This is a very unfortunate and dangerous development in the ongoing battle between U.S. and China. Maybe banning these companies from receiving new equipment licenses will help keep the U.S. safe from cyber-attacks. But it also give another excuse for the CCP to isolate itself from the world's platform and acts as a hostile country like North Korea.
Then the US ends up with the shittier products on the market because it's that or nothing.
This is why the US generally tries to engage in free trade: It's better in the long term. The fact the same isn't happening here will just mean US citizens don't get better, faster, cheaper mobile networks. Everyone else will. And that will stifle other areas of the US economy too.
If China wants to self harm for political reasons, that's their loss. Don't copy them.
There is plenty of competition from Korea, Japan, Europe, etc. We don't need to have network and telecom equipment from our military enemies at the core of our communications infrastructure.
That depends. For 5G infra? There really isn't much competition. The three makers are Huawei, Cisco and Ericsson. And Huawei is cheaper and better than the others. So if you remove them you have a duopoly. And you have the exact situation I described above: the US get's crapy, more expensive kit and the rest of the world takes a leap forwards...
I think it's a bit more complex than that: free trade is almost always better for the US overall. Sometimes the US does not engage in it for political reasons (including corruption which is what this seems to be). But yes, self interest is ultimately the motivating factor unless a narrow group can hijack that and hard US interests for (for instance) corporate interests...
So, if the US says that foreign communications equipment firms who want to sell into the US have to demonstrate they are not subservient to any non-democratic government-a standard Huawei and ZTE cannot meet-then Huawei and ZTE are not (by your logic) being “banned” either, they are merely unwilling or unable to comply with US law and government policy.
Except Huawei and ZTE aren’t any more “subservient” than non-Chinese companies.
That, btw, is another aspect of this problem - American companies like Cisco have been shown to plant backdoors, while the “subservient” Huawei hadn’t.
> Except Huawei and ZTE aren’t any more “subservient” than non-Chinese companies.
That’s not true though. American companies will, on a regular basis, publicly criticise proposed and actual US government policies, and fund third party groups (lobby groups, think-tanks, etc) which do the same. Tell me, how often do Huawei and ZTE publicly criticise proposed and actual Chinese government policies? How much money do they give to groups which publicly criticise the Chinese government? Their failure to do those things is a very real way in which they demonstrate government subservience but Western companies do not.
American companies can criticize the government, because it doesn’t matter - in the end they will do whatever they are told, legal or not.
Tell me, why are there backdoors in American telco equipment, but not in Chinese? Are those manufacturers planting them _against_ their government will? :-)
1) These routers do not provide any kind of content filtering features
2) My particular terminal was in bridge mode
3) It's happening rarely on random websites
So, if they MITM random SSL sessions with home equipment I can imagine what they do with business infrastructure.
>If criticism really doesn’t matter, why does the Chinese government show so little tolerance for it? Are they thin-skinned?
That’s a very good question. I’m guessing it’s cultural, and it’s somewhat similar to what you see in Japan or Korea. And yeah, it’s unfortunate.
Also notice how you don’t hear about this problem in context of other countries. Same as you don’t hear about someone who spent four years in prison for merely talking to police when it happens in USA, but you would if it happened in China. Or how everyone in the west knows about Tiananmen, but very few heard about Gwangju Uprising.
As for the backdoors - there have been audits, eg by GHCQ, and hadn’t found nothing suspicious. So sure, we can suspect something might have been missed, but for now the score is pretty clear: numerous documented backdoors in infrastructure from US companies, none from Chinese.
> I’m guessing it’s cultural, and it’s somewhat similar to what you see in Japan or Korea.
The Japanese and South Korean governments show vastly greater tolerance for public criticism than the Chinese government does. In Tokyo, if one stands on a street corner holding up a sign saying "Fumio Kishida should be sacked"–odds are, you'll just be ignored. In Seoul, one might stand there with a sign saying "Impeach Yoon Suk-yeol" – likewise, people will most likely just ignore you. Try standing on a street corner in Beijing holding up a sign saying "Xi Jinping should be sacked"–how many minutes will pass before you are arrested?
