Author: 468259058

China presses US on high-tech exports cap [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Gold Medal September's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2011-5-11 08:05:46 |Display all floors
US considers new export restrictions on China
(chinadaily.com.cn)
Updated: 2005-07-29 13:53


The Bush administration is going to impose stricter restrictions on exporting American technologies and products to China, as Washington is getting increasingly nervous about non-stop Chinese rises on the world stage.

The U.S. Commerce Department is reportedly preparing to issue rules by the end of 2005, that would impose stricter limits on exports of American civilian technology that, allegedly, also has military uses. They include semiconductors made by Intel, chip-making equipment sold by Advanced Micro Devices, planes made by Boeing, aircraft parts from Honeywell International and machine tools made by companies like Gleason, according to U.S. Commerce Department documents.

Currently, only 1.5 percent of the $35 billion in U.S. exports to China requires a government export license, the department says. Depending on how the new rules are structured, U.S. industry lobbyists say, the proportion could grow to more than 10 percent.

World leading chip maker Intel Corp has reported that its Asia operations lead global sales growth. China alone accounted for about $5 billion of the company's $34 billion company revenue last year. Intel has 5,000 employees in China and has invested $1.3 billion in design centers, laboratories and factories there.

"We're living in a world where technology has become a commodity," Jennifer Greeson, an Intel spokeswoman, said. "Restricting access to markets would have a pretty significant impact on the U.S. technology sector."

Boeing, which this year won orders from Chinese airlines for 60 of its new 787 Dreamliner jets, said in June that it would use about $600 million in parts from Chinese companies.

The Bush Administration is still debating the details of the new regulations, and an intense lobbying campaign is being waged to influence the outcome, Bloomberg reported.

Business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Aerospace Industries Association have been trying to limit any new restrictions.

Pat McCartan, director of legislative affairs for the aerospace group, said that while "we don't want to supply the Chinese military," the changes being considered by the administration and the U.S. Congress "would slow our exports to China.

As China intends to embrace for more imports from America to balance the trade sheet, which now is in China's favor, the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress have increased efforts to lay more barriers, amid a growing conservative voice in Washington which alleges a rising China hurts American national security, Chinese analysts said.
our life is full of sunshine

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 5Rank: 5

Post time 2011-5-11 08:08:06 |Display all floors
Do we even make 2,000 high tech products?

Who are the manufacturers?  

There is barely anything actually produced and manufactured in the US.  Even our car industry involves parts made abroad.  Everything is all mixed with some things made here, assembled in another country, and so on.  Don't the japanese dominate in this market?  

Could they be talking more about technology soft products?  Why would you buy that from us when India offers better rates?

I've been searching the net on clarification and everything is so vague.  I'm curious.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Gold Medal September's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2011-5-11 08:09:11 |Display all floors
I argue, it actually is in America's own best interests - both in terms of economics and national security - to adopt a smarter, more flexible approach to deciding what we should sell, and not sell, to China.


Beijing was ready with a proposal of its own: We'll buy more American goods, if you scrap restrictions on high-tech exports.  The US Cold War-style mentality, they argued, is the main thing standing in the way of more balanced trade.


Most experts consider the Chinese argument to be overblown. They estimate the annual amount of sales to China blocked by US export controls at US$2-3 billion. (The only hard number comes from a 2009 survey by the American Chambers of Commerce based in Beijing and Shanghai, which tallied US$560 million in actual lost sales). This barely puts a dent in China's $252 billion trade gap with the US for 2010.

by Patrick Chovanec, a professor at Tsinghua university

[ Last edited by 468259058 at 2011-5-11 08:18 AM ]
our life is full of sunshine

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Gold Medal September's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2011-5-11 08:13:02 |Display all floors
Control mechanism

The existing system dates back to 1949, when the US and 16 of its allies formed the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom) to prevent the Soviet Union from buying so-called "dual-use"technology from the West that could be converted for military use. Any CoCom member had the right to veto sales by one of its allies. Since CoCom's members did little trade with the Soviets in any event, they had little to lose, and everything to gain, from casting its restrictive net pretty broadly.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, CoCom was disbanded and replaced, in 1994, with the much looser Wassennar Arrangement, which is aimed at keeping sensitive military technologies out of the hands of "rogue states"like Iran, Libya, North Korea and Burma.

None of the 40 countries participating in Wassennar have any power of veto. Each ultimately makes its own decision regarding what technologies it's willing to sell, and to whom.

But what about China? Obviously the US considers China as a potential military adversary, and would prefer to deny it whatever high-tech military advantage possible. But unlike the old Soviet Union, China is a major trading partner that offers a market that no country, including the US, can afford to ignore.


