So I'm still in the data gathering stage, but for one of my papers semiconductor industry experts estimated the design-finished goods timeline at 4 yrs for consumer goods, and 10 years for military hardware (in the United States)
Despite some reports out there, this isn't domestication of chip making in China at all--they are still using old imported lithography machines, just in a novel way to juice out chips a few nanometers below what they are intended to make. The machines themselves are still from the Netherlands with German mirrors and full of American IP with complexity beyond the limit of human comprehension. What China is finding out now is the limits to their old equipment. It doesn't reflect a failure in sanctions regime at all, and I'd guess that their capacity to keep up with the West in chips will diverge over time. Taiwan was making 7nm chips five years ago.
Sep 14, 2023·edited Sep 14, 2023Liked by Noah Smith
Nice post. People seem to wishful-think sanctions into a magic bullet they've never been, then complain the imaginary bullet isn't lethal.
Sanctions are just a string of roadblocks. They're lousy at stopping things altogether, but pretty good at making things expensive, inconvenient, and a whole lot slower. If "expensive, inconvenient, and a whole lot slower" gives you negotiating leverage, or time to counter an opponent, that's a good case for sanctions.
If you don't really have a proposal worth negotiating, or a plan to put time on your side, sanctions aren't going to fix that for you. Sanctions exist to complement and strengthen the rest of your negotiating strategy or play-for-time strategy. They're not a strategy by themselves.
Personally I think our China strategy makes sense. Sanctions buy us more time for all our other tools to work. It's up to us to use that time well.
Sometimes, manufacturing and commitment outweigh a technology edge. Russia makes more artillery shells than the USA and Europe combined; it's even sending more drones to Ukraine than the west, despite drones being high-tech compared to explosive-filled 155mm cones of steel.
So even Russia, never mind China, is managing their quality gap with a quantity advantage.
Sanctions will buy the USA some time. But our only lasting deterrent will be if America relearns how to be an "arsenal of democracy." Billion-dollar systems built one at a time are a sign of vulnerability, not strength; the USA that'll deter China is a USA that can build military equipment not just with quality, but in quantity.
You're actually pointing to the US as the world's good guys? I'm sure the millions of dead people that were the targets of the "arsenal of democracy" appreciate it.
The world is truly mad. What does a Chinese company producing a consumer phone have anything to do with America? So killing this innovative business seems make you all happier?
Look, China could have been friendly to its neighbors and not gone for the whole world-domination thing. They chose to approach international relations with a Cold War mindset, and the rest of the world is responding appropriately. If China's leaders wants a more productive, harmonious relationship with the world, they should stop trying to claim other countries' territory and stop threatening to start wars with their neighbors.
How can you say that with a straight face Noah? Like most Americans, Noah is just in denial that what this really boils down to is America remaining number one. We engaged in a similar trade war with Japan during the 1980s despite Japan ostensibly being a democratic ally and we often attacked it with the same rhetoric then that we use against China today. It's pretty clear that the American political class has decided that it's better for America to be queen of the ashes rather than the US being 2nd to China in a prosperous world.
Noah's statement above is laughably unaware. China hasn't been in an official shooting war since 1979 against Vietnam, meanwhile the US has engaged in countless wars since that time including Iraq and Afghanistan. As John Mearsheimer points out, countries that embrace liberal universalism and try to export their values often cause greater global instability than authoritarian regimes, especially ones like China. Is there a Chinese equivalent to the American phenomenon of neoconservative in recent decades, with its absurd belief that American military prowess should be used to bring about regime change around the globe?
Claiming that China is going for world domination is laughable. Even if you granted China all of its recent border claims and their new 10 dash line, the amount of additional territory gained would be minimal. Compare that to British colonialism back in the day when the British Empire was described as one where the sun literally never set. China maintains a narrow set of core interests such as Taiwan or the South China Sea and some current border disputes with countries like India, but beyond that rarely interferes in the politics of other places around the globe or even seems to have all that much interest.
What really bothers Americans like Noah is that China just seems to be outcompeting us. Maybe they work harder. Maybe they educate their population much better than we do. Maybe their political class is actually competent instead of being a complete joke like the American political class. Pick any combination of explanations you want.