So, it isn't East Asian culture in general. It isn't even Chinese culture, because in Taiwan you would not be arrested just for holding up a sign saying "Impeach Tsai Ing-wen". On the other hand, in North Korea, you'd probably be executed for a sign saying "Impeach Kim Jung-un". The thing that North Korea and China have in common, is both are Marxist-Leninist dictatorships. So, isn't the real explanation here, not national culture, but rather Marxism-Leninism? Xi Jinping's intolerance for criticism has a lot in common with that of Leonid Brezhnev.
> Or how everyone in the west knows about Tiananmen, but very few heard about Gwangju Uprising.
There is a big difference between the Gwangju massacre and the Tiananmen massacre–the South Korean government has repeatedly publicly apologised for Gwangju. Every year, there is an official memorial day to remember the victims of Gwangju, and the government has established a national memorial to remember its victims. In the 1990s, several of the political leaders responsible for Gwangju were convicted, and one received a death sentence (that death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and then all the convicts were pardoned.) More recently, the South Korea government has established a national truth commission, for further public investigations of those responsible for the crime. Meanwhile, what has the Chinese government done to publicly apologise for the crime of Tiananmen, to commemorate its victims and punish its perpetrators?
It makes complete sense for the world to focus on wrongs for which there is a refusal to acknowledge and apologise and make amends, rather than on wrongs for which many such efforts have been made. The former is far more relevant than the later.
> numerous documented backdoors in infrastructure from US companies, none from Chinese
Even if it is true that there are zero backdoors in Huawei/ZTE equipment today, that could change tomorrow.
Note, however, that we're talking about two different things: I was talking about the culture of "keeping to themselves", which, when applied on a larger scale, goes directly against transparency, and that's what we see in China. What you're talking is mostly about how media works. Sure, in the West you can say whatever you want and nobody cares - precisely because nobody cares what you say ("majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts", https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...).
>in Taiwan you would not be arrested just for holding up a sign
Indeed, it's been over 30 years now since the end of White Terror (~20 thousands killed, ~140 thousands imprisoned).
>Meanwhile, what has the Chinese government done to publicly apologise for the crime of Tiananmen, to commemorate its victims and punish its perpetrators?
The prime minister responsible for it spent the rest of his life in house arrest. I'd say both countries handled it much better than how it's traditionally done in the West.
Still, I'm not buying it - "it" being the difference in public awareness of Tiananmen and Gwangju massacre being caused by governments apologising. But I don't have anything better than "gut feeling" at the moment.
>Even if it is true that there are zero backdoors in Huawei/ZTE equipment today, that could change tomorrow.
Everything could change tomorrow, but this excuse can be used for any arbitrary decision.
> four years in prison for talking back to a police officer,
If you read the details of the case - she was chanting that the police were going to die, which goes beyond mere “talking back”; and she would not have received such a lengthy sentence if it was not for multiple prior convictions. Now, all that said, I still think her sentence is excessive-and indeed, her legal team says they will appeal it-but it seems far less outrageous than it does when presented without those details. It doesn’t have much bearing on the issue of free speech, given that making death threats is a crime in most jurisdictions, and few consider free speech to include the right to make death threats.
> Indeed, it's been over 30 years now since the end of White Terror (~20 thousands killed, ~140 thousands imprisoned).
Bad, but not as bad as Mao - and at least the current Taiwanese government openly admits that was wrong; the Chinese government censors public discussion of Mao’s crimes, and instead plasters his picture everywhere
> The prime minister responsible for it spent the rest of his life in house arrest.
Because of the massacre, or because he’d embarrassed the Party by not crushing the protests a lot sooner?
>but it seems far less outrageous than it does when presented without those details
And yet people tend to ignore those details when it fits anti-Chinese propaganda.
>Mao’s crimes
Do you know what happened to the Gang of Four?
And of course there is no “public discussion”, same way you don’t have public discussion in Japan about its nazi past. Like I said, a cultural thing.
As for that prime minister - you could ask that same question regarding Gwangju. To me what matters is that he got prosecuted, which is rather shocking contrast compared to Kent State or most American massacres really - Americans tend to hold this subconscious belief that one can’t possibly prosecute its rulers.
