Close Menu
TechCentralTechCentral

    Subscribe to the newsletter

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube LinkedIn
    WhatsApp Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn YouTube
    TechCentralTechCentral
    • News

      South Africa begins complex job of overhauling media laws

      13 July 2025

      Nvidia CEO to hold high-stakes media briefing in Beijing

      13 July 2025

      Blue Label Telecoms to change its name as restructuring gathers pace

      11 July 2025

      Get your ID delivered like pizza – home affairs’ latest digital shake-up

      11 July 2025

      EFF vows to stop Starlink from launching in South Africa

      11 July 2025
    • World

      Grok 4 arrives with bold claims and fresh controversy

      10 July 2025

      Bitcoin pushes higher into record territory

      10 July 2025

      Cupertino vs Brussels: Apple challenges Big Tech crackdown

      7 July 2025

      Grammarly acquires e-mail start-up Superhuman

      1 July 2025

      Apple considers ditching its own AI in Siri overhaul

      1 July 2025
    • In-depth

      Siemens is battling Big Tech for AI supremacy in factories

      24 June 2025

      The algorithm will sing now: why musicians should be worried about AI

      20 June 2025

      Meta bets $72-billion on AI – and investors love it

      17 June 2025

      MultiChoice may unbundle SuperSport from DStv

      12 June 2025

      Grok promised bias-free chat. Then came the edits

      2 June 2025
    • TCS

      TCS+ | MVNX on the opportunities in South Africa’s booming MVNO market

      11 July 2025

      TCS | Connecting Saffas – Renier Lombard on The Lekker Network

      7 July 2025

      TechCentral Nexus S0E4: Takealot’s big Post Office jobs plan

      4 July 2025

      TCS | Tech, townships and tenacity: Spar’s plan to win with Spar2U

      3 July 2025

      TCS+ | First Distribution on the latest and greatest cloud technologies

      27 June 2025
    • Opinion

      In defence of equity alternatives for BEE

      30 June 2025

      E-commerce in ICT distribution: enabler or disruptor?

      30 June 2025

      South Africa pioneered drone laws a decade ago – now it must catch up

      17 June 2025

      AI and the future of ICT distribution

      16 June 2025

      Singapore soared – why can’t we? Lessons South Africa refuses to learn

      13 June 2025
    • Company Hubs
      • Africa Data Centres
      • AfriGIS
      • Altron Digital Business
      • Altron Document Solutions
      • Altron Group
      • Arctic Wolf
      • AvertITD
      • Braintree
      • CallMiner
      • CambriLearn
      • CYBER1 Solutions
      • Digicloud Africa
      • Digimune
      • Domains.co.za
      • ESET
      • Euphoria Telecom
      • Incredible Business
      • iONLINE
      • Iris Network Systems
      • LSD Open
      • NEC XON
      • Network Platforms
      • Next DLP
      • Ovations
      • Paracon
      • Paratus
      • Q-KON
      • SevenC
      • SkyWire
      • Solid8 Technologies
      • Telit Cinterion
      • Tenable
      • Vertiv
      • Videri Digital
      • Wipro
      • Workday
    • Sections
      • AI and machine learning
      • Banking
      • Broadcasting and Media
      • Cloud services
      • Contact centres and CX
      • Cryptocurrencies
      • Education and skills
      • Electronics and hardware
      • Energy and sustainability
      • Enterprise software
      • Fintech
      • Information security
      • Internet and connectivity
      • Internet of Things
      • Investment
      • IT services
      • Lifestyle
      • Motoring
      • Public sector
      • Retail and e-commerce
      • Science
      • SMEs and start-ups
      • Social media
      • Talent and leadership
      • Telecoms
    • Events
    • Advertise
    TechCentralTechCentral
    Home » In-depth » How the US could lose tech Cold War with China

    How the US could lose tech Cold War with China

    By Agency Staff23 January 2019
    Twitter LinkedIn Facebook WhatsApp Email Telegram Copy Link
    News Alerts
    WhatsApp

    In 1962, at the height of the Cold War, the US sought to rally its allies to block construction of a Soviet oil pipeline that would supply Red Army forces in Eastern Europe. It was an exercise in futility. West Germany grudgingly agreed not to supply high-technology pipes for the project. But Britain, Italy and Japan all rebuffed Washington’s appeals. The Friendship pipeline went ahead with only a short delay, having exposed strains in the Western bloc. Worse, from a US perspective, the episode convinced Moscow to become self-sufficient in steel pipes.

    Today, as the US seeks to deny China access to advanced technologies — in the latest move, US legislators introduced a bill last week to ban chip sales to Chinese tech companies that defy US sanctions — many talk glibly of a tech Cold War, as though there are simple parallels with Washington’s efforts in an earlier era to impede the advance of a strategic competitor. That assumption not only misconstrues the Chinese economy, which is nothing like the Soviet one, but gets the Cold War completely wrong.

