Tag Archives: foreign policy

The Right Answer

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t often agree with Mark Zuckerberg, but in this case, I do, to the extent he has the courage of his words. The European Union’s Internal Market Commission has fined Meta $1.3 billion for the crime of sending the data its Facebook facility collects on European citizens to servers in the US.

The ruling raises pressure on the US government to complete a deal that would allow Meta and thousands of multinational companies to keep sending such information stateside.
Tech companies have been especially vulnerable to regulatory scrutiny absent such a deal. But most large international companies rely on a relatively free flow of data across the Atlantic….

No, the “pressure” applied is only what Biden and his staff choose to feel. Instead, this would be a good time for Biden and his to act like they care more about what benefits America than about what benefits other polities. The vast majority of those large international companies are, after all, American companies, and the requirement to keep that kind of data on EU servers is nakedly aimed at our companies. Apparently, the Commission thinks that EU companies are unable to compete without anchors tied around our companies’ ankles.

Zuckerberg is on the right track. In addition to appealing the Commission’s order (Meta must stop sending information about European Facebook users to the US and delete data already sent) and fine, he says:

Meta has said in securities filings that if ordered to suspend transfers, it may have to stop offering services in the EU….

All of our transnationals should take that tack. If the EU wants to compete only on the race to regulatory control, it should be left to play by itself. The race to be the most controlling administrative state is one our nation should happily lose.

This is where Biden backstops Zuckerberg. We’re waiting.

And one more, separate, thing. Biden also could backstop all of our transnationals and all of our domestic companies by getting the Federal government out of the business of spying on American citizens and rifling through private papers stored on American soil. On that, the EU has a valid beef.

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

In an attempt to extort concessions from us and to drive a wedge between us and the Republic of Korea, the People’s Republic of China has banned certain local firms in key information-infrastructure industries from buying computer chips from the American company Micron Technology.

The next two largest chip manufacturers after Micron are the RoK’s Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, each with chip factories in the PRC. The wedge is the effort to get those two to sell into the PRC in place of Micron.

The RoK, though, along with Samsung and SK Hynix would do well to take the hint from the PRC’s attack on Micron, especially given the near dependence of the RoK on the PRC market. They’re even more exposed to PRC extortion than we are, and what the PRC is attempting against Micron, it can attempt against Samsung and SK Hynix and against the RoK’s overall trade relations with the PRC.

They would be well disposed, as would we, to cut economic ties with the PRC and eliminate that avenue of extortion.

Department of State Gaslighting

Posted on by
Reply

This time it’s in the arena of foreign military sales. Arms sales to our friends and allies are approved by Congress and they’re carried out by DoD.

[State] is set to release a 10-point plan to retool its oversight of the process to make it more effective at a time of strategic competition, especially with China, State Department officials said. It calls its new plan “FMS 2023.”
The State Department plans to develop more creative and flexible financing for countries, expanding the view of arms sales to take a more regional approach instead of weighing each country’s request on a case-by-case basis, and prioritizing some cases when they fit squarely into broader national security goals, according to department officials.

State has no need to weigh in on an arms purchase request, whether by country or by region: Congress already has done the weighing, and found the request, which comes through DoD, worthy. All that remains is for DoD to carry it out. State certainly has a role in helping to arrange financing, but that should be on a will-assist basis and not be used as a mechanism for slow-walking a transfer of which this or that State bureaucrat—or anyone in the SecState office—might personally disapprove.

Further, State, by the nature of its mission, already is fully current on the situation of any nation or region of interest to the US or to any of our enemy nations, and it already approves 95% of foreign military sales within 48 hours. To the extent State should remain involved in final approval, it shouldn’t take the Department more than 48 hours to approve or reject the remaining 5%; there’s nothing more to consider” Congress has done that already.

However, State should have nothing to do with arms sales at all beyond quickly and efficiently providing finance assistance: the sales already have been approved by Congress; that should saucer and blow the matter.

What does need to happen is for DoD bureaucrats get out of the way of executing the Congressionally approved sales and transfers.

Economic Coercion

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline on The Wall Street Journal‘s Sunday editorial summarizes one spin on the case.

The best defense would be for the West to work together against Beijing’s bullying.

The editors then summarize the related conclusion of a Center for Strategic and International Studies report:

All of this suggests that the West can work together to deter China by increasing the costs of economic coercion.

No.

Rather than wasting time resisting the Peoples Republic of China’s bullying or “deterring” the PRC from its economic coercion, the better move would be for the West to work together to eliminate the PRC’s ability to economically coerce at all: cancel trade relations with the PRC and move supply chains—from dirt in the ground to product components and finished products—out of the PRC altogether.

Time to Stop

Posted on by
Reply

Despite sanctions, Russia is succeeding in importing technical products like computer chips, lasers, and the like, products which are usable in the barbarian’s weapons systems as well as his more general economy. Russia is doing so with the active complicity of a few ex-Soviet republics that remain in the sway of the barbarian.

In total, US and EU goods exports to Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan rose to $24.3 billion last year from $14.6 billion in 2021. These countries collectively increased their exports to Russia by nearly 50% last year to around $15 billion.

They brag about it, too.

Imex-Expert offers to “import sanctioned goods from Europe, America to Russia through Kazakhstan.” Its website boasts: “Bypassing sanctions 100%.”

This graph illustrates the extent of the problem.

It’s time to stop exporting any tech products—all of which are dual-usable—to these nations (Georgia’s complicity is especially disappointing). Not cut sales off company by company; that’s just nickel and dime quibbling. Cut off tech sales to these nations altogether.