The China's Communist Party and Northern Korea have grown stronger and stronger over the last fifty years if you compare that to the USAF's cutting edge at technology and the manning.
To be fair, all Huawei and ZTE "equipment" I've ever seen has been total garbage, and as much as I hate the spying by our own government in America, the Chinese literally run City 17
My Huawei built google nexus back in the day was as good of quality and experience as any other phone. That doesn’t take away from the valid reasons to ban their equipment, but in my one experience it wasn’t total garbage.
Huawei is responsible for a lot of the global cellular infrastructure. It's basically Nokia and Huawei as the two big players (in my Country at least)
I won't go as far as calling their products garbage.
Their mobile phones were also fantastic. At the flagship level for a while their phones were better than Samsung imo. Not sure how they compare anymore since they de-googled. I'm to firmly latched to that teat not let go just yet.
I trust a Pixel 5a with GrapheneOS where everything on my phone is encrypted, and in the future I won't even have any personal information on my phone. Don't care much for smartphones other than the fact my generation really likes Discord.
Because none of them has come up with a good defense of their policies. The day a single one of them does, all of them start spouting the exact same thing
The USA is well known for global power projection and coups/CIA plans/military operations around the globe. China… can barely get their own ships out of their own backyard.
From the perspective of the global citizen, arguably the USA would present more unilateral risk. The USA wouldn’t hesitate to act in their own interests in a way that screws others over. Then again, China has even less scruples, so it’s a lose/lose situation here.
For one, you could more easily get on no-fly lists, since more data about you means more data to match against whatever secret crterion. Even if it is all false positives.
This is a great move. I welcome it. I would not blame China at all for the same moves. Something as critical as telecom infrastructure should not come from your biggest military adversary.
Why is the default position that they are a military adversary? I mean, in what ways are they even an adversary, outside of the fact they are World #2?
USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan. China has made it very clear they don’t have any intention to invade. They also don’t have a recent history of invading.
I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions.
> USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan.
Could you provide an example of this please?
> China has made it very clear they don’t have any intention to invade.
I'm quite confused about this. Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan? I find that claim very confusing considering both their rhetoric as well as their military exercises. China even passed an "Anti-Secession Law" which explicitly states that China will attack Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't "peacefully" allow its annexation.
I find your position quite hard to square with reality.
> I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions.
I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy and actions demonstrating their aggression and belligerence towards Taiwan.
Literally anything about the conflict. Look at their posturing, or military exercises. It’s a matter or rhetorics - it’s usually described as helping Taiwan, because, well, that’s media for you.
>Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan?
> Literally anything about the conflict. Look at their posturing, or military exercises. It’s a matter or rhetorics - it’s usually described as helping Taiwan, because, well, that’s media for you.
Could you provide an actual example of this? If the USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan as you said, providing such a specific example would be quite easy for you.
> Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy.
So you’re making the claim that the anti-secession law in which China threatens Taiwan is not official Chinese policy?
How were those carriers threatening Taiwan exactly? I understand how those carriers might have threatened China, but not Taiwan. Can you find any statement by Taiwan decrying the carriers' presence? Can you find any statement from Taiwan asking the carriers to leave? I can find many statements from Taiwan decrying Chinese actions near them, but none taking issue with the US. Please find me an example of the USA threatening military action against _Taiwan_.
> Your turn now - can you quote the law which threatens Taiwan?
I already have mentioned the Anti-Secession Law multiple times, but sure I'll save you from typing "anti secession law" into Google yourself. Here's Article 8:
> Article 8 In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
> The State Council and the Central Military Commission shall decide on and execute the non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in the preceding paragraph and shall promptly report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.
China's law quite clearly threatens military action against Taiwan. I can't understand why you would claim otherwise. I've never even met a Taiwanese or Chinese person who has made that claim. Everyone knows the official policy of the PRC is to attack Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't allow its annexation. Your claiming otherwise makes you an interestingly unique person on the internet.
>How were those carriers threatening Taiwan exactly? I understand how those carriers might have threatened China, but not Taiwan.
If it triggered the war, do you think it would be waged mostly on territory of continental China, or Taiwan?
To put it differently - nobody is claiming USA wants to _invade_ Taiwan. They "merely" wish there was a war _in_ Taiwan. Contrast it with Taiwanese, who generally prefer the "leave it as it is" option.
