Yesterday, the U.S. Justice Department indicted five Chinese nationals of the Chinese military, living in China, with cyber espionage in the U.S. against American companies. China has reacted emphatically, calling the allegations trumped up and hypocritical (see, e.g., this xinhua article).
The Justice Department has indicted five members of the Chinese military on charges of hacking into computers and stealing valuable trade secrets from leading steel, nuclear plant and solar power firms, marking the first time that the United States has leveled such criminal charges against a foreign country.
The landmark case paves the way for more indictments and demonstrates that the United States is serious about holding foreign governments accountable for crimes committed in cyberspace, officials said at a news conference Monday.
The Obama administration “will not tolerate actions by any nation that seeks to illegally sabotage American companies and undermine the integrity of fair competition in the operation of the free market,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said.
The criminal charges provoked a response from Beijing, which said Monday that it was suspending high-level cyber talks with the United States that began in June.
China has summoned the U.S. ambassador over the hacking charges. According to an online notice posted Tuesday by state-run Xinhua on Weibo, Assistant Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang summoned Abassador Max Baucus to complain that U.S. authorities published their indictment ignoring the strong protests by Chinese authorities. Read more…
Wow, here is an update on the China ADIZ and the recent aftermath. While I did expect U.S. and Japan to express some kind of reservation over China’s recent establishment of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Seas, I had not anticipated the full sound and fury of the storm!
Within hours after China’s public announcement of the ADIZ, the U.S. decided to send two B-52s (unarmed) to the edge of China’s ADIZ on a putative long-planned, routine “training mission.” When China did not scramble jets, the U.S. celebrated and congratulated themselves on a job well done! Not to be outdone, Japan and S. Korea then publicly announced that they have also sent military (purportedly surveillance) planes into the area without properly alerting the Chinese side without incurring Chinese interception. The Japanese also went to the extent of ordering its airlines (its two main airlines and all members of the Scheduled Airlines Association of Japan) not to comply with China’s ADIZ (although Japan seems to have done a “U-Turn” for now).
One can find much written about China’s ADIZ. In this post, I want to focus my commentaries on the indignation and concerns that many in the U.S., Japan – even S. Korea – have expressed toward China’s establishment of an ADIZ.
Before all that, I think it’s useful to provide some further clarification on China’s ADIZ. First a better map than what one might find typically online. Read more…
On May 8, Japan’s government lodged a “strong protest” with the Chinese government over an article that had run in the People’s Daily in which two academics questioned the basis of Japan’s sovereignty over the Lewchew 琉球 (in Japanese, Ryukyu) islands. The Chinese side of course rejected the protest, and opinion columnists the world over have been weighingin. The current press furor has produced exciting developments in Lewchew’s main island of Okinawa, where in May 15 two professors have founded the “Association of Comprehensive Studies for Independence of Lew Chewans”. Already, there exists in Lewchew rising tensions between natives and nationalist Japanese, a latent history of cultural and linguistic abuse of Lewchewans, and a culture of protest upon which independence campaigners can piggyback. The only missing ingredient in this karmic tinderbox of anti-Japanese sentiment is international diplomatic support for Lewchewan separatists, which does not seem to be forthcoming from China. The Wall Street Journal soberly notes that “individual commentaries”, such as those in the People’s Daily, “don’t necessarily reflect the views of top political leaders, and Beijing officials on Wednesday gave little indication that the commentary represents a potential shift in policy.”
Russia Today’s Producer has a very thought-provoking take on the U.S.-China relations. It goes something like this. The true division is among the American elites. On one hand, the military industrial complex wants a fearsome and bogeyman China. On the other, “normal” industrial capitalists wanting more business for their constituents. “Human rights”, “intellectual property”, etc are perhaps “hot air.” “Congress attack on China?” Probably that too.
During Obama’s 2010 visit to China, he announced the “100,000 Strong Initiative,” a program to get 100,000 American students studying in China within the next few years. China was supportive and announced a matching 10,000 “bridge scholarships” program paying for 10% of the program’s American student in-country studying expenses. Coinciding with Chinese President Hu’s visiting Obama, U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama rallied American students to take up on this opportunity today.
I think it is programs such as this that will have a broad effect on a more positive relationship between the countries. Though not mentioned in Obama’s speech, another really important benefit to the U.S. is that these students will bring back new ideas from China. That will only make U.S. a better place. Until the U.S. and the West match proportionately the Chinese students studying abroad in numbers, I bet China is guaranteed to be acquiring ideas faster. Read more…
The term, “cooperatition” was coined by economists to describe corporations both cooperate and compete at the same time. For example, Apple and Google cooperate on getting Gmail and Google Maps integrated well into the iPhone, resulting in a better finish product and while helping both companies in the market place. However, Google also makes the Android phone operating system which helps strengthen Apple’s iPhone competitors.
Below is a video of a recent exchange between Niall Ferguson (of Harvard) and James Fallows (of the Atlantic) over the state of the relation between U.S. and China – and perhaps more importantly – over the future of that relationship (Aspen Ideas Festival). Read more…
There is no marketplace of ideas. There is a pisspot of ideas. The media may promote some idea more than others but it has nothing to do with correctness. It is probably just a matter of whose interests are served and who can pay for the promotion. -- psikeyhackr