Tag Archives: foreign policy

Aiding an Enemy Nation

Posted on by
Reply

In the present case, it’s technically legal, but it’s strictly wrong.

The People’s Republic of China is a global leader in the development of artificial intelligence, and it’s on the way to becoming the global leader. AI has a number of uses of which the PRC is taking advantage, including surveillance of citizens and fighting battles and entire wars.

Despite this threat to our nation’s security, American businesses and investors have comprised more than 40% of the 400 international investments in PRC AI, and those 400 investments were 17% of total international investment in PRC AI.

Here, per the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University, are the top 10 American investors in PRC AI—companies that put their lucre acquisition ahead of our nation’s security:

The CSET has reported further that

Collectively, observed transactions involving US investors totaled $40.2 billion invested into 251 Chinese AI companies, which accounts for 37 percent of the $110 billion raised by all Chinese AI companies.

And [emphasis added]

such financial activity, commercial linkages, and the tacit expertise that transfers from US-based funders to target companies in China’s booming AI ecosystem carry implications that extend beyond the business sector. Earlier stage VC investments in particular can provide intangible benefits beyond capital, including mentorship and coaching, name recognition, and networking opportunities. As such, US outbound investment in Chinese technology, and particularly AI, merits additional attention and tracking.

This comes after Google, for instance, infamously refused to continue a contract with the US’ Department of Defense to develop battlefield-capable artificial intelligence packages while continuing actively to support the PRC’s citizen-surveillance and military AI development. Alphabet’s subsequent words and actions concerning its now wholly owned subsidiary now being willing to work with DoD do nothing to mitigate, much less correct, that infamy.

Taliban and CPC—Peas in a Pod

Posted on by
Reply

That similarity facilitates the People’s Republic of China’s government and Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers hooking up. With President Joe Biden’s (D) decision to cut and run from Afghanistan 17 months ago, the Communist Party of China and the rest of the government of the PRC have been moving into Afghanistan with enthusiasm, and the Taliban has been opening up to them with increasing enthusiasm.

The PRC is committing genocide against Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang province, having already locked away in concentration camps more than a million of them and “reeducating” a million more in the CPC’s effort to erase Uighur Muslim culture.

The Taliban, on the other hand, are moving with zeal to punish Afghan-domiciled Muslims, locking away Muslim women in their own homes, keeping them carefully ignorant, and allowing them out in public only if they’re fully covered and accompanied by family male supervisors. This assault is accompanied by Taliban efforts to limit the ability of Muslim groups to cross the border into Xinjiang and work to liberate the Uighurs—albeit many of those groups being al Qaeda terrorists or supporters.

This alignment has facilitated the PRC-Taliban agreement for the PRC to drill for oil in Afghanistan’s north, an arrangement worth $540 million. The PRC’s Belt and Road Initiative has routes that pass through Afghanistan, directly connecting the PRC with Iran.

PRC exploitation of Afghanistan’s vast rare earth resources, for lucrative fees to the Taliban, won’t be far behind.

It’s almost like they’re friends with benefits.

Two Views

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State Antony Blinken was planning to discuss the barbarian invasion of Ukraine with PRC functionaries and then to meet with PRC President Xi Jinping. Now, though, the People’s Republic of China has a spy balloon research airship riding the winds over the US, and Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee are demanding that Blinken confront Xi over the PRC balloon. Blinken has decided to postpone that trip.

There are two likely reasons for Blinken’s decision. One is that, as Senator Tom Cotton (R, AR) put it (my paraphrase), Blinken should cancel his trip to demonstrate American displeasure over the balloon.

The other reason is that Blinken is just too chicken to make the trip and publicly call out Xi over the PRC violation; Blinken wants to avoid yet another ass-chewing by PRC functionaries like the one he got in his initial session with PRC personages in Alaska.

Subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) is arranging subsidies for American companies in a misguided effort to support development and production of electric vehicles and their batteries in the US. The EU objects, saying the subsidies disfavor EU nation-domiciled companies, and is proposing some options to counter the American subsidies.

One provision suggested by the commission could allow governments to directly match certain green subsidies offered by the US. European competition chief Margrethe Vestager said that means that if a company was offered $1 billion to build a new battery factory outside of Europe, “a member state could offer the same.”
The matching subsidies program would have several conditions, Ms Vestager said. A business would have to show how it could benefit from a subsidy from the US or another country, and any matching funds would have to benefit more than one European country.

The EU can’t make any economic move at all without layering on yet more bureaucracy and regulation. These conditions seem also to be offered because the EU doesn’t trust, rightly or wrongly, its own constituent nations to play nice among themselves even against a common external competitor. This is another example of the central planners demanding one-size-fits all regulation, and demanding them preemptively, denying the constituents any opportunity to perform on their own recognizance.

Treaty Abrogation

Posted on by
Reply

Russia is actively blocking on-site inspections of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons development facilities and has been doing so at least since last August. This is a stark and deliberate violation of the New START nuclear arms limitation treaty that Russia so solemnly signed with us years ago. Furthermore, Russian government officials are refusing to meet with American government officials even to discuss Russia’s refusal of inspections.

It’s time to recognize that Russia has abrogated New START and to say so out loud.

Then it’s time to resume the arms race we had with the Russian-dominated Soviet Union, a stage in the race that we won decisively those years ago on the basis of our superior economy and technology, advantages we still have. This is an arms race that Russia cannot win, especially given its expenditures and demonstrated technological skills in its barbaric invasion of Ukraine, and the new loss would be especially catastrophic for the barbarian.

Furthermore, the arms race would both spur and provide markets for our weapons production and development industries (which in turn would facilitate our economic growth), which in turn would facilitate supporting Ukraine against the barbarian’s invasion, and it would facilitate helping the Republic of China to arm itself with a range of modern weapons in advance of the President Xi Jinping-threatened invasion by the People’s Republic of China, to the detriment of the PRC.

On top of that, despite the growing and modernization of the PRC’s PLA, the arms race is one that the PRC also cannot win—our economic and technology advantages extend to the PRC’s capability.

Also: the need to engage in the race or fall further behind would force barbarian chieftain Vladimir Putin to reallocate at least some funding away from prosecuting his war against Ukraine and toward the arms race. The same need would force Xi to reallocate at least some of his funding away from prepping the PLA for his threatened invasion and toward the same arms race.

In fine, an arms race, along with its collaterals, would be a win-win-win for us, a loss (again) for Russia, and a net loss for the PRC. And would provide indirect support for both Ukraine and the RoC.

And a win for Ukraine and the RoC and so for Western Civilization generally.