Biden is Tough on the PRC

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden says so. And he’s actually going to run on that thesis.

However.

Leaving aside Hunter’s profiteering on Daddy’s coattails in the People’s Republic of China—that’s just the scummy topping on the gruel—Biden’s track record in dealing with the PRC as Senator and as Vice President is one of failure after failure to get, even to try to get, balanced trade deals and even-handed treatment of American companies wanting to do business inside the PRC.

It was, for instance, during the time frames about which Biden brags that the PRC successfully began demanding US companies to take on PRC company partners as a prerequisite to doing business there, to “share” company and American technologies and company proprietary materials and intellectual properties with those partners, and to allow PRC government backdoor access to US companies’ critical software.

All of this was done without Biden objecting, which he could have done, forcefully, whether or not he could have brought those administrations along with him.

Biden chose to be silent on all of these. Every single one of them.

A Post-Wuhan Virus Situation Supply Chain Environment

The South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based news outlet, has a five-part series in progress regarding outcomes potentially stemming from the current situation. My comments here concern remarks from the SCMP‘s third part.

Consensus is growing in Beijing that the coronavirus pandemic is set to make the world more hostile towards China, undermining the accommodating international environment that underpinned the country’s spectacular rise from a closed communist backwater into a global economic powerhouse.

With considerable justification, given the PRC’s steady drumbeat of coverup, lies, and subsequent shipment of dangerously shoddy masks and Wuhan Virus testing kits.

Aside from that, the PRC’s “spectacular rise” more accurately has been from a closed communist backwater into a closed communist global economic powerhouse.

There’s this, too:

Beijing’s pledge that China will remain investor-friendly and open its market further to foreign businesses.

This pledge is another broken commitment. The PRC has never been investor friendly.

The PRC government continues to require foreign businesses to take domestic companies as partners, for all that the domestics’ “participation” is no longer required to be a controlling interest. Such partnerships remain required, and the foreign company remains required to share critical technologies and intellectual properties with those partners. Given that PRC law requires all domestic businesses to cooperate with the government’s intelligence collecting agencies, that means those foreign companies still will be…sharing…their technologies and intellectual properties with the PRC government.

In the end, the necessary realignment of the world’s value chains needs to be an alteration of those chains to remove the PRC from any participation in any step that leaves other nations dependent on PRC production for their own national or economic (which is national) security. It may, or may not, be useful to include, to an extent, PRC production or communications facilities in those chains. However, with the lack of reliability and quality of output that the folks manning the nation’s government have chosen to ship in their response to the global crisis Beijing has unleashed, such an inclusion must necessarily be sufficiently constrained that a PRC disruption cannot threaten the security or weal of other nations.

Keep in mind, too, that PRC has long history of choosing to export dangerously bad products: powdered milk adulterated with melamine, baby food preparations with…impurities, poisoned pet food, sheets of plywood made with formaldehyde that outgasses into homes to poison the occupants.

Another Reason

…to move our supply chains out of the People’s Republic of China, a reason the rest of the world ought to take seriously, also. The PRC government has been lying about its African swine fever epidemic, after the disease has killed 120 million of the PRC’s hogs. That’s a bit over 1/6 of the PRC’s hogs.

As China has largely brought the coronavirus pandemic under control within its borders, another highly contagious disease—one affecting livestock [African swine fever]—is reappearing and raising questions about the accuracy of the country’s reporting.

Since mid-March, China’s Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Affairs has reported a spate of new cases across the country, supporting what some independent veterinary and farming consultants have been saying since late 2019: the disease is still rife.

Maybe the PRC has its Wuhan Virus epidemic under control.  More and more evidence is coming up that indicates the situation there is far worse than that government has been reporting.

Regarding the African swine fever, here’s the USDA on the PRC’s livestock in general, per its April report:

Underreporting is rampant as government agencies at all levels face serious challenges in collecting and reporting outbreak information from swine farms. Some farms are reluctant to report outbreaks for fear of economic losses, while others report being actively discouraged [from disclosing cases of African swine fever].

There are a couple of problems with this. One is that while the African swine fever isn’t a threat to humans, it’s 100% fatal to pigs. What happens if some number—even small—of PRC hogs get shipped to other nations and spread the effects? The world’s hog farms and pork food supply would be put at risk.

The other problem is, given the PRC’s lies about these two viruses, what else are the nation’s government and its Communist Party of China lying about that puts the world at risk, but that we haven’t discovered yet?

It’s…difficult…to do business with a nation whose government lies and coverups are such evident and serious threats to the security of other nations.

It’s impossible to be dependent, through supply chain dependency, on such a nation and maintain one’s own national security at the same time.

A Crackdown

Or maybe a purge beginning. Fourteen (so far) Hong Kong protestors now are under arrest by the People’s Republic of China Hong Kong police for their rudeness in objecting to the PRC satrap government’s behavior.

Among those arrested Saturday were 81-year-old activist and former lawmaker Martin Lee and democracy advocates Albert Ho, Lee Cheuk-yan and Au Nok-hin. Police also arrested media tycoon Jimmy Lai, who founded the local newspaper Apple Daily.
The sweeping crackdown amid a coronavirus pandemic is based on charges of unlawful assembly stemming from huge rallies against proposed China extradition legislation….

Naturally, the PRC has defended those arrests and the West’s objections to them. Here’s the Office of the Commissioner of the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Hong Kong:

It is completely wrong that the UK Foreign Office spokesperson has distorted the truth by painting unauthorized assemblies as “peaceful protests….”

Because, after all, when a Government official uses a word, it means just what he chooses it to mean—neither more nor less.

This is what the Republic of China can look forward to. “One country, two systems” really means that second system is subjugation. And the dictionary will have only Government-approved definitions.

在中国, Newspeak 还活得很好.

Overseeing PRC Telecomm

The Senate has started looking into tightening oversight of People’s Republic of China telecomms that are operating in the US.

In a forthcoming report, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will level sharp criticism at a group of telecom regulators for failing to scrutinize the Chinese companies and the way they handle data going back nearly two decades. Senate investigators who briefed The Wall Street Journal on their findings said that without proper oversight the Chinese companies “present an unacceptable amount of risk.”

It’s a start.

But even with suitably proper oversight, a larger question remains unaddressed, much less unanswered: why are these companies allowed to operate in the US at all? They are, after all, arms of the PRC government, not free enterprise entities competing on their own recognizance and beholden to the laws of the political jurisdiction within which they operate.

And this:

Representatives for American carriers warned the Senate investigators that the US moves could cause Beijing to retaliate by cutting off their business with Chinese carriers to provide services. That, the carriers have said, would potentially hurt their customers in China, such as US companies, and hinder the carriers’ ability to cooperate with US intelligence-gathering requests.

Couple things about this. Cutting off American carriers’ business inside the PRC would be relatively minor for operations in a nation that demands domestic partners and technology sharing as a condition of doing business within that nation and that demands government-accessible backdoors into foreign companies’ critical software suites as a condition of doing business within that nation.

The bit about hindering US carriers’ ability to cooperate with US intelligence-gathering requests emphasizes a critical difference between us and the PRC. US carriers’ cooperation with our government’s intel requests is entirely voluntary, for all the political pressure a carrier might face for noncompliance. PRC telecomm companies operating in the US have no such option: PRC government requests for intel-related information are required to be satisfied. The only request aspect relates to the type of information the PRC government requires to be collected.