This is basically just aggrievement 101, with heaps of pettiness and crude attacks directed towards China and Chinese people. No need to dignify it as anything else. We did the exact same thing to the Japanese back in the day.
I agree with you, in general, that Noah has maybe gone a bit too far with his China bashing lately, and has implicitly whitewashed some US atrocities along the way.
Still. Substack is a website that is banned in China. The fact that you come here to discuss and debate freely and openly implies that you see such open dialogue as important and worthwhile.
So let's unpack one of your statements--
"As John Mearsheimer points out, countries that embrace liberal universalism and try to export their values often cause greater global instability than authoritarian regimes, especially ones like China."
Sure. Ok. Whatever. Listen man... Liberal Universalism. What we call here freedom and human rights. That's important. Let's add TRUTH to the mix as well. These thing matter. A government that engages in thought control, is not beholden to truth, and does not respect individual rights or the rule of law cannot be the world #1 because such a world would be a hellscape. That's it man.
China has already used her economic might to censor individuals and firms in the USA. That ship has sailed. There is no question, to freedom-loving humans, that a China-led order would be a bleak one.
"rarely interferes in the politics of other places around the globe or even seems to have all that much interest."
Hilarious. Ever heard of South Korea / THAAD?
"What really bothers Americans like Noah is that China just seems to be outcompeting us."
Nice straw man. No where in your article do you even vaguely make reference to the barbarity of CCP rule. If I am not free to speak my mind in some society, that is a badly deranged society and it would be dangerous for such a system to become dominant. Dangerous to all of us.
We invaded Iraq to help China…from a globalist perspective George W Bush was probably the greatest leader in history and more people increased their standard of living during Bush’s 8 years than any leader in history. And remember why we were involved in Iraq in the first place—we wanted to increase the global oil supply which is fundamental to expanding the global middle class.
Is that a reference to Vivek and the GOPeanut gallery threatening to invade Mexico to take out cartel fentanyl factories? I don’t know which territories or wars you’re alluding to.
None of those are American neighbors and the wars were not territorial. I am against American involvement in all those wars to which you can add Syria, Somalia and even Grenada, but the US hasn’t claimed possession of another country since Hawaii. And invading Mexico has been a bad idea since the Gadsden Purchase, in whose territory I now reside.
The neoconservative movement literally evangelized supposed American exceptionalism and advocated for using American military force to impose regime change across the globe. Is there a Chinese equivalent? What if China started espousing Chinese exceptionalism and a belief in the mandate to use military force to impose regime change to its liking around the world? We'd probably see pundits like Noah going nuts comparing the Chinese government to Nazi Germany.
China hasn't been in an official shooting war since 1979, since which the US has been involved in countless wars, some of them complete debacles like Iraq. It's hard to take commentary like Noah's seriously.
As far as Taiwan goes, there may have been a shift towards a more separate notion of Taiwanese identity with the younger generation and with the DPP as opposed to the KMT, but the notion of there being one China is hardly some fringe belief on the island.
To be honest I've become very cynical and jaded by all of the discourse in the US blogosphere over China. It's all just people in denial that the root cause of all of this is the deep fear that China will outcompete and supplant America as number one, so everyone comes up with all sorts of deluded rhetoric about why their China bashing is supposedly in defense of some higher principle.
I hate to break it to you guys, but at the end of the day China is a country with a population of 1.4 billion smart and hard working people. Ultimately, the only ones who can stop China's rise are the Chinese themselves. The sooner the American political and pundit class abandons the notion that it can somehow control the development of a civilization spanning 5000 years, the easier it'll be for us going forward. America needs to learn to live with China, for better or worse.
Noah mentioned “world domination” and the U.S. is often accused of such desires. My point is that China has not gone beyond minor territorial disputes often left over from former Western imperialism in the region. The U.S. is arming Taiwan and meddling in Chinese internal affairs.
Iraq was about oil which is essentially like territory. Libya was also about energy and Afghanistan was just the dumbest war in history which is why Bush/Cheney initially didn’t care about it.
The global semi-conductor supply chain was working fine. None of our allies were calling for sanctions against China. Even TSMC was perfectly happy to build chips for Chinese companies like HiSilicon. It was the insecurity of the US political class and their deep fear that China might replace America as number one that resulted in the US forcing countries around the globe to fracture what had been a perfectly functional semiconductor supply chain.
