US Blacklists More Chinese Tech Companies (bloomberg.com) 66
The US government is blacklisting Yangtze Memory Technologies, Shanghai Micro Electronics Equipment Group and dozens of other Chinese tech companies, ratcheting up a trade conflict between the world's two largest economies. From a report: The Department of Commerce is placing the companies on the so-called entity list, meaning that anyone seeking to supply them with US technology will require a license from Washington -- something that will likely be difficult to get. Bloomberg News previously reported that the US was preparing to add the companies to the list. The latest restrictions are part of a push to limit China's access to advanced chipmaking and artificial intelligence technology, which the US wants to keep away from the Asian nation's military. In October, the Biden administration unveiled sweeping measures that limit what US companies can sell to the country -- and it's been pushing for allies to go along with the plan.
The idea is to severely restrict China's "ability to leverage artificial intelligence, advanced computing, and other powerful, commercially available technologies for military modernization and human rights abuses," Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Alan Estevez said in a statement. "This work will continue, as will our efforts to detect and disrupt Russia's efforts to obtain necessary items and technologies for its brutal war against Ukraine, including from Iran." Yangtze Memory and Shanghai Micro were added to the list out of concern that they'll work with Huawei, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology and other companies that the US has decided are either a risk to national security or support oppression by the Chinese government. The two companies are key to China's efforts to build a domestic chipmaking business and wean itself off imports, particularly those from the US. In all, 36 companies are joining the entity list.
The idea is to severely restrict China's "ability to leverage artificial intelligence, advanced computing, and other powerful, commercially available technologies for military modernization and human rights abuses," Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Alan Estevez said in a statement. "This work will continue, as will our efforts to detect and disrupt Russia's efforts to obtain necessary items and technologies for its brutal war against Ukraine, including from Iran." Yangtze Memory and Shanghai Micro were added to the list out of concern that they'll work with Huawei, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology and other companies that the US has decided are either a risk to national security or support oppression by the Chinese government. The two companies are key to China's efforts to build a domestic chipmaking business and wean itself off imports, particularly those from the US. In all, 36 companies are joining the entity list.
John J. Mearsheimer predicted this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:John J. Mearsheimer predicted this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:John J. Mearsheimer predicted this (Score:4, Insightful)
Your comment should be downvoted, because it's misleading. By the time John gave this talk in 2015, Russia had already invaded Ukraine. That isn't a prediction.
Re: (Score:1)
If you mention this on slashdot you will be surely downvoted,
No one is ever downvoted on Slashdot for linking to objective facts. They are typically downvoted for acting like arseholes while doing it, or for linking to "facts" which purposefully misinform the viewer through omission. Mind you, why do you think you would be downvoted simply for pointing out someone else said something? Insecure much?
But one of the great things about academics is you can always find someone to support something, literally anything. The dependence on China and Russia was very much led b
Re: (Score:2)
> No one is ever downvoted on Slashdot for linking to objective facts. They are typically downvoted for acting like arseholes while doing it, or for linking to "facts" which purposefully misinform the viewer through omission.
You're apparently using a different slashdot than the rest of us. I read at -1 every day and see plenty of perfectly pleasant, pure fact with decent URL posts modded down into oblivion based solely on the information not matching someone's politics.
-1 is a generally mix of quality p
Re: (Score:1)
Set yourself to read at -1 for a day or two. This is such a trivial experiment and you want me to slashdot that for you? You don't even have to leave the site. Have some self respect, AC.
Re: (Score:2)
A full decade ago...
The current situation with China was widely predicted in the 90's.
Re: (Score:3)
I know someone who predicted rising tensions with China because of what is written in the book of Revelation. Does that mean the book of Revelation is correct (or that person's interpretation of it)? No.
John Mearsheimer has a lot of holes in his logic. He has an idea of how states should act, and when they don't act according to his logic, he gets frustrated.
More like "US blacklists itself" (Score:4, Insightful)
Protectionism (and that is clearly what is being done here, the "security" angle ist just a lie from a nation that routinely compromises supply chains itself), does not work and always comes greater cost later. Fix your industry, make better products, offer better prices, or just get even more outclassed over time. Protectionism makes this worse because all it does is delay fixing the problems.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Protectionism (and that is clearly what is being done here...
But, when Trump did it, it was clearly the worst kind of xenophobia from a world-renowned "racist"?
Huh.
Fix your industry...
Telling others to "fix your industry" when compared to slave labor conditions in China is hardly a logical or rational answer here. A planet now Made in China should have been paying more all along, so we wouldn't have to fix THE industry that now manufactures the world.
And that "fix" isn't easy when asking those demanding $15/hour minimum wage to work for peanuts so they're not paying 5x more for 'Murica
Re:More like "US blacklists itself" (Score:5, Insightful)
Protectionism is a form of xenophobia. By declaring your own people to have more value than someone else's.
Re: (Score:3)
Protectionism is a form of xenophobia. By declaring your own people to have more value than someone else's.
