This fits in a number of topics, so I guess it earns one of its own.
This is inevitable result of the US locking China out of US some of its technologies/software platforms. The US might find it was a decision they regret in the future. China has a big enough population to support itself going alone in relation to technology…the US very much relies on its domestic and foreign markets for its success.
China will bleed out its technology (which it will even if the west choses to not support domestic applications) to many countries which rely heavily on the US for the same at the moment…and will place pressure on the US developers. This is competition which I think won’t be stopped.
The US could move (or the Chinese) to build platforms will allow multi-use applications and software…a bit like Microsoft has done with the next version of Windows to support Google apps (rather than using clunky third party packages which often doesn’t work perfectly). Who does take these sorts of steps has the potential to leave others behind. Current indications is it won’t be the US which will take such steps.
Open standards are increasingly driving technology. The majority of CPUs in the mobile world are built to the ARM open standard. Most operating systems are under the covers variants of Unix to Posix standards. Telecommunications use international standards and internationally agreed protocols like TCP/IP and all the IEEE specs. As does banking with Swift. As do airlines with SITA.
If China wants to isolate themselves from open standards, they can only loose and get locked out of world markets.
What makes anyone think open standards are not embraced? The US continues to shoot itself in the foot in the long standing dogma that certain countries and their peoples are ‘not up to it’ yet they are equals or superiors.
I used to state it as America tries to keep its best technology in, and better technology out.
It might be otherwise. Who is going to loose if we stop buying from China?
Some could suggest we have more to loose than China. Other than mining some of the raw materials everything else is produced in China. There are numerous other examples.
US President Joe Biden is planning a $330 billion package to rev up the US’s investment in R&D, having noted its strategic competition with China is nothing less than a battle to “win the 21st century”.
I think it’s safe to say that the US has already lost this particular war. It cannot compete with a domestic market of 1.4 billion, and its last president ruined any possibility of avoiding the conflict.
One key way the US exerts control over the financial system is through the Swift International payment network. Every day $5 trillion is transferred around the world using this system.
If the Biden administration chooses, it could sanction or cut off Chinese banks and corporations from international financial markets, causing immense damage to the Chinese economy.
The US has already shown a willingness to misuse SWIFT (which is supposed to be independently governed) for domestic political purposes. While I don’t particularly like the source, RT points out exactly what the problem is for countries that are not part of the US ‘sphere of influence’.
So really, not having a lunatic narcissist running the show, US foreign policy has not really changed.
Nor are there any constraints on leadership of age or mental incapacity.
Australia must be different? A mixed bag of fruit!
Our PM’s typically become so (ripen or mature) in their 50’s. Left to rot once picked they reach their use by date around 60 or soon after. The one exception is Menzies who was first picked partly ripe at 44 years old, put aside shortly after and on developing full ripeness hung around the fruit bowl till 71 years of age.
One can only speculate which cologne was used in the later years, well past optimum ripeness. No other PM has served to reach the respectable retiring age of 65, although several may have hung in the back benches slowly decaying.
If anyone has not worked this out, it’s not evident that any of us has any ability to influence or predict which of the great economic powers - China or USA will prevail. One a one party system leaning towards a single set of national values, the other wishing it was a one party system leaning towards a single set of national values.
A bet on the current Australian PM retiring before 65 or even money before 60 years of age might be a better proposition. The latter option has a 2028 use by date.
US foreign policy has always been “USA, USA, USA” - viewing the rest of the world as its oyster. Whether conducting economic espionage, arranging coups or invading countries because they refuse to follow the divinely-inspired ‘leaders of the free world’, the US has proven itself totally untrustworthy when it comes to international affairs.
Is China the Great Power likely to be any different? Probably not, but countries like Australia are not in a particularly good position to take sides in any dispute.
As a side comment, at least the current US president does not run foreign policy based upon claims that an app’s users trolled one of his campaign speeches by booking all the tickets.