US Approves Nearly All Tech Exports To China, Data Shows (wsj.com) 35
The U.S. has identified intensifying technological competition with China as a top national-security threat. But a Commerce Department-led process that reviews U.S. tech exports to the country approves almost all requests and has overseen an increase in sales of some particularly important technologies, according to an analysis of trade data. From a report: Of the U.S.'s total $125 billion in exports to China in 2020, officials required a license for less than half a percent, Commerce Department data shows. Of that fraction, the agency approved 94%, or 2,652, applications for technology exports to China. The figures omit applications "returned without action," meaning their outcomes were uncertain. The result: The U.S. continues to send to China an array of semiconductors, aerospace components, artificial-intelligence technology and other items that could be used to advance Beijing's military interests.
The Commerce Department says it is focused on long-term, strategic competition with China and that it makes export-control decisions with its interagency partners in the Defense, State and Energy Departments. Critics say Commerce officials are improperly giving priority to U.S. commercial interests over national security and that an urgent regulatory revamp is necessary to respond to the threat from Beijing. For Steve Coonen, the Pentagon's former top China export-controls analyst, the high rate of approvals for licenses to sell tech with potential military use is evidence of significant policy failure.
The Commerce Department says it is focused on long-term, strategic competition with China and that it makes export-control decisions with its interagency partners in the Defense, State and Energy Departments. Critics say Commerce officials are improperly giving priority to U.S. commercial interests over national security and that an urgent regulatory revamp is necessary to respond to the threat from Beijing. For Steve Coonen, the Pentagon's former top China export-controls analyst, the high rate of approvals for licenses to sell tech with potential military use is evidence of significant policy failure.
What the fuck does that prove? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only are they excluding applications "returned without action", but people probably have a pretty good idea what will and won't get approved before they apply, and they WON'T APPLY for things that wouldn't get approved. No matter what the standards are, you're going to see the vast majority of the applications approved as soon as people adjust to the rules.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: What the fuck does that prove? (Score:2)
If this is difficult for you to understand, you are in the bottom 10%.
Re: What the fuck does that prove? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like you should always fire the bottom 10th percentile of your staff once a year, you should always reject at least 10% of the applications every year. It ensures quality.
Just like you should always fire the bottom 10th percentile of your staff once a year, you should always reject at least 10% of the applications every year. It ensures quality.
This maxim does not take into account the dysfunctional employees who creates stress for the colleagues around them, imposing a cognitive load on everyone else's ability to perform.
Fire everybody who acts in a rude and unprofessional manner without owning their behaviors so that the people around them perform better. Then you will need less staff because they will be more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
If you did that where would you get future CEOs?
From the capable and functional people that remain.
The US is bought and paid for... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The US is bought and paid for... (Score:4, Insightful)
Clarity. (Score:3)
You know what? This one of those moments Senator Josh Hawley (when he's done running in the halls of Congress) could actually step up and purpose policy on. This is like his thing and would be an excellent chance for him to show his chops on the matter! Oh but of course he won't because he actually isn't an expert on this topic, he just likes to say "Chii-na!" like it's some boogeyman and talk about how AWESOME he is in foreign trade and policy. (I'm sure all of Slashdot can feel my eye roll there)
But in all seriousness, this is literally something Republicans could jump on. The Department of Commerce is looking for clear policy and who better to provide it than Congress itself! Additionally, they could work with the President to establish likewise with Germany, South Korea, and Japan because if we put stricter controls on exports, boy you better believe one of them is jumping at the chance to have amazing relations with China.
Like this is one of those cases where if Republicans weren't "Let's Go Brandon" so hard, they could actually solve this. Like Congress has the correct composition to get this done by 2023. But because political lines are what they are, we're just going to look at this and go "Gee, I wish there was something more we could do."
This is one of those things that the deep partisanship is sinking when it could easily be a bipartisan slam dunk. The US is so fucked on getting anything done, this kind of stuff is the crap that'll sink the country. This is just so furiously within grasp of getting done, but nobody wants to do anything about it. Liberals and Conservatives across the board want this done in law so we have a solid future policy, but Congress yet again is punting to the Executive to "Meh, you all just create new regulations so that when you create ones that we don't like we can screech at you without actually helping." Bravo, Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
The partisanship is part of what's holding up movement on this. The Republicans, who traditionally SHOULD move on this, and would move on this, don't dare do ANYTHING that could be construed as positive while there's a sitting Democratic president. Because if they managed to get enough Democratic support to pass it, they'd have to admit that something they wanted done happened under the Democratic eye. How would they keep the fires stoked if they cooperated?
The Democrats are just as guilty when it comes to
Re: (Score:2)
"The Democrats are just as guilty when it comes to the reverse."
Have to disagree. Where do you see Democrats avoiding action?
They just passed the Climate, Etc bill that has items in it that Republicans support, but it passed.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for them. How about we wait to see if anything comes of it before we pop the corks? The ACA passed too and it was an utter shit-show for most of us. I look for the eventual fallout of this bill to be more of the same. Take more money from the middle and lower class and hand it to the rich. "For the planet" is the new battle-cry, but the end result will absolutely be the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
R"s will do nothing (Score:1, Redundant)
But in all seriousness, this is literally something Republicans could jump on.
Absolutely they won't. If the Republicans do anything it will be jumped on by Democrats as bad for America. It will become an election campaign issue.
The Republicans will stand back and let the rest of the country judge how well the Dems are running the country.
After the election (the Reps are expected to retake the house and senate) they will have a) no reason to do anything, and anything they actually do will b) be jumped on by Democrats as bad for America.
The best move for any non-Democrat at this point
Re: (Score:2)
So the GOP isn't capable of governing, nor do they want to bother because "it will be jumped on by Democrats as bad for America". Hilarious!
Screw national security (Score:3)
There's profit to be had! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the shareholders?
Kill switch (Score:2)
If it's not ITAR then who the F cares (Score:4, Informative)
This is common person FUD for people who don't understand ITAR/EAR (or don't know it exists.)
This story is just trash meant for the people who simultaneously both Hate China and Hate The US Government.
Re: (Score:2)
I think EAR doesn't apply to China, and TFA might be (without knowing) asking for it to apply to them.
Re: If it's not ITAR then who the F cares (Score:2)
The EAR applies to China. It used to differentiate between Hong Kong and China but recently even Hong Kong got lumped in with China under the EAR.
why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are these stats available by year, over time? (Score:1)
Just wondering if 2020 was typical, or fit the curve of a trend, or was representative of one presidential administrtion but not another, or... y'know. One data point isn't all that useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Two schools of thought. (Score:2)
It makes the day come quicker when China is a free country, because it's being infused with intellectual energy untainted by their tragic history.
I know which one of those is more flattering. And which one would inspire me to be a better American, rather than a lazy and paranoid American.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Paywalled (Score:2)
Can't actually read the article, and its from the WSJ anyways which has zero credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, although WSJ certainly leans right in its editorial section, it has the least biased reporting of the major national papers. Yeah, I can't afford to subscribe, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a report about the WSJ report;
https://www.washingtonexaminer... [washingtonexaminer.com]
"An estimated 94% of tech-related applications, or 2,652 in total, were approved, according to the Wall Street Journal. This implies that the U.S. has continued to send semiconductors, aerospace components, AI elements, and other technologies overseas."
Just because lots of things were approved doesn't mean all that stuff was exported.
sounds like it is working correctly (Score:2)