Chinese employees working on micro and special motors for mobile phones

Comments 5

تجنب الوقوع في فخ التكنولوجيا الصينية الأمريكية

Jun 18, 2018 Laura Tyson

بيركلي ـ أوضحت الصين من خلال إستراتيجيتها الطموحة "صُنع في الصين عام 2025" هدفها قيادة الاقتصاد العالمي في صناعات التكنولوجيا المتقدمة. وهذا يضعها في منافسة مباشرة مع الولايات المتحدة - القائد الحالي لهذه الصناعات - في ما يبدو كحرب باردة مكثفة وغير معلنة على التكنولوجيات ذات الاستخدامات التجارية والعسكرية.

ومن خلال استثماراتها في مثل هذه التكنولوجيا ذات الاستخدام المزدوج، تسعى الصين إلى أكثر من التنافس التجاري مع الولايات المتحدة، بما في ذلك المزيد من القوة العسكرية والجيوسياسية. وقد نشرت مجموعة متنوعة من الأساليب - والتي تشمل حماية الملكية الفكرية الضعيفة (IP) ونقل التكنولوجيا، كشرط للمشروعات المشتركة مع الشركاء الصينيين، والتهرب من ضوابط التصدير، والمضايقات التنظيمية - للحصول على مثل هذه التقنيات من الولايات المتحدة وشركاء تجاريين آخرين.

لقد كانت أهداف الصين وممارساتها لفترة طويلة مثيرة للعلاقات الصينية الأمريكية. وقد أكد ما يسمى بتحقيق القسم 301 من قانون التجارة الذي أطلقته إدارة الرئيس دونالد ترامب العام الماضي، أن السياسات التجارية والصناعية الصينية، التي توفر مزايا لصناعات تقنية محددة، تنتهك كل من قانون التجارة الأمريكي والقانون الدولي.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles from our archive every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The West’s Race Problem

Sep 13, 2018 Ian Buruma
Universal Basic Income or Universal Living Wage?

Sep 17, 2018 Laura Tyson & Lenny Mendonca
The Global Trade System Could Break Down

Sep 17, 2018 Anne O. Krueger
Has Putin’s Popularity Bubble Burst?

Sep 14, 2018 Nina L. Khrushcheva
The Immorality of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump

Sep 18, 2018 Chris Patten

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 5 in all 5 Comments on this article

Barry Rosenfeld Jun 24, 2018

China is able to develop long term strategies because it has a political system that is relatively static. The US cannot do so because it's political system is under continual change. Consequently, the notion of a US "industrial policy" is not relevant to the US - unless a stable consensus is formed by major private sector economic actors.

After WWII it was clear that the US had a comparative advantage in manufacturing and in industrial sectors in which technological advances in military equipment could be adopted to civilian production. Private economic interest in these areas were the driving force for liberalizing trade. With economic recovery in Europe and Japan this lead evaporated and the US arbitrarily abandoned the Breton Woods system that it largely had created.

Similarly, the drive to include China in the WTO and to open China to US exports was due to the strong consensus in US industrial corporations and financial institutions that access to the China market would be to their benefit - and offshoring production would dampen, if not erode, the power of labour in the US. Can one think of an industrial policy, which must be long term in not an oxymoron, that has the consensus of major players in the US economy today?

Tyson should remember the result of the half-baked initiative of subsidizing new technologies in energy generation that wasn't based on a long-term development strategy because it didn't have wide support in the business community. It was on her watch.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jun 19, 2018

China and the US are two nations born for the Thucydides Trap. Things are really going to heat up once the AI technology starts reaching mass adoption.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Godfree Roberts Jun 19, 2018

"The Trump administration is right to push back against China's violations of world trade rules, particularly with regard to advanced technologies".

No one puts a gun to Boeing’s head when it decides to accept this arrangement from China. It presumably agrees to make the deal because it expects to make a profit even with the required technology transfer.

To take an analogous situation where the US courts came down on the other side, the Supreme Court recently ruled that employers can require workers to accept arbitration — giving up their right to sue — as a condition of employment. The court said that workers freely choose an employment package and if they don’t want to sign away their right to sue, they can work for a different company. So here we have the US government saying that Boeing and other multinationals need protection from big bad China, because otherwise they will sign contracts that are bad for them, but an individual worker, taking a job from one of these companies, doesn’t need protection.

The class issues are even more extreme with patents and copyrights. These government-granted monopolies are forms of protectionism. Yes, that’s “protectionism,” as in the opposite of free trade.

Unlike the usual trade barriers in the form of tariffs or quotas, these monopolies don’t raise the price of items by just 10 percent or 25 percent; they raise the price of protected items by several thousand or even tens of thousands of percent. Drugs would be cheap without these protections and software would be free.

Bill Gertz’s 1999 book entitled “Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security and his 2000 book entitled ” The China Threat: How the People’s Republic Targets America”? Mr. Gertz examined in detail how the Clinton/Gore Administration transferred cutting edge nuclear, military and other technology from classified status to Commerce and then openly sold the technology to China.

GE transferred its aerospace and its imaging IP to China in exchange for market access, and GE is just the tip of the iceberg. All were short-term decisions that are coming back to haunt us.

China is a minor infringer of IP compared, say, to South Korea. To check this, start at the US premier venue for IP cases, the Federal Court’s Northern District of California, where most complainants will file suits against Chinese entities. A database of Intellectual Property Cases can be found here: dockets.justia.com/browse/circuit-9/state-california/court-candce/noscat-10.

For the WTO’s international forum for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS, start here: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04d_e.htm

For Chinese IP court filings and decisions is here: chinaipr.com/category/beijing-ip-court/. It's a fast-moving scene, as you can imagine, but most sites have free subscriptions that will keep you up to date.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Patrice Ayme Jun 19, 2018

The US Patent System has been gutted (prior to Trump). China has gone the other way, instituting short term patents, valid just 8 years, without analyzing the validity of these patents. As a result, many inventors, worldwide, find out that their inventions are "prior art".

Under Obama, the US law was tweaked to make patent enforceable only if an "economic damage" could be proven. This is impossible for small inventors. Thus this Obama tweak has made it possible for monopolistic corporations to steal all inventions with impunity.

To compete in Intellectual Property, the US will have to revert these advantages conferred to monopolists by the preceding US administration. Not competing in IP is to opt for slavery, very soon.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rick Puglisi Jun 19, 2018

So we should let China steal our profits and we will run large gov't deficits to compensate for our economic stupidity. How about we just balance trade so we don't need business tax cuts, and corrupt insider govt funding/spending.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/AVQr9TC/ar;

تجنب الوقوع في فخ التكنولوجيا الصينية الأمريكية

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

The West’s Race Problem

Universal Basic Income or Universal Living Wage?

The Global Trade System Could Break Down

Has Putin’s Popularity Bubble Burst?

The Immorality of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Emerging Markets’ Shifting Bottom Line

Hurricanes at the Ballot Box

Europe’s Refugee Scandal

PS [In Depth]: Women’s Economic Empowerment

The Emerging World’s High Achievers

The Immorality of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump

Education for Fragile States

Looking Beyond Lehman

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register