>I already have mentioned the Anti-Secession Law multiple times
Ah, indeed. Except you failed to mention it's from 2005, which in this context was ages ago. And then you quoted the part which clearly states that an invasion is pretty much out of the question - China could only do it to "protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity", which is a higher bar than most superpowers have (cf Hague Invasion Act).
> If it triggered the war, do you think it would be waged mostly on territory of continental China, or Taiwan?
> To put it differently - nobody is claiming USA wants to _invade_ Taiwan. They "merely" wish there was a war _in_ Taiwan. Contrast it with Taiwanese, who generally prefer the "leave it as it is" option.
The US sailing ships there won't "trigger" a war, _China_ will trigger a war. They are threatening a war of choice. This is 100% a choice made by China. China could simply not attack Taiwan and publicly state they never will. China could just engage with Taiwan as a separate country. But China chooses to threaten Taiwan instead.
The US is supporting Taiwan militarily to help them defend against such a Chinese invasion. They are doing so at the request of Taiwan. To say that the US is somehow "threatening" Taiwan by trying to help them to avoid a war by China is total lunacy. Frankly it makes no sense at all.
> Ah, indeed. Except you failed to mention it's from 2005, which in this context was ages ago. And then you quoted the part which clearly states that an invasion is pretty much out of the question - China could only do it to "protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity", which is a higher bar than most superpowers have (cf Hague Invasion Act).
China has never repealed this law. China engaged in military exercises surrounding Taiwan in the just the few months. This law is still official Chinese policy and all of their acts imply they still consider it in force. I've _never_ heard anyone Chinese are Taiwanese say that this law no longer applies. Neither those who are for war or against it or for unification or against it. Frankly I think you're either being willfully obtuse or just arguing in bad faith.
US never repealed the Hague Invasion Act. Would you say they are threatening Europe? Or do you know someone who says this law no longer applies?
>avoid a war
What war? Neither Taiwan nor China want any kind of military conflict, and they have coexisted peacefully for many decades, including during the KMT regime. There is only one party that would (greatly) benefit from a war there.
>Frankly I think you're either being wilfully obtuse or just arguing in bad faith.
It's called cognitive dissonance. I've just shown you you're using completely different criteria for China and other countries.
Except if they banned, say, Apple, they'd be ultimately banning themselves (yes, I know Apple is expanding manufacturing to other countries, but China is still the primary manufacturing location)
TBH, if this was a security touchpoint, they should have done it 15 years ago.
Or maybe they should have had a programme to subsidize the cost of Cisco kit to make sure they couldn't get a foothold in the data centre in the first place.
I recall they did some big dog-and-pony show where they got GCHQ to do some audits, but it always seemed like the result was pre-cooked. There was a specific, obviously politically-infused outcome planned from day 1, and no amount of audits, disclosures, or compliance guarantees would ever make them politically acceptable for the US.
Sort of makes me think of the Iraqi WMD inspections, or the Iranian nuclear deal.
Is this measure effective? China exports many other brands, more to come. Also, although less relevant, nothing prevents them from rebranding Huawei and ZTE.
I would think banning equipment manufactured in China would be meaningful.
To determine if it's effective, you need a well-defined goal. Here's there's just a claim of "national security threats", which is as vague as it gets.
Does it fulfil the goal of removing foreign competitors from the local US market? Sure, that's pretty much all it's doing.
72 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] threadThen those companies cannot compete globally.
Then the US ends up with the shittier products on the market because it's that or nothing.
This is why the US generally tries to engage in free trade: It's better in the long term. The fact the same isn't happening here will just mean US citizens don't get better, faster, cheaper mobile networks. Everyone else will. And that will stifle other areas of the US economy too.
If China wants to self harm for political reasons, that's their loss. Don't copy them.
The US generally engages in free trade only when it's better for US in the long term.
Google isn’t banned in China, it just isn’t operating there, because it would need to obey the law.
That, btw, is another aspect of this problem - American companies like Cisco have been shown to plant backdoors, while the “subservient” Huawei hadn’t.