America unilaterally decided that China had to be contained, so it forced the world into a state where global productivity surely was worse off as a whole in a desperate attempt to retain relative American supremacy. Like I said, better to be queen of the ashes than 2nd to China in a prosperous world. I saw your recent tweets about America innovating but not building, while Rome and Ming China built but didn't innovate. Increasingly these days it feels like America is doing neither and to the extent that it innovates it relies disproportionately on Asian immigrants. I'd been interested in a comparison of the demographics of the people who work in technical roles at companies like Qualcomm or Nvidia vs the demographics of our American political class foaming at the mouth with Sinophobia.
It would be one thing if America could manufacture sub 10nm chips without relying on TSMC or Samsung and led by example, but rather than doing so America simply tried to cause as much global chaos as possible in a desperate attempt to contain China. Contrast that with what China has done in EVs, leaping to the forefront in battery tech even if the origins of technology such as lithium ion batteries may have begun in the West + Japan. If the US and EU actually worked with China, they could actually realize their green goals and pivot off of new ICE vehicles by 2035. Instead, as evidenced by the insane reaction of American politicians in response to Ford licensing CATL's LFP battery technologies to build a plant in Michigan, Americans would rather harm themselves economically if it meant being able to be anti-China.
Basically what you fail to realize Noah is that if Americans keep going down this unproductive path, we're going to lose the respect of our allies and others around the globe. I was actually surprised by the amount of pro-Huawei sentiment in the US blogosphere in response to the recent SMIC N+2 and Huawei Mate 60 Pro news. People realize that the US political class is just coming across as insecure jerks. America no longer leads by example by innovating, it just tries to engage in asshole politics. Meanwhile China might literally lift up the entire world into the post-ICE age.
I don't know what Chinese people care about, but the CCP is plainly trying to dominate Asia. The majority of governments in the region (Korea, Japan, Phillipines, Australia, NZ, Taiwan, etc.) share this view. China is literally attacking foreign military and civilians vessels with ramming, water cannons and blinding lasers in the SCS. Wake up.
Noah implies that China is getting what it deserves by being a big, bad authoritarian Communist regime stirring up trouble. I wonder what he believes the rationale or justification was for America similarly trying to cripple Japan's semiconductor industry in the 1980s, given that Japan was our erstwhile democratic ally.
To me, this is a reassuring development. Not understanding the technology, I had thought that the export controls was more akin to a commodity cutoff than an important strategic move to slow down China's progress. If China believes it can overcome the export controls in time, then they are less likely to take any drastic actions. Thanks for clarifying!
It's funny that in China, ignorant people like Noah would be seen as products of the bureaucratic system, while in the United States, such people are seen as experts and think tanks.
Noah's website is banned in China. So, actually, he would not be "seen" in China at all. Not with his content as it is today. He would just be someone in prison that people never heard of. They would know vaguely perhaps that he is some foreign agent with dangerous and wrong ideas, but they would not be allowed to read his writing.
It's baffling to me how many China lovers miss this key fact. China censors. That's a huge deal for free-thinking people. That you come here to an uncensored Western website that is banned in China and then act like everything is hunky dory there. Please.
On the other hand, unhinged CCP sources are free to run their mouths non-stop here in the US and they are perceived for what they are.
Your assertion that in China there is a more sensible public debate is so laughable it veers into being just plain entertaining. Thank you.
Europe and the United States are actually a legal group represented by a bunch of lawyers, and a medical group represented by doctors, which tie up the "old money" of these countries to exploit them domestically and abroad. At the same time, they have raised a group of liberal arts losers to maintain their right to speak. There are some leading dogs (such as Noah) and some dogs with worrying IQs (such as Michael).
Once they talk about China, these people immediately reflexively say "Ah, you are in prison, you can't access our website, you are not free", and then take it for granted that "you are backward, you need to learn from us, you are not as good as us" , or "You don't have wiser public judgment, and your efficiency is poor." Completely ignoring a series of hard-core indicators that human civilization and society really need, including average life expectancy, per capita medical conditions, the gap between rich and poor, the scope of drug spread, the educational conditions available to the poorest people, etc., Europe and the United States have actually fallen behind China. It's like a sleepwalking liberal arts student. When an outstanding science student uses data to prove that A is worse than B, the liberal arts student can't provide any proof. He will only repeat like a mentally retarded three-year-old child, "You are the worst, you are the worst." The worst, you are the worst...".