Not only, but that aspect is clearly at work here. Otherwise a lot more people would point out how stupid this is. Because of the xenophobia-aspect they keep silent as another irrational shit-storm would be sure to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
Protectionism is a form of xenophobia.
Eh, maybe.
By declaring your own people to have more value than someone else's.
Nope. This has nothing to do with people.
Re: (Score:2)
Casting protectionism as inherently xenophobic is spinning national self-interest as a form of racism. It is always jarring to hear righties try to leverage the brotherhood of man so they can export good-paying domestic jobs to make an extra 3 cents a share.
But a lot of people have fully internalized "free trade" as an inherent good, regardless of the outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
The globalist mantra: "If you don't export all jobs to the cheapest-labor shitholes, you are a racist!"
Reality is globalists are profiteering slavers.
Re: (Score:2)
By declaring your own people to have more value than someone else's.
Nope. This has nothing to do with people.
As soon as you remember that protectionism is very often (and here definitely) about showing your people/voters that you are "doing something" that aspect comes in.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF??
I expect my country and it's government that is "by and for me"....to always value me over those of other countries.
That is their job...their purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
And that makes you a caveman. Because true strength can only come from cooperation between different groups (here: countries). A non-cooperator, like you desire, will, in the end, always end up on the outside.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind cooperation with out nations....as long as it benefits us, and for sure does not come at any negative cost to our country or our citizens.
This isn't "one world govt." (yet)....my government is there to look out for ME and our country's interests first and foremost....and as long as coope
Re: (Score:1)
> Because true strength can only come from cooperation between different groups (here: countries).
The Romans and Carthaginians would like to have a chat with you about strength. But oh wait, Carthage can't. They were wiped from the face of the planet as a people, utterly and completely destroyed. That wasn't very cooperative of the Romans but I'm pretty sure the Romans proved themselves stronger.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying the US cannot compete? Well, any for of protectionism just makes that worse. You seem to not get that little detail, but it has been confirmed by history time and again. And no amount of "reasons" will help, because they cannot. Fix your act or land on the trash-heap of history. That is the choice and it is the only choice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea of the WTO treaties (for good or ill) was that in exchange for commerce nations would open their grasps and let capitalism rule. After pouring a ton of money down that hole in the hopes that it would come true, China made Xi their grand pooh bear ;) and they went in the opposite direction. China's policies were always directly opposed to WTO rules, specifically that corporations couldn't buy property there, or even do business without partnering with a Chinese corp; and equally notably, their total
Re: (Score:2)
You say that any form of protectionism will only make the USA less competitive with China, but that's certainly false.
Nope. Have a look at the history of protectionism. And stop believing, against all reason, that this case is different.
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't about protectionism. This entire thread is false from the first mention of such.
This is about how we should not trade with scumbags who enslave, mass rape, organ harvest, and the rest of their crimes against humanity which happen everyday there right now under the active top level control and official government policy to do all that evil shit.
Would you suggest we should have traded with the Nazis? With North Korea? With apartheid South Africa? With Pol Pot's Cambodia? And so many others.
When
Re: (Score:1)
You sound like an apologist for the CCP. Get your 50 cents for that post? Did you spend your social credit on a shiny new Pooh Bear poster for your shared wall in your work group's barracks? You should post it proudly in a very public place.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you suggest we should have traded with the Nazis?
We did. We sold fuel to the SS, we sold Aluminum to Japan that was used to make Zeroes...
Re: (Score:1)
Which was immoral and wrong and we now acknowledge that.
So our previous historic selves engaged in immoral trade for money, thus it's ok if we do more of that today. Right?
I hope you're not making that argument.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were making that argument, you'd know, because I'd have made it. I don't really go for subtlety on Slashdot, because it is wasted here. You have to spell everything out or some wanker will surely fail to miss the point. As it is, there is always some toolbag trying to make out as if you said something you didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
But, when Trump did it, it was clearly the worst kind of xenophobia from a world-renowned "racist"?
The only people who did that were Chinese propaganda sites, and the handful of quisling Americans that stood to profit from Chinese trade chicanery. Elizabeth Warren wasn't even bitching about it.
Telling others to "fix your industry" when compared to slave labor conditions in China is hardly a logical or rational answer here.
Yup.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh...so, like Joe Biden? [youtube.com]
Re: More like "US blacklists itself" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We (including American corporations) are the problem, not China.
Your idea that westerners are the whole problem is as nationalistic as the idea that China is the whole problem, only in the opposite direction.
We are just using them as a scapegoat
China does in fact share culpability for mankind's greatest existential threat. Pretending otherwise is, once again, as dumb as pretending that they're solely responsible.
Re: More like "US blacklists itself" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
China has made it clear that there WILL be war over Taiwan as soon as they think they are strong enough to win. Seems obvious to try to avoid reaching that point.
And protectionism accomplishes that how?
Re: More like "US blacklists itself" (Score:5, Interesting)
And protectionism accomplishes that how?
The same way Russia is crippling itself, not having access to the semiconductors it needs to replenish missiles its dropping on Ukraine. Also, the poorer condition of the economy, the more difficult it is to conduct military operations indefinitely. Finally, Xi has to figure out what's more important to him, invade Taiwan, or maintain the ability to have a growing economy through foreign trade.