That’s not true though. American companies will, on a regular basis, publicly criticise proposed and actual US government policies, and fund third party groups (lobby groups, think-tanks, etc) which do the same. Tell me, how often do Huawei and ZTE publicly criticise proposed and actual Chinese government policies? How much money do they give to groups which publicly criticise the Chinese government? Their failure to do those things is a very real way in which they demonstrate government subservience but Western companies do not.
Tell me, why are there backdoors in American telco equipment, but not in Chinese? Are those manufacturers planting them _against_ their government will? :-)
Can you commie-explain that?
1) These routers do not provide any kind of content filtering features 2) My particular terminal was in bridge mode 3) It's happening rarely on random websites
So, if they MITM random SSL sessions with home equipment I can imagine what they do with business infrastructure.
If criticism really doesn’t matter, why does the Chinese government show so little tolerance for it? Are they thin-skinned?
And, how do you know there are no backdoors in Chinese telco equipment? Even if none have been publicised, that doesn’t mean none exist.
That’s a very good question. I’m guessing it’s cultural, and it’s somewhat similar to what you see in Japan or Korea. And yeah, it’s unfortunate.
Also notice how you don’t hear about this problem in context of other countries. Same as you don’t hear about someone who spent four years in prison for merely talking to police when it happens in USA, but you would if it happened in China. Or how everyone in the west knows about Tiananmen, but very few heard about Gwangju Uprising.
As for the backdoors - there have been audits, eg by GHCQ, and hadn’t found nothing suspicious. So sure, we can suspect something might have been missed, but for now the score is pretty clear: numerous documented backdoors in infrastructure from US companies, none from Chinese.
The Japanese and South Korean governments show vastly greater tolerance for public criticism than the Chinese government does. In Tokyo, if one stands on a street corner holding up a sign saying "Fumio Kishida should be sacked"–odds are, you'll just be ignored. In Seoul, one might stand there with a sign saying "Impeach Yoon Suk-yeol" – likewise, people will most likely just ignore you. Try standing on a street corner in Beijing holding up a sign saying "Xi Jinping should be sacked"–how many minutes will pass before you are arrested?
So, it isn't East Asian culture in general. It isn't even Chinese culture, because in Taiwan you would not be arrested just for holding up a sign saying "Impeach Tsai Ing-wen". On the other hand, in North Korea, you'd probably be executed for a sign saying "Impeach Kim Jung-un". The thing that North Korea and China have in common, is both are Marxist-Leninist dictatorships. So, isn't the real explanation here, not national culture, but rather Marxism-Leninism? Xi Jinping's intolerance for criticism has a lot in common with that of Leonid Brezhnev.
> Or how everyone in the west knows about Tiananmen, but very few heard about Gwangju Uprising.
There is a big difference between the Gwangju massacre and the Tiananmen massacre–the South Korean government has repeatedly publicly apologised for Gwangju. Every year, there is an official memorial day to remember the victims of Gwangju, and the government has established a national memorial to remember its victims. In the 1990s, several of the political leaders responsible for Gwangju were convicted, and one received a death sentence (that death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and then all the convicts were pardoned.) More recently, the South Korea government has established a national truth commission, for further public investigations of those responsible for the crime. Meanwhile, what has the Chinese government done to publicly apologise for the crime of Tiananmen, to commemorate its victims and punish its perpetrators?
It makes complete sense for the world to focus on wrongs for which there is a refusal to acknowledge and apologise and make amends, rather than on wrongs for which many such efforts have been made. The former is far more relevant than the later.
> numerous documented backdoors in infrastructure from US companies, none from Chinese
Even if it is true that there are zero backdoors in Huawei/ZTE equipment today, that could change tomorrow.
What a perfectly timed question: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/world/asia/china-internet.... So, you probably won't get arrested, but you'll definitely get demonetised. Maybe even banned on Weibo.
Now compare this with something more atypical: four years in prison for talking back to a police officer, https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1567515298479149057.
Note, however, that we're talking about two different things: I was talking about the culture of "keeping to themselves", which, when applied on a larger scale, goes directly against transparency, and that's what we see in China. What you're talking is mostly about how media works. Sure, in the West you can say whatever you want and nobody cares - precisely because nobody cares what you say ("majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts", https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...).
