Tag Archives: foreign policy

Technology Theft

Posted on by
Reply

In a piece on American CEOs’ (and Apple’s in particular) cowardice in their dealings with the People’s Republic of China’s government—censor your stuff or you can’t operate in the PRC, give up your technology to or you can’t operate in the PRC, and these worthies meekly comply—comes this reminder on the latter bit:

Just about everybody in the US capital is complaining about how China forces foreign companies to give up technology in return for market access.

In truth, the PRC isn’t alone in this: willing participants are those American CEOs who acquiesce in the name of short-term profit rather than long-term gain.

This collusion (is that a word?  Can I use it?) is especially irritating in the Apple case given CEO Tim Cook’s willingness to stand up to the US government over decrypting an Apple smartphone used by the San Bernardino terrorists.  Cook is willing to collude with the PRC, but he’s not willing to collaborate with our own government.  He was right in the terrorist case, too….

It’s time to inject some backbone into these CEOs.  The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is used to pass on or to block acquisition of American companies by foreign investors if the resulting technology transfer would harm our national security.  CFIUS needs to be broadened with the authority similarly to pass on American companies doing business in foreign jurisdictions if the resulting technology transfer would harm our national security.

Worried about other nations’ companies getting in in place of American ones?  We’re proud of our technology lead over the rest of the world, and justifiably so.  Even were those other nations’ companies actually able to fill the vacuum of the absence of ours, that would just leave the PRC to extort access to second best.

Works for Me

Posted on by
Reply

The US has imposed additional sanctions on Iran, vindicated by Iran’s launch of a new ballistic missile, a test of a rocket capable of delivering satellites into orbit.

Iran now is objecting, saying the additional sanctions violate the nuclear “deal” signed by ex-President Barack Obama (D).  Iran claims

new US sanctions against the Muslim country constitute a “breach” of the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and Western powers.

That’s fine.  It’s good that Iran seems to agree with this administration that the thing is a terrible accord and ought to be gotten rid of.  We should tear it up and impose complete sanctions on Iran.

Unfortunately, the flies in that ointment include the EU, Russia, and the People’s Republic of China.  None of those would be willing to reimpose sanctions and isolation from the commerce of the world.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take action; we should.  We’d just be acting unilaterally.

It’s About Time

Posted on by
Reply

Now we need to act on it.

The US Pentagon and State Department have devised plans to supply Ukraine with antitank missiles and other weaponry and are seeking White House approval, US officials said, as Kiev battles Russia-backed separatists and ties between Moscow and Washington fray.

We should have done this as soon as the Russians went into Ukraine.  We should have done this, in fact, as soon as the rebels tried to secede and started their war of separation.

These are defensive arms, though.  Badly needed as those are, we should be selling/leasing offensive weapons to Ukraine, also: Kiev needs to be able to take the offensive and recover the three oblasts that are trying to leave, and one of those will require driving out or destroying Russian troops.

Still better late than never—assuming we suit the deed to the word before it becomes too late.

A Good Idea

Posted on by
5

The sooner, the better, too, and make it broader.

The US is considering deploying Patriot surface-to-air missiles in Estonia, US Vice President Mike Pence told Estonian Prime Minister Juri Ratas on Sunday.

“We spoke about it today, but we didn’t talk about a date or time,” Ratas told state broadcaster ERR after the meeting.

This would be excellent.  We also should talk Estonia about deploying THAAD and ABM systems there.  And then we should deploy all three.

And put systems in Poland and Czech Republic, if they’ll have them after ex-President Barack Obama (D) suddenly cancelled the missile defense systems we were going to set up there.  And put systems in Ukraine.

That’s just for Russia’s benefit.  We also should plus up the missile defense systems deployed in the Republic of Korea (if President Moon Jae-in finally can recognize the threats of northern Korea and the People’s Republic of China) and in Japan.  We also should talk to Australia, the Republic of China, and Vietnam about missile defense deployments there.  And India.

Sanctions and Wariness

Posted on by
Reply

Congress has passed and sent to President Donald Trump a bill that increases sanctions against Russia, particularly its energy sector, and against Iran and northern Korea.  It also adds limits Trump’s ability (and State’s) to ratchet those sanctions up or down in real time in response to Russian—or Iranian or northern Korean—behavior, a fillip that adds a question to whether he’ll sign it (his veto likely would only delay the thing; the bill was passed with veto-proof majorities in both houses).

Germany is “wary” of those sanctions.

The German Committee on East European Economic Relations said US plans for tighter sanctions against Russia had the potential of harming EU firms with energy interests in their giant eastern neighbor.

It went as far as to say that the latest US move appeared designed to stimulate US energy exports to Europe.

Because nothing Evil United States does is good for anyone else.  It couldn’t possibly be that any offers to sell liquified natural gas, for instance, to Europe (a small target of our global market for LNG, and for oil) might be to free Europe—and Germany in particular—from Russian extortion.  It couldn’t possibly be, either, that our increasing exports of hydrocarbons—having as they do a depressing impact on the global price of energy—would be good for Germany or for Europe as a whole.

And this bit of nefariousness:

The committee said it expected German exports to Russia to grow by 20% this year…despite all the EU and US sanctions in place right now over Russia’s perceived role in the Ukraine and Syria conflicts.

And this threat from the German government:

[German Economics Minister Brigitte] Zypries warned against a trade war over this latest round of US sanctions against Russia, saying such a situation would be “very bad.”

Nice piece you got there.  Be too bad if something happened to it.

That’s OK, though.  We’re wary of German timidity in the face of Russian energy blackmail capability, or of their active collusion with Russia.  At least there is symmetry.