But is it really stupid or fake? Michael, if you think it's funny, just laugh. If you think it's entertainment, just enjoy it. It’s good. In another 20 years, our next generation will look down from the top of the mountain at you traitors who have ruined their country for your own selfish interests (even though you are selling your country, not mine, but we still despise traitors. --This is the moral code adhered to by Eastern civilization).
"Completely ignoring a series of hard-core indicators that human civilization and society really need, including average life expectancy, per capita medical conditions, the gap between rich and poor, the scope of drug spread, the educational conditions available to the poorest people, etc.,"
I don't see how any of the material conditions you refer to are at odd with human rights. Maybe you can explain that to us?
The hypocritical American dog started clamoring for "human rights" again, hahahaha.
What do you think of human rights? Is it a human right like "oh shit, I'm Black, I can't breathe"? It's a pity that this kind of thing happens on a large scale in the United States rather than China.
However, it is understandable. After all, the Americans are a group of pagans who were eliminated by Catholicism and fled to the American continent on the Mayflower. They killed millions of Indians (what about the human rights of indigenous peoples like Indians? Mr. Michael? ), are a bunch of complete hypocritical losers.
This post makes some of the same mistakes that many other commentators have on this topic (mistakes that are common on both sides of the issue, btw). Two things can be true: 1/ The 9000s isn't proof that US export controls have no effect; 2/ Huawei/SMIC have made a genuine capability breakthrough on a far faster timeline than was predicted just 2 or so years ago.
When Huawei was first added to the Entity List in 2019 and then restrictions were tightened further in 2020 to preclude its use of TSMC to fab its in-house HiSilicon chips, the state of the art was 7nm (with 5nm in sight). Lots of observation at the time pegged China as being "roughly a decade" away from being able to reach best in class. And yet, 3-4 years later, they've now reached what was (at that time) the best in class.
This has taken them less than half the time many predicted and demonstrates not so much the power of Beijing's industrial policy, but the power of what can be achieved when the incentives of China's leading private sector players (e.g., Huawei) are forcibly aligned with the Chinese state's due to US export controls. Huawei was happy to continue procuring from US suppliers (it was buying ~$20B a year!). Yes, it was developing in-house alternatives for many components as part of its longstanding strategy of vertical integration, but it saw its central role in global tech supply chains as something that was desirable, not regrettable. Until the US government intervened.
The US has now given Huawei no choice but to throw its entire self into developing credible alternatives to US and western suppliers and it's bringing its army of 100,000+ engineers to bear on the problem. This was something Beijing's industrial policy never could have accomplished on its own.
Although it's true that the cat is, to some degree out of the bag here, it would be a mistake to claim that US has no policy choice at this point and must continue on the export control course. One claim in the piece is particularly outlandish:
"It’s hilariously unrealistic to think that if the Biden administration dropped all export controls tomorrow, Chinese companies would just go right back to buying their chips from Qualcomm, cheerfully relying on U.S. technology and scrapping their plans for innovation."
The above quote belies a complete misunderstanding of the current situation in China. All of Huawei's main competitors (Xiaomi, Oppo/Vivo/OnePlus, Lenovo, ZTE, etc.) procure most of their chips from US suppliers, particularly Qualcomm. That's because they've wanted to and they have to: not only is Qualcomm best in class, its main alternative (MediaTek) isn't a strong competitor at the high end. Those firms will all continue on procuring from Qualcomm (and Intel and Broadcom and Qorvo, and Skyworks, etc., etc.) if they are allowed. But unlike a year ago, if the US government decides to export control those Chinese firms too, they have a credible domestically-sourced alternative: Huawei's chips fabbed at SMIC. Based on rumors trickling out of the China tech scene, the same may soon be true for HPC needs and Nvidia. The closing of these gaps doesn't get China all the way to the cutting edge, but it buys it time. We shouldn't act like they aren't in parallel frantically pursuing a domestic EUV capability - various research and patent filings are giving glimpses of the movement on that front.