>in Taiwan you would not be arrested just for holding up a sign
Indeed, it's been over 30 years now since the end of White Terror (~20 thousands killed, ~140 thousands imprisoned).
>Meanwhile, what has the Chinese government done to publicly apologise for the crime of Tiananmen, to commemorate its victims and punish its perpetrators?
The prime minister responsible for it spent the rest of his life in house arrest. I'd say both countries handled it much better than how it's traditionally done in the West.
Still, I'm not buying it - "it" being the difference in public awareness of Tiananmen and Gwangju massacre being caused by governments apologising. But I don't have anything better than "gut feeling" at the moment.
>Even if it is true that there are zero backdoors in Huawei/ZTE equipment today, that could change tomorrow.
Everything could change tomorrow, but this excuse can be used for any arbitrary decision.
If you read the details of the case - she was chanting that the police were going to die, which goes beyond mere “talking back”; and she would not have received such a lengthy sentence if it was not for multiple prior convictions. Now, all that said, I still think her sentence is excessive-and indeed, her legal team says they will appeal it-but it seems far less outrageous than it does when presented without those details. It doesn’t have much bearing on the issue of free speech, given that making death threats is a crime in most jurisdictions, and few consider free speech to include the right to make death threats.
> Indeed, it's been over 30 years now since the end of White Terror (~20 thousands killed, ~140 thousands imprisoned).
Bad, but not as bad as Mao - and at least the current Taiwanese government openly admits that was wrong; the Chinese government censors public discussion of Mao’s crimes, and instead plasters his picture everywhere
> The prime minister responsible for it spent the rest of his life in house arrest.
Because of the massacre, or because he’d embarrassed the Party by not crushing the protests a lot sooner?
And yet people tend to ignore those details when it fits anti-Chinese propaganda.
>Mao’s crimes
Do you know what happened to the Gang of Four?
And of course there is no “public discussion”, same way you don’t have public discussion in Japan about its nazi past. Like I said, a cultural thing.
As for that prime minister - you could ask that same question regarding Gwangju. To me what matters is that he got prosecuted, which is rather shocking contrast compared to Kent State or most American massacres really - Americans tend to hold this subconscious belief that one can’t possibly prosecute its rulers.
I won't go as far as calling their products garbage.
Their mobile phones were also fantastic. At the flagship level for a while their phones were better than Samsung imo. Not sure how they compare anymore since they de-googled. I'm to firmly latched to that teat not let go just yet.
From the perspective of the global citizen, arguably the USA would present more unilateral risk. The USA wouldn’t hesitate to act in their own interests in a way that screws others over. Then again, China has even less scruples, so it’s a lose/lose situation here.
Plus I have nonzero but small legal rights and remedies to mitigate my own country's surveillance of me.
Why is the default position that they are a military adversary? I mean, in what ways are they even an adversary, outside of the fact they are World #2?
Or maybe more specifically TSMC.
China regularly threatens military action against Taiwan.
I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions.
Could you provide an example of this please?
> China has made it very clear they don’t have any intention to invade.
I'm quite confused about this. Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan? I find that claim very confusing considering both their rhetoric as well as their military exercises. China even passed an "Anti-Secession Law" which explicitly states that China will attack Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't "peacefully" allow its annexation.
I find your position quite hard to square with reality.
> I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions.
I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy and actions demonstrating their aggression and belligerence towards Taiwan.
Literally anything about the conflict. Look at their posturing, or military exercises. It’s a matter or rhetorics - it’s usually described as helping Taiwan, because, well, that’s media for you.
>Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan?
Not only that - it repeatedly declared they won’t invade, and have it written down in their constitution. Also, https://www.ft.com/content/01eb9112-6363-451f-89d2-b90566d9f....
>I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy
Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy.
Could you provide an actual example of this? If the USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan as you said, providing such a specific example would be quite easy for you.
> Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy.
So you’re making the claim that the anti-secession law in which China threatens Taiwan is not official Chinese policy?
Your turn now - can you quote the law which threatens Taiwan?
