Last week the WTO rebuffed China in an important case involving Chinese restrictions on imported books and movies.
The Chinese government also dropped explosive espionage charges against executives of a foreign mining giant, the Anglo-Australian Rio Tinto, after a global corporate outcry. And on Thursday, the government said it had backed off another contentious plan to install censorship software on all new computers sold here.
Throughout its long economic boom, China has usually managed to separate its aggressive push into the global business arena from domestic politics, which remained tightly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. But events last week raised the question of just how long it will be before the two meet.
In each of those matters, politics and business collided, and business won. Business does not always win, and when it does, as in these cases, the reasons are as often as not a matter of guesswork.
But in at least some high-profile matters, China appears to be facing the reality that the outside business world can be freewheeling and defiant when its profits are threatened. China’s authoritarian system may have to evolve in ways its top leaders may not readily endorse.
Beijing has a global footprint now, said Kenneth Lieberthal, a veteran China analyst now at the Brookings Institution.
“They’ve always looked in the past to what’s good for China, and they still do. But for the first time, added to that is the consideration that they’re in the position of being rule-takers, not just rule-makers,” he said.
China’s leaders, he said, “are just beginning to learn how to handle that.”
Consider the following: Since late May, Beijing’s Industry and Information Technology Ministry had more or less insisted that so-called anti-pornography software, dubbed Green Dam-Youth Escort, would eventually be packaged with every newly purchased computer.
On Thursday, the ministry backed down, calling the requirement a “misunderstanding” spawned by badly written rules. Officials offered no other explanation, but the retreat followed weeks of protests by outsiders — from foreign computer makers to foreign governments to foreign corporate branch offices — who said that the software stifled free speech, compromised corporate security and threatened computers’ stability.
Computers are not the only example. Last week, the WTO told Beijing that it could no longer force providers of US books, music and films to distribute their goods through a local partner. Foreign companies saw that rule as an impediment to reaching a broad Chinese audience with their products.
The Chinese market is flooded with pirated CDs and DVDs whose contents’ creators receive no money.
The Chinese legally may appeal the decision, but Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (楊潔箎) indicated in a Geneva speech that simply ignoring it is not an option. China worked for years to join the global trading system and is bound, as much as other nations are, by its rules.
“China will never seek to advance its interests at the expense of others,” Yang said, according to Reuters.
Similarly, Chinese prosecutors appeared to retreat last week from earlier statements that they would prosecute employees of Rio Tinto as spies for stealing state secrets. While the espionage allegations were not spelled out, they were apparently related to delicate commercial negotiations over the price of China’s imports of iron ore for its steel mills. Rio Tinto executives have strongly denied the accusations, and both the US and Australia said China’s actions could have both business and diplomatic repercussions.
While the Rio Tinto employees still face lesser charges of bribery and theft of trade secrets, the espionage threats stirred broad unease among foreign companies operating in China, who feared that they could face persecution and closed-door trials for engaging in what much of the world would regard as bare-knuckle business tactics.
Yet whether such instances represent trends or exceptions — or neither — remains a matter of some debate.
Increasingly, many experts say, Chinese officials appear to be aware that their actions have far broader ramifications than they might have had even a few years ago.
“Fifteen years ago, the mantra in China was, ‘We’re the victims of a system that’s stacked against us,’” said James Feinerman, an expert on Chinese law and policy at Georgetown University in Washington.
China’s entry into the world trading system, he said, is slowly helping to change the nation’s view of itself from that of an outsider to an insider with a stake in the global system’s success.
Other experts note, however, that what outsiders see as carefully calculated policy changes may in fact be nothing of the sort. The government’s decision to install censorship software on computers — and its subsequent reversal — is but one example, they say; the original proposal was probably pushed by a government clique that found itself outflanked once Internet users and foreign corporations began objecting to the plan.
“Is China susceptible to international pressure? Of course it is,” said Charles Freeman, a leading China scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “China does have international interests, and they are impacted by what it does domestically. There’s a constant battle between agencies over how much political capital to expend on international issues against domestic interests.”
In any case, few experts are willing to stake their reputations on a prediction that Beijing’s recent softening of some positions signifies a strong trend. To the contrary, Feinerman said, China had undergone “a real pushback” in the last five years on some fronts, reasserting political dogma in some areas where commercial norms and the rule of law had begun to have more sway.
Jonathan Hecht, an expert on Chinese law at Yale University’s China Law Center, said that developments in China should be viewed against a history of great leaps forward on such matters, followed by equally great retreats.
“I’ve given up predicting long-term trends,” he said.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS