Jeffrey Sax: Anti -China Anti -China Science and Technology War in the United States

Jeffrey Middot; saxophone

The last generation of the United States, including the worst foreign policy decision made by the previous generation, was the war of choice launched by Iraq in 2003. The purpose claimed to eliminate it.Large -scale killing weapons.Understanding the wrong logic behind this catastrophic decision is never as important as it is now, because the same logic is used to defend the current misleading policy in the United States.

The decision to invade Iraq was made under the wrong logic of the then Vice President Richard Cheney.He claims that even if the risk of large -scale lethal weapons falls into the hand of terrorists is small (such as 1%), we should also take this situation as a sure thing and take action accordingly.

This reasoning method often leads to wrong decisions.However, the United States and some allies are now using Cheney Doctrine to attack Chinese technology.According to the U.S. government, since we cannot know that Chinese technology is safe, we should treat them as inevitable and blocked.

The correct decision will applies the probability to applies to various alternative actions.In the past, the US policy makers should not only consider the so -called 1%risk of large -scale lethal weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, but also considering 99%of the risks of war based on the premise of multiple defects.Cheney and many others only pay attention to 1%of the risks, thus dispersing the public's attention and ignoring a greater possibility: the Iraq war lacks a legitimate reason, and it will seriously damage the stability of the Middle East and global politics.

The problem of Chenneyism is not only for its small risks to decide to take action, but it has not considered high potential costs. It is also because politicians will want to incite fear for the purpose of unspeakable people.

This is what American leaders are doing again: by pointing out and exaggerating some tiny risks, it arouses panic in Chinese technology companies.The most related (but not the only) case is the US government's attack on communication technology companies Huawei.The United States is gradually closing its domestic market and striving to stifle its global business.Like Iraq, the United States may eventually cause an indifferent geopolitical disaster.

I have worked in developing countries and have been paying attention to the technological progress made by Huawei, because I believe that 5G and other digital technology can provide a huge driving force for eliminating poverty and the achievement of other United Nations sustainable development goals.I have also interacted with other telecommunications companies and encouraged the industry to strengthen their actions for sustainable development goals.

When I wrote a short preface to Huawei's report around the theme for free, and was criticized by the hostile Chinese, I asked the industry's senior management and government officials.The repeated answer is Huawei's operation, which is the same as other trusted industry leaders.

Nevertheless, the US government still believes that Huawei's 5G equipment may damage global security.U.S. officials claim that the backdoor retained by Huawei software or hardware may enable the Chinese government to monitor globally.They pointed out that after all, Chinese law requires Chinese enterprises to cooperate with the government for national security reasons.

However, the facts are in front of you.Huawei's 5G equipment is low in price and excellent quality. At present, many competitors have been led and have begun to promote.Its high -quality energy has made huge investment in research and development, the economic effects of scale, and the rollover in the Chinese digital market.Considering the importance of this technology to its sustainable development, if low -income economies around the world refuse to launch 5G as soon as possible, it is obviously too unwise.

However, although there is no evidence in the back door, the United States is still lobbying the world to stay away from Huawei.The US statement is universal.As an U.S. Federal Communications Commission official said: countries with 5G will have relevant innovation and set standards for other parts of the world, and this country is unlikely to be the United States.Other countries, especially Britain, have not found any backdoor in Huawei's software and hardware.Even if the back door is discovered in the future, it can almost be closed at that time.

The debate on Huawei is also very arrogant because the US government threatens it that the authorities will prevent Huawei's 5G technology out of the door, so they need to reduce intelligence cooperation.Perhaps due to the pressure of the United States, the German Federal Intelligence Agency Director Carl recently issued a statement similar to Chenney: infrastructure is not a field that is suitable for a group that cannot be fully trusted.And he failed to come up with evidence of any specific crimes.In contrast, Prime Minister Merkel strives to open the market behind the scenes.

However, the irony is that the complaints of the United States actually reflect the U.S. monitoring activities at home and abroad, although this is no longer news.Chinese equipment may make the US government more difficult to monitor secret surveillance.However, any government's non -righteous monitoring behavior should stop.Independent supervision conducted in order to reduce such activities should become part of the global telecommunications system.In short, we should choose diplomacy and system protection instead of fighting scientific and technological warfare.

The U.S.'s threat to block Huawei is not only related to the early launch of the 5G network, but also causes huge risks to the rules -based trading system.Nowadays, the United States is no longer an indisputable technical leader in the world. Both President Trump and his consultants do not want to compete in accordance with the rules -based system. Their goal is to curb China's technological rise.They also tried to eliminate the organization by paralyzing the dispute resolution mechanism of the World Trade Organization, and this also reflects their indifference to global rules.

If the Trump administration can successfully divide the world into different technical camps, the risk of conflict in the future will increase.After World War II, the United States admired the open trade, not only to improve global efficiency, expand the US technology market, but also reversed the collapse of international trade in the 1930s.Part of the reason for this collapse was the protectionist tariffs imposed by the United States based on the Smoot-Hawley Act in 1930. The tariffs intensified the depression, which led to the rise of Hitler and eventually promoted the number one.The outbreak of World War II.

Just as in other fields, it is stimulated in the field of international affairs and in order to take action instead of following evidence, it is the road to destruction.Let us adhere to rationality, evidence and rules, which is the safest way.Let's set up an independent monitoring agency to reduce the threat of any country's use of global networks to monitor other countries or launch cyber warfare.In this way, the world can quickly use breakthrough digital technology to promote global well -being.

Author Jeffrey D.sachs is a professor of Sustainable Development and Health Policy and Management of Columbia University. He is also the director of the Columbia Sustainable Development Center and the United Nations Sustainable Development Plan Network.

English Title: Americas War on Chinese Technology

The problem of Chenneyism is not only for its small risks to decide to take action, but it does not consider high potential costs. It is also that politicians will want to incite fear for the purpose of unspeakable people.This is what American leaders are doing again: to point out and exaggerate some small risks to arouse panic in Chinese technology companies.