How were those carriers threatening Taiwan exactly? I understand how those carriers might have threatened China, but not Taiwan. Can you find any statement by Taiwan decrying the carriers' presence? Can you find any statement from Taiwan asking the carriers to leave? I can find many statements from Taiwan decrying Chinese actions near them, but none taking issue with the US. Please find me an example of the USA threatening military action against _Taiwan_.
> Your turn now - can you quote the law which threatens Taiwan?
I already have mentioned the Anti-Secession Law multiple times, but sure I'll save you from typing "anti secession law" into Google yourself. Here's Article 8:
> Article 8 In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
> The State Council and the Central Military Commission shall decide on and execute the non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in the preceding paragraph and shall promptly report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.
https://www.refworld.org/docid/474403752.html
If you are curious as to Taiwan's position on the law, here is what they have to say:
https://www.mac.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=8A319E37A32E01...
China's law quite clearly threatens military action against Taiwan. I can't understand why you would claim otherwise. I've never even met a Taiwanese or Chinese person who has made that claim. Everyone knows the official policy of the PRC is to attack Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't allow its annexation. Your claiming otherwise makes you an interestingly unique person on the internet.
If it triggered the war, do you think it would be waged mostly on territory of continental China, or Taiwan?
To put it differently - nobody is claiming USA wants to _invade_ Taiwan. They "merely" wish there was a war _in_ Taiwan. Contrast it with Taiwanese, who generally prefer the "leave it as it is" option.
>I already have mentioned the Anti-Secession Law multiple times
Ah, indeed. Except you failed to mention it's from 2005, which in this context was ages ago. And then you quoted the part which clearly states that an invasion is pretty much out of the question - China could only do it to "protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity", which is a higher bar than most superpowers have (cf Hague Invasion Act).
> To put it differently - nobody is claiming USA wants to _invade_ Taiwan. They "merely" wish there was a war _in_ Taiwan. Contrast it with Taiwanese, who generally prefer the "leave it as it is" option.
The US sailing ships there won't "trigger" a war, _China_ will trigger a war. They are threatening a war of choice. This is 100% a choice made by China. China could simply not attack Taiwan and publicly state they never will. China could just engage with Taiwan as a separate country. But China chooses to threaten Taiwan instead.
The US is supporting Taiwan militarily to help them defend against such a Chinese invasion. They are doing so at the request of Taiwan. To say that the US is somehow "threatening" Taiwan by trying to help them to avoid a war by China is total lunacy. Frankly it makes no sense at all.
> Ah, indeed. Except you failed to mention it's from 2005, which in this context was ages ago. And then you quoted the part which clearly states that an invasion is pretty much out of the question - China could only do it to "protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity", which is a higher bar than most superpowers have (cf Hague Invasion Act).
China has never repealed this law. China engaged in military exercises surrounding Taiwan in the just the few months. This law is still official Chinese policy and all of their acts imply they still consider it in force. I've _never_ heard anyone Chinese are Taiwanese say that this law no longer applies. Neither those who are for war or against it or for unification or against it. Frankly I think you're either being willfully obtuse or just arguing in bad faith.
US never repealed the Hague Invasion Act. Would you say they are threatening Europe? Or do you know someone who says this law no longer applies?
>avoid a war
What war? Neither Taiwan nor China want any kind of military conflict, and they have coexisted peacefully for many decades, including during the KMT regime. There is only one party that would (greatly) benefit from a war there.
>Frankly I think you're either being wilfully obtuse or just arguing in bad faith.
It's called cognitive dissonance. I've just shown you you're using completely different criteria for China and other countries.
Or maybe they should have had a programme to subsidize the cost of Cisco kit to make sure they couldn't get a foothold in the data centre in the first place.
I recall they did some big dog-and-pony show where they got GCHQ to do some audits, but it always seemed like the result was pre-cooked. There was a specific, obviously politically-infused outcome planned from day 1, and no amount of audits, disclosures, or compliance guarantees would ever make them politically acceptable for the US.
Sort of makes me think of the Iraqi WMD inspections, or the Iranian nuclear deal.
I would think banning equipment manufactured in China would be meaningful.
To determine if it's effective, you need a well-defined goal. Here's there's just a claim of "national security threats", which is as vague as it gets.
Does it fulfil the goal of removing foreign competitors from the local US market? Sure, that's pretty much all it's doing.