Re: More like "US blacklists itself" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China spends 11% of their budget in education, and just 5% in the military. We spend 11% on the Military, and just 4% in education. No wonder most people here fall for that "war mongering China" bullshit.
I'm not terribly worried about China trying to rule the world, but I am concerned about China trying to rule its neighbors. They are already doing it in some cases, so the concern is clearly warranted.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, Xi has to figure out what's more important to him, invade Taiwan, or maintain the ability to have a growing economy through foreign trade.
I fully agree on that and let's hope China will see foreign trade as more important, unlike Russia. Well. Russia vastly underestimated what would be happening to it, so one good thing of the Russian aggression may be that China got a warning.
But how does protectionism against China does improve foreign trade for China? It seems to be doing rather the opposite. Take enough away and China may just decide what is left is not worthwhile protecting.
Re: (Score:2)
But how does protectionism against China does improve foreign trade for China? It seems to be doing rather the opposite.
1) We're not trying to improve trade with China.
2) If we have to ban Huawei and other Chinese manufacturers because we know they're putting in hardware "backdoors" to spy on consumers (like the military or executive branch of gov'ts), there's no point in worrying about the trade consequences of denying semiconductor trade/technology transfers with China.
3) Frankly, as far as I see it, Xi has already made his decision concerning foreign trade and Taiwan.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes it harder to enter new markets too. Developing nations are buying Chinese technology because it doesn't come with strings attached. They are looking to trade with China, because China doesn't do stuff like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Developing nations are buying Chinese technology because it doesn't come with strings attached.
Bullshit. Nations with autocratic dictators like buying Chinese tech because it doesn't come with "humanitarian" strings attached. But getting any seemingly advantageous arrangement with China comes with "Chinese" strings attached. The pacific nations China has been trying to attract, Hollywood moguls, and the NBA have discovered there are strings attached!
Re: More like "US blacklists itself" (Score:1)
My opinion. They saw the same advantage that Russia saw by acting now. You see how that is going.
Re: More like "US blacklists itself" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the same thing with regards to semiconductors. And I am sure TMSC has plans in place to get all their key engineers out of the country _fast_ if needed. All those machines are pretty worthless then. Lets just hope China is rational in this question. With countries were the one person at the head of government (like China, the US, Russia) that is unfortunately not always the case.
Re: (Score:2)
China has made it clear that there WILL be war over Taiwan as soon as they think they are strong enough to win.
BULLSHIT.
I don't like the CCP, but they are not stupid. They have no reason to pay the high price that would come from taking Taiwan by force.
They know that they can play the soft-power game long term and one day Taiwan will rejoin the mainland by choice. They just need to demonstrate the benefits of being part of China, while waiting for the generations that remember why they hate the communists to die off. Then bribe a few politicians to hold a referendum and let the people vote....
Re: (Score:1)
That's an interesting idea but the younger generations of Taiwanese are less connected to the mainland than their parents. The more time passes the less they care about the mainland and sure as hell won't vote to join it. Rejoin is not the correct word. They were -never- part of the communist mainland. You can't rejoin a thing you were never part of.
Re: (Score:2)
The "security" angle is just a lie from a nation that routinely compromises supply chains itself
That sounds like evidence in support, not evidence of a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Or... we could just trade with (buy from and sell to) our allies in Europe who have advanced industries designing and producing the items we choose not to buy from the oppressive regime in China.
There are other options than domestic and CCP.
Double Dipping Allowed! (Score:2)
useless link (Score:3)
Why link to Bloomberg? No one can see the TFA.
Re: (Score:1)
No one can see the TFA.
That's a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Why link to Bloomberg? No one can see the TFA.
Editors are big braining this. An article about the USA limiting access to Chinese is in fact limited to audiences.
Commercial interests (Score:2)
Can't seem to get a certain Interview with Michael Hayden out of my head where he boasts NSA spies on "interesting" people. Given billions spent yearly lobbying the federal government how much of foreign policy / exercise of government power is directed by lobbyists for simple commercial advantage?
Certainly reasonable for US to seek to sanction China to hedge against wars of conquest against Taiwan but none of this crap seems to be directed with any useful specificity at Chinese defense industry.
Re: (Score:2)
how much of foreign policy / exercise of government power is directed by lobbyists for simple commercial advantage?
When was the last time the NSA did that?
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time the NSA did that?
Did what? Are you asking when was the last time US intelligence agencies spied on interesting people was? My guess would be a few nanoseconds ago.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm asking when was the last time the NSA did corporate espionage at the behest of lobbyists, as you implied they are doing. You didn't imply it, you outright asserted it.
US better watch its butt (Score:2)
The US better start thinking about thousands of strategically important things it imports from China before stirring the Panda too much. These folks operate with tunnel vision.
Re: (Score:1)
It goes both ways. My advice: don't trade with evil people and you won't have to worry about supply chain disruptions from sanctions.
human rights abuses (Score:2)
Hobson's Choice (Score:1)