180420-1>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 article in Forbes
> <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>
> which suggests that if China retaliates against Apple, it
> will cause massive layoffs and crash in its stock price.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 the
> statistics of the World Bank
> <https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/WTO_Chapter_03_e.pdf>,
> 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. Research by Brookings
> <https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/04/09/how-chinas-tariffs-could-affect-u-s-workers-and-industries/>also
> points out that China’s proposed tariffs would affect
> about 2.1 million jobs spread across 2,783 US counties.
>
> 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, Xi
> Jinping announced further opening up
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/xi-jinping-china-trade-boao.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=D31A11675F599E1C6551FFB29003BCA7&gwt=pay>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.
>
> 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.
> The United States is becoming Chinese
> <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/01/05/cfius-blocks-deal-u-s-becoming-chinese/>.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180430/3b4ff39b/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list