    A key lesson from that confrontation is that it’s extremely difficult to ring-fence technologies and prevent their export to a rival. The challenge is immeasurably more complicated in today’s hyper-connected global economy. Indeed, any attempt to reprise the actual Cold War will almost certainly end up hurting the US economy and those of its friends and allies as much, if not more, than China’s.

    Suspicions that the US used sanctions against the Soviets to play commercial games dogged relations between Washington and its allies for years

    Remember that 1962 was the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the US and Soviet Union teetered on the brink of nuclear Armageddon. Yet even then, Washington couldn’t convince its closest Nato allies to disrupt the Soviet war machine. The cynical view in European capitals was that Washington’s real goal was to prevent the Soviet Union from dumping oil in Western markets and undercutting the profits of US energy giants.

    Suspicions that the US used sanctions against the Soviets to play commercial games dogged relations between Washington and its allies for years. The problem wasn’t military hardware — everybody agreed on the need to deny the Soviet Union munitions, as well as nuclear equipment — but, rather, technologies with both civilian and military applications. In those cases, the principle of free trade conflicted with legitimate security considerations.

    To balance these concerns, a secretive group set up by the US to oversee the Soviet sanctions regime — the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls, or CoCom — met every week in Paris to adjust the lists of restricted items and haggle over exemptions. Even so, sensitive technologies leaked into the Eastern bloc from non-CoCom countries, including Switzerland and Sweden.

    Relevant today

    All this is relevant today as the US tightens export controls aimed principally at China. The US department of commerce last week closed public hearings on a proposal to clamp restrictions on 14 emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and robotics. This is on top of a congressional bill that expands the powers of a treasury-led committee charged with vetting foreign investments for national security reasons. Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who sponsored the bill, said it would “help put an end to the backdoor transfer of dual-use technology that has gone unchecked for too long”.

    The successors of CoCom committees face almost unfathomable complexities, however. Just about every modern technology is dual-use: AI can optimise both factory production and battlefield awareness; drones can deliver bombs and missiles as well as postal packages. It’s difficult enough to define products that consist of millions of lines of software code and reams of customer data — often sitting in the cloud — let alone track their export.

    Asian manufacturers worry that the US effort, if broadly applied, could unravel their supply chains; US patents are ubiquitous in electronic products assembled in China. Moreover, Silicon Valley is where global firms from Japan to Germany go to incubate technologies, such as driverless vehicles, which they roll out in the Chinese market. Choking off technology transfers to China risks hobbling this kind of innovation in the US and driving it overseas. Simultaneous moves to restrict US visas for Chinese science and engineering students only exacerbate that danger.

    China is not the Soviet Union: in many areas of technology, including AI, it’s already close to parity with the US. And misreading the Cold War will inevitably lead to misguided policies. While the US-led technology blockade may have slowed Soviet expansionism, the Soviet system ultimately collapsed under its own weaknesses — lack of innovation, a chronic shortage of consumer goods, inept central planning.

    China is not the Soviet Union: in many areas of technology, including AI, it’s already close to parity with the US

    None of these are obvious Chinese failings. It’s one thing to convince China to halt its state-sponsored theft of commercial secrets, stop forcing multinationals to hand over technology in exchange for market access, and scale back its mercantilist ambitions to dominate the technologies of the future. This is only asking China to play by the same rules as everyone else as it pursues its goals.

    Security concerns, on the other hand, require a different, more targeted approach that seeks to minimise both the threat and the harm to the US economy. Susan Shirk, a former deputy assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration, sensibly proposes a “small yard, high fence” approach: narrowly define technologies such as long-range radars, or advanced turbofan engines, whose loss could endanger US national security, and then aggressively protect them. In a similar vein, it makes more sense to punish individual Chinese companies that benefit from technology theft rather than resort to blanket measures against entire industries.

    Above all, the US should focus on its own industrial competitiveness. “For every dollar we spend on containing China, we should be spending on our labs and innovation centres,” says Gary Rieschel, the founder of Qiming Venture Partners and a pioneer US investor in the Chinese tech sector. He adds: “The US does not do defence well.”  — By Andrew Browne, (c) 2019 Bloomberg LP



    top
    Subscribe to TechCentral Subscribe to TechCentral
    Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram Email Copy Link
    Previous ArticleAfter years of pressure, IBM may have turned the corner
    Next Article Tencent targeted in China censorship crackdown

    Related Posts

    18GW in unplanned breakdowns cripple Eskom

    2 November 2021

    Nersa kicks the Karpowership can down the road

    13 September 2021

    If you think South African load shedding is bad, try Zimbabwe’s

    13 September 2021
    Company News

    $125-trillion traded: Binance redefines global finance in just eight years

    11 July 2025

    NEC XON welcomes HPE acquisition of Juniper Networks

    11 July 2025

    LTE Cat 1 vs Cat 1 bis – what’s the difference?

    11 July 2025
    Opinion

    In defence of equity alternatives for BEE

    30 June 2025

    E-commerce in ICT distribution: enabler or disruptor?

    30 June 2025

    South Africa pioneered drone laws a decade ago – now it must catch up

    17 June 2025

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    © 2009 - 2025 NewsCentral Media

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.