Yes, Beijing's march for self-sufficiency would have continued in either case. But Washington's moves against Huawei inadvertently (though predictably) pumped rocket fuel into that effort in a way that is already having significant unintended effects. Hand-waving away any potential for a modification of US policy to re-calibrate private sector incentives in China is a mistake. Washington still has choices.
Being on the leading edge is important for cellphones, but less so for most products. I see a lot of innovation coming from Chinese engineers and companies, there are a lot of fabs compared to what we have in the west. Engineers and scientists are saying we need to be able to work with our counterparts in China and promote the ideals of fair play, cooperation and meritocracy. We do not have the infrastructure to grow ASIC engineers in the US.
Insightful article as always. Let’s take a look at the purpose of export controls on chips. The stated objective is to constrain China from using advanced chips for military deployment. Other less clearly stated objectives are to constrain China’s overall development and stifle business competition in favour of American companies. As the objectives are conflated under “national security” it can be confusing. How sustainable are policies based on one or more of these objectives when the world is moving towards multi-polarity, challenging American hegemony?
America's sanctions on China aren't a solo move. Japan and the Netherlands and other countries agreed to similar blocks on key technology exports.
Why did those other countries agree? Because China's been a scary jerk for the last ten years, so now nobody wants Beijing to have more leverage for abuse. All the "multipolar" thinking and all China's economic temptation were outweighed by China's own record of bad behavior.
What's more, China's own economy is slowing down now from its investment boom, just as Japan did in the 1990s, while all the multinational corporations are "de-risking" away from China in case of more trouble.
What does that mean? It means 2022 was peak Chinese leverage. If America could get all the other countries on board with sanctions in 2022, before China's slowdown and the multinationals' derisking, any further sanction rounds will be only easier from here.
Of course, if China mended its reputation by turning peaceful again for a decade, sanctions might become hard to sustain. But if China turns peaceful for a decade and that's why sanctions are lifted, the term for such sanctions isn't "unsustainable." It's "successful."
Let's not forget that those "other countries agreed" under a great deal of pressure from the USA. The agreement with the Netherlands about ASML was (and I believe still is) a secret one.
Here in the Netherlands no one was pushing to limit exports.
The other country's agreed because they are our bitches and do as they're told. Just look at Hungary, who is being punished for being slightly out of line with US foreign policy. Poland, on the other hand, is not substantially different in governance but is at rabidly anti-Russian, or more, than the US, so the ruling coalition there can do what they want.
"Multipolar" isn't a magic word, after all, just an observation that America's economy isn't as huge versus the rest of the world as it once was.
"America alone" isn't as decisive as it used to be. But "America plus the other democracies" is still an overwhelming fraction of the world economy.
So as long as America's enemies also scare the world's other democracies, America can still get its way.
If BRICS were as real as NATO, if fast-growing India and Brazil formed a security alliance with China, then we could talk about America's hegemony being killed off by multipolarity.
But as Noah has observed, BRICS is a slogan not an alliance, especially on security issues. To India, China isn't an ally -- it's the most dangerous threat.
We can imagine a world where the USA allies tightly enough with Pakistan that India decides to make a serious alliance with China. Here in the actual world, India doesn't fully trust the USA -- but it's moving closer to it each year, thanks to ongoing and escalating provocations from China.
In other words, today's biggest force for continued American hegemony is Chinese foreign policy.
If Mate 60 Pro had revealed holes in US export control, China would have not released it now. You think Chinese are stupid enough to expose its own weaknesses so US can tighten control accordingly? The release of Mate 60 means China have found a way to make advanced chips inspite of US export control.
ASML is already at work on building a 2nm machine. In the R&D Lab it’s working toward 1nm, and thinking in terms of picometers (pm) and femtometers (fm). Who knows what the laws of physics will allow. But the each leap to 5nm to 3nm, to 2nm is likely incrementally 10 years. Chasing each integration is exponentially difficult and can’t be achieved repeatedly running a chip through the lithography process. Who’s going to make the mirrors, understand the exact array that is different for each iteration of nanometers, & etc.? There are some things all the government subsidies can’t buy or reverse-engineer.
1- China produces more engineers than the rest of the world
2- Those engineers handicapped by various sanctions were able to produce a comparable product to engineers not handicapped by sanctions.
So, what does that mean? They have quantity and quality engineers. The more time passes the more they get closer to the critical mass that will allow them to break through some ceilings.
If you think the Chinese are not capable of creativity and innovation, then look at the next facts:
1- ASML patents have 35% Chinese names in them
2- If you look at patents outside China a lot of Chinese names are in them too.
3- If you visit research labs in the US in several fields, most of the researchers are Chinese
All what I mentioned, is never factored in conclusions drawn from China's progress in technology.
Because if they were to be included, it will contradict many myths about China.
1- Chinese government is oppressing its people
2- The communist party is incompetent
3- Chinese are low IQ and incapable of innovation and creativity
Yet, the developed tech that allowed them to:
1- Land on the dark side of the moon before everybody
2- Built a space station that will be the only one for earth in a few years
3- Landed on Mars on first shot
4- Took the lead in 5G technology
5- Developed Hyper-sonic missiles that rendered aircraft carriers obsolete
6- According to ASPI, China has dominance in 53 out of 64 critical technology.
"The most dramatic statement of confidence in China’s indigenous chip industry that I’ve seen so far comes from the blog SemiAnalysis, which predicts that Chinese chipmaker SMIC will be able to work around any and all equipment limitations."
What? That's not what we said. Please read it again.
"The most dramatic statement of confidence in China’s indigenous chip industry that I’ve seen so far comes from the research firm SemiAnalysis, which predicts that Chinese chipmaker SMIC will be able to work around all of the equipment limitations that have so far been proposed."
No one seems to have commented on the time it takes to get from chip technology to chip to chip in a new product.
This is much more than 12 months so a new phone with a new chip today has nothing to do with restrictions implemented less than a year ago.
Yeah that's an important point.
Bumped up to the main post!
Thank you.
So I'm still in the data gathering stage, but for one of my papers semiconductor industry experts estimated the design-finished goods timeline at 4 yrs for consumer goods, and 10 years for military hardware (in the United States)
Despite some reports out there, this isn't domestication of chip making in China at all--they are still using old imported lithography machines, just in a novel way to juice out chips a few nanometers below what they are intended to make. The machines themselves are still from the Netherlands with German mirrors and full of American IP with complexity beyond the limit of human comprehension. What China is finding out now is the limits to their old equipment. It doesn't reflect a failure in sanctions regime at all, and I'd guess that their capacity to keep up with the West in chips will diverge over time. Taiwan was making 7nm chips five years ago.
China's 14nm DUV will be in production by end of 2023/
anywhere i can read more about this?
Nice post. People seem to wishful-think sanctions into a magic bullet they've never been, then complain the imaginary bullet isn't lethal.
Sanctions are just a string of roadblocks. They're lousy at stopping things altogether, but pretty good at making things expensive, inconvenient, and a whole lot slower. If "expensive, inconvenient, and a whole lot slower" gives you negotiating leverage, or time to counter an opponent, that's a good case for sanctions.
If you don't really have a proposal worth negotiating, or a plan to put time on your side, sanctions aren't going to fix that for you. Sanctions exist to complement and strengthen the rest of your negotiating strategy or play-for-time strategy. They're not a strategy by themselves.
Personally I think our China strategy makes sense. Sanctions buy us more time for all our other tools to work. It's up to us to use that time well.
"They're lousy at stopping things altogether, but pretty good at making things expensive, inconvenient, and a whole lot slower."
Excellent description! And that's why our sanctions on Russia are helping to thwart their ambitions in Ukraine.
Why weren't we sanctioned for Iraq? Should we have been?
Sometimes, manufacturing and commitment outweigh a technology edge. Russia makes more artillery shells than the USA and Europe combined; it's even sending more drones to Ukraine than the west, despite drones being high-tech compared to explosive-filled 155mm cones of steel.
So even Russia, never mind China, is managing their quality gap with a quantity advantage.
Sanctions will buy the USA some time. But our only lasting deterrent will be if America relearns how to be an "arsenal of democracy." Billion-dollar systems built one at a time are a sign of vulnerability, not strength; the USA that'll deter China is a USA that can build military equipment not just with quality, but in quantity.
You're actually pointing to the US as the world's good guys? I'm sure the millions of dead people that were the targets of the "arsenal of democracy" appreciate it.
How about an update on TSMC's Arizona venture? I hear it's not going great.
Coming soon.
The world is truly mad. What does a Chinese company producing a consumer phone have anything to do with America? So killing this innovative business seems make you all happier?
Look, China could have been friendly to its neighbors and not gone for the whole world-domination thing. They chose to approach international relations with a Cold War mindset, and the rest of the world is responding appropriately. If China's leaders wants a more productive, harmonious relationship with the world, they should stop trying to claim other countries' territory and stop threatening to start wars with their neighbors.
How can you say that with a straight face Noah? Like most Americans, Noah is just in denial that what this really boils down to is America remaining number one. We engaged in a similar trade war with Japan during the 1980s despite Japan ostensibly being a democratic ally and we often attacked it with the same rhetoric then that we use against China today. It's pretty clear that the American political class has decided that it's better for America to be queen of the ashes rather than the US being 2nd to China in a prosperous world.
Noah's statement above is laughably unaware. China hasn't been in an official shooting war since 1979 against Vietnam, meanwhile the US has engaged in countless wars since that time including Iraq and Afghanistan. As John Mearsheimer points out, countries that embrace liberal universalism and try to export their values often cause greater global instability than authoritarian regimes, especially ones like China. Is there a Chinese equivalent to the American phenomenon of neoconservative in recent decades, with its absurd belief that American military prowess should be used to bring about regime change around the globe?
Claiming that China is going for world domination is laughable. Even if you granted China all of its recent border claims and their new 10 dash line, the amount of additional territory gained would be minimal. Compare that to British colonialism back in the day when the British Empire was described as one where the sun literally never set. China maintains a narrow set of core interests such as Taiwan or the South China Sea and some current border disputes with countries like India, but beyond that rarely interferes in the politics of other places around the globe or even seems to have all that much interest.
What really bothers Americans like Noah is that China just seems to be outcompeting us. Maybe they work harder. Maybe they educate their population much better than we do. Maybe their political class is actually competent instead of being a complete joke like the American political class. Pick any combination of explanations you want.
This is basically just aggrievement 101, with heaps of pettiness and crude attacks directed towards China and Chinese people. No need to dignify it as anything else. We did the exact same thing to the Japanese back in the day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/03/08/hammering-americas-image/bdd81faa-7f68-407e-afb9-dbc96baa718a/
Hi Yan.
I agree with you, in general, that Noah has maybe gone a bit too far with his China bashing lately, and has implicitly whitewashed some US atrocities along the way.
Still. Substack is a website that is banned in China. The fact that you come here to discuss and debate freely and openly implies that you see such open dialogue as important and worthwhile.
So let's unpack one of your statements--
"As John Mearsheimer points out, countries that embrace liberal universalism and try to export their values often cause greater global instability than authoritarian regimes, especially ones like China."
Sure. Ok. Whatever. Listen man... Liberal Universalism. What we call here freedom and human rights. That's important. Let's add TRUTH to the mix as well. These thing matter. A government that engages in thought control, is not beholden to truth, and does not respect individual rights or the rule of law cannot be the world #1 because such a world would be a hellscape. That's it man.
China has already used her economic might to censor individuals and firms in the USA. That ship has sailed. There is no question, to freedom-loving humans, that a China-led order would be a bleak one.
"rarely interferes in the politics of other places around the globe or even seems to have all that much interest."
Hilarious. Ever heard of South Korea / THAAD?
"What really bothers Americans like Noah is that China just seems to be outcompeting us."
Nice straw man. No where in your article do you even vaguely make reference to the barbarity of CCP rule. If I am not free to speak my mind in some society, that is a badly deranged society and it would be dangerous for such a system to become dominant. Dangerous to all of us.
We invaded Iraq to help China…from a globalist perspective George W Bush was probably the greatest leader in history and more people increased their standard of living during Bush’s 8 years than any leader in history. And remember why we were involved in Iraq in the first place—we wanted to increase the global oil supply which is fundamental to expanding the global middle class.
The U.S. might want to follow that advice as well, says a Vietnam War Era veteran...
Rest of the world?
Is that a reference to Vivek and the GOPeanut gallery threatening to invade Mexico to take out cartel fentanyl factories? I don’t know which territories or wars you’re alluding to.
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen... pick a conflict, any conflict.
None of those are American neighbors and the wars were not territorial. I am against American involvement in all those wars to which you can add Syria, Somalia and even Grenada, but the US hasn’t claimed possession of another country since Hawaii. And invading Mexico has been a bad idea since the Gadsden Purchase, in whose territory I now reside.
The neoconservative movement literally evangelized supposed American exceptionalism and advocated for using American military force to impose regime change across the globe. Is there a Chinese equivalent? What if China started espousing Chinese exceptionalism and a belief in the mandate to use military force to impose regime change to its liking around the world? We'd probably see pundits like Noah going nuts comparing the Chinese government to Nazi Germany.
China hasn't been in an official shooting war since 1979, since which the US has been involved in countless wars, some of them complete debacles like Iraq. It's hard to take commentary like Noah's seriously.
As far as Taiwan goes, there may have been a shift towards a more separate notion of Taiwanese identity with the younger generation and with the DPP as opposed to the KMT, but the notion of there being one China is hardly some fringe belief on the island.
To be honest I've become very cynical and jaded by all of the discourse in the US blogosphere over China. It's all just people in denial that the root cause of all of this is the deep fear that China will outcompete and supplant America as number one, so everyone comes up with all sorts of deluded rhetoric about why their China bashing is supposedly in defense of some higher principle.
I hate to break it to you guys, but at the end of the day China is a country with a population of 1.4 billion smart and hard working people. Ultimately, the only ones who can stop China's rise are the Chinese themselves. The sooner the American political and pundit class abandons the notion that it can somehow control the development of a civilization spanning 5000 years, the easier it'll be for us going forward. America needs to learn to live with China, for better or worse.
Noah mentioned “world domination” and the U.S. is often accused of such desires. My point is that China has not gone beyond minor territorial disputes often left over from former Western imperialism in the region. The U.S. is arming Taiwan and meddling in Chinese internal affairs.
Iraq was about oil which is essentially like territory. Libya was also about energy and Afghanistan was just the dumbest war in history which is why Bush/Cheney initially didn’t care about it.
The global semi-conductor supply chain was working fine. None of our allies were calling for sanctions against China. Even TSMC was perfectly happy to build chips for Chinese companies like HiSilicon. It was the insecurity of the US political class and their deep fear that China might replace America as number one that resulted in the US forcing countries around the globe to fracture what had been a perfectly functional semiconductor supply chain.
America unilaterally decided that China had to be contained, so it forced the world into a state where global productivity surely was worse off as a whole in a desperate attempt to retain relative American supremacy. Like I said, better to be queen of the ashes than 2nd to China in a prosperous world. I saw your recent tweets about America innovating but not building, while Rome and Ming China built but didn't innovate. Increasingly these days it feels like America is doing neither and to the extent that it innovates it relies disproportionately on Asian immigrants. I'd been interested in a comparison of the demographics of the people who work in technical roles at companies like Qualcomm or Nvidia vs the demographics of our American political class foaming at the mouth with Sinophobia.
It would be one thing if America could manufacture sub 10nm chips without relying on TSMC or Samsung and led by example, but rather than doing so America simply tried to cause as much global chaos as possible in a desperate attempt to contain China. Contrast that with what China has done in EVs, leaping to the forefront in battery tech even if the origins of technology such as lithium ion batteries may have begun in the West + Japan. If the US and EU actually worked with China, they could actually realize their green goals and pivot off of new ICE vehicles by 2035. Instead, as evidenced by the insane reaction of American politicians in response to Ford licensing CATL's LFP battery technologies to build a plant in Michigan, Americans would rather harm themselves economically if it meant being able to be anti-China.
Basically what you fail to realize Noah is that if Americans keep going down this unproductive path, we're going to lose the respect of our allies and others around the globe. I was actually surprised by the amount of pro-Huawei sentiment in the US blogosphere in response to the recent SMIC N+2 and Huawei Mate 60 Pro news. People realize that the US political class is just coming across as insecure jerks. America no longer leads by example by innovating, it just tries to engage in asshole politics. Meanwhile China might literally lift up the entire world into the post-ICE