Read on Twitter
As US-China relations deteriorate, both countries have fewer incentives to hold back from actions they've both had in their back pocket for a while.
Two recent US actions indicate the possible roads ahead for the United States. [THREAD]
Two recent US actions indicate the possible roads ahead for the United States. [THREAD]
Academic espionage & tech transfer from Chinese students studying in the US have been a growing concern for US policymakers.
There were two major moves by US policymakers this week to address this problem, and they highlight the choices ahead for the United States.
There were two major moves by US policymakers this week to address this problem, and they highlight the choices ahead for the United States.
The Trump Admin unveiled today a plan to cancel visas for Chinese students and researchers from PLA-affiliated universities. According to NYT, this move would affect <1% of Chinese students studying in the United States. A pretty targeted approach. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/us/politics/china-hong-kong-trump-student-visas.html
By contrast, yesterday Sen. Cotton & others proposed a bill that would prohibit any Chinese national from receiving a visa for graduate or post-graduate study in any STEM field. This is a very broad brush approach that would affect a large # of students https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1371
Which approach is better? There is currently an active debate in Washington about what approach to China should replace engagement. Engagement is dead. What comes next? One model is "decoupling." The Cotton approach makes sense if your goal is decoupling. But is it a good idea?
At least in this case, there are two uncomfortable realities that exist side by side:
1) The U.S. benefits disproportionately by a "brain gain" from top Chinese students and researchers coming to the U.S., many of whom stay here after graduation.
1) The U.S. benefits disproportionately by a "brain gain" from top Chinese students and researchers coming to the U.S., many of whom stay here after graduation.
Research by @r_zwetsloot & others @CSETGeorgetown found that "91 percent of Chinese PhDs in artificial intelligence remain in the country for at least five years". Wow. That's a real problem ... if you're China. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/28/sen-tom-cotton-suggested-chinese-stem-students-head-home-after-studying-us-research-shows-otherwise/
The US is poaching some of China's best and brightest. In the competition for tech talent, the US is winning. ("Innovation" is just a fancy word for smart people coming up with new clever ways of doing things. Tech is about human capital.)
The US would be crazy to give up this advantage, but uncomfortable fact #2 is that the CCP and PLA often leverage US-China research ties for academic espionage and tech transfer https://admin.govexec.com/media/diux_chinatechnologytransferstudy_jan_2018_(1).pdf
In addition, the PLA exploits US openness to collaborate with US researchers. @alexjoske @ASPI_ICPC estimates 500 PLA scientists have studied in the US from 2007-2017. (!) https://www.aspi.org.au/report/picking-flowers-making-honey
So US policymakers understandably want to find a way to curtail academic espionage and tech transfer to the PLA. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-turns-up-the-spotlight-on-chinese-universities-11579602787
The Cotton approach -- decoupling -- would fix the problem of STEM tech transfer, but at the cost of giving up a major strategic advantage the US has over China, the "brain gain" we get from their researchers coming to the US. It's an overly broad & self-destructive move.
The Trump Admin's more targeted approach against PLA-affiliated universities is a better move. Much remains to be seen, including which universities will fall on the list, but it's an approach that preserves beneficial aspects of US-China ties while restricting PLA tech transfer.
As US policymakers search for a new approach to China policy, it's time to move past overly simplistic bumper stickers like "engagement" and "decoupling." Both ideas are flawed and overly simplistic.
The US-China relationship is multi-faceted and there are degrees to partial engagement/decoupling. On a variety of issues, US policymakers will have to look at US-China ties through a national security lens and a recalibration will be in order. Some changes will be required.
Policy adjustments to US-China ties should be based on a realistic appraisal of US-interests, not an ideological predisposition to engagement or decoupling for its own sake.