Missed opportunities
That presents Washington with two challenges. First, the cost of not selling to China has to be taken into account. In 2009, nearly 20% of America's US$69.5 billion exports to China were in high-tech industries like aircraft, electronics, and semiconductors, which are potentially subject to export controls. These are areas where the US has a solid competitive advantage, and incredible growth opportunities. The old system simply has no mechanism for weighing these potentially immense economic benefits against equally real security concerns.

Second, just because the US decides not to sell the Chinese a certain technology, doesn't mean that somebody else won't sell it to them instead. CoCom worked because it presented a united front; that consensus is long gone. China isn't even a "country of concern"under the Wassennar Arrangement. The US can't control whether China gets its hands on a wide range of advanced "dual use"technologies – it can just deny its own companies the chance to make the sale.

The US$2-3 billion may be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but US firms worry that export controls cast a broader shadow over their business. They fear that, given the choice, many Chinese buyers opt to work with European or Japanese suppliers rather than deal with the prospect that, somewhere down the road, they won't be able to get what they want from an American bidder. It's impossible to quantify how much business might be lost due to such concerns.

A wholesale abandonment of restrictions on high-tech exports in the pursuit of short-term profit would be foolish. But American policy-makers need to recognize that the game has changed, and a smarter approach is now needed for balancing the pros and cons of bringing US high-tech leadership to the Chinese market.


by Patrick Chovanec, a professor at Tsinghua university
our life is full of sunshine

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Gold Medal September's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2011-5-11 08:13:20 |Display all floors
Control mechanism

The existing system dates back to 1949, when the US and 16 of its allies formed the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom) to prevent the Soviet Union from buying so-called "dual-use"technology from the West that could be converted for military use. Any CoCom member had the right to veto sales by one of its allies. Since CoCom's members did little trade with the Soviets in any event, they had little to lose, and everything to gain, from casting its restrictive net pretty broadly.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, CoCom was disbanded and replaced, in 1994, with the much looser Wassennar Arrangement, which is aimed at keeping sensitive military technologies out of the hands of "rogue states"like Iran, Libya, North Korea and Burma.

None of the 40 countries participating in Wassennar have any power of veto. Each ultimately makes its own decision regarding what technologies it's willing to sell, and to whom.

But what about China? Obviously the US considers China as a potential military adversary, and would prefer to deny it whatever high-tech military advantage possible. But unlike the old Soviet Union, China is a major trading partner that offers a market that no country, including the US, can afford to ignore.


Missed opportunities
That presents Washington with two challenges. First, the cost of not selling to China has to be taken into account. In 2009, nearly 20% of America's US$69.5 billion exports to China were in high-tech industries like aircraft, electronics, and semiconductors, which are potentially subject to export controls. These are areas where the US has a solid competitive advantage, and incredible growth opportunities. The old system simply has no mechanism for weighing these potentially immense economic benefits against equally real security concerns.

Second, just because the US decides not to sell the Chinese a certain technology, doesn't mean that somebody else won't sell it to them instead. CoCom worked because it presented a united front; that consensus is long gone. China isn't even a "country of concern"under the Wassennar Arrangement. The US can't control whether China gets its hands on a wide range of advanced "dual use"technologies - it can just deny its own companies the chance to make the sale.

The US$2-3 billion may be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but US firms worry that export controls cast a broader shadow over their business. They fear that, given the choice, many Chinese buyers opt to work with European or Japanese suppliers rather than deal with the prospect that, somewhere down the road, they won't be able to get what they want from an American bidder. It's impossible to quantify how much business might be lost due to such concerns.

A wholesale abandonment of restrictions on high-tech exports in the pursuit of short-term profit would be foolish. But American policy-makers need to recognize that the game has changed, and a smarter approach is now needed for balancing the pros and cons of bringing US high-tech leadership to the Chinese market.


by Patrick Chovanec, a professor at Tsinghua university

[ Last edited by 468259058 at 2011-5-11 08:16 AM ]
our life is full of sunshine

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 5Rank: 5

Post time 2011-5-11 09:16:33 |Display all floors
The U.S. Commerce Department is reportedly preparing to issue rules by the end of 2005, that would impose stricter limits on exports of American civilian technology that, allegedly, also has military uses. They include semiconductors made by Intel, chip-making equipment sold by Advanced Micro Devices, planes made by Boeing, aircraft parts from Honeywell International and machine tools made by companies like Gleason, according to U.S. Commerce Department documents.


This is what technology exports that we are talking about?  There are restrictions here.  American companies just can't buy this technology.  Why would we open it to another country?
  
These are not products or a market that is open to private business.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Gold Medal September's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2011-5-12 07:55:09 |Display all floors
In the news reports of Chinese language of Mainland China:
American government officials promised to lift the bans of high technology in the near future.
American government officials promised to recognize China as the market economy in the near future.
None of news reported on human rights talks.

In the news reports of English langage of Western media:
1. Human rights
2. exchange rate
3. trade surplus
our life is full of sunshine

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.