As part of his administration’s Clean Network strategy, US President Donald Trump on Aug. 6 issued two executive orders that restrict “transactions” with China-based ByteDance, the parent company of video-sharing app TikTok, and Tencent Holdings, the parent company of Chinese communications behemoth WeChat.
While the removal of TikTok will be irritating for its American users, the WeChat order is the more contentious, due to the app’s ubiquity in the Chinese market.
WeChat has evolved over the years from a simple messaging app into a “Swiss Army knife” super app.
In today’s largely cashless society, most Chinese use WeChat to pay for meals, buy train tickets, pay bills and even book doctor’s appointments. In China, phones that cannot run WeChat probably would not sell well.
Analyst Kuo Ming-chi (郭明錤) has predicted that global shipments of Apple iPhones could plummet by 25 to 30 percent if the company were forced to remove WeChat from its App Store.
Some have argued that if “transactions” means that people in the US would be prevented from using the apps, it would constitute an attack on free speech and violate the US constitution.
Others have said the US cannot defeat China’s digital firewall by erecting one of its own.
Despite the criticism, the Trump administration is right to seek to block WeChat, particularly in markets outside of China.
First, there is the issue of reciprocity. US tech giants, including Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube, were forced out of China more than a decade ago. Since Beijing has closed its market to fair competition by foreign tech firms, why should Washington continue to allow their Chinese equivalents unfettered access to the US market?
Second, WeChat is a security nightmare. The app hoovers up reams of personal information, creating detailed profiles of its users. Mandated by Chinese law to grant domestic security agencies access to data on its severs, WeChat operates as a proxy digital listening post for China’s police state.
Unsurprisingly, Beijing uses WeChat to spy on its own people, including persecuted minorities in Xinjiang and Tibet. Less well known is that WeChat accounts registered outside of China are subject to the same level of surveillance.
A May 7 report by the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab found that documents and images transmitted among non-China-registered accounts undergo content surveillance and the data are analyzed for content that is politically sensitive in China.
The report also found that user content created and sent outside of China is used to train and extend the app’s China-based censorship system.
Separate investigations by cyberresearchers have shown that even outside of China, WeChat automatically blocks or removes messages, posts, photographs — even profile pictures — that Beijing deems to be politically sensitive.
WeChat is being used to extend China’s “Great Firewall” to the rest of the world. Those who warn that the app’s removal from the US market would represent an assault on free speech need to realize that the app itself is an affront to free speech.
WeChat is available for download from the Taiwan versions of Apple’s App Store and Google Play. China is in an undeclared “dirty war” with Taiwan, the US and other democratic nations, and WeChat is a key weapon in it.
To counter China’s weaponization of open and liberal societies, its democratic opponents need to accept a degree of restriction to their free markets. Government policy should not be influenced by huge corporations that have put too many eggs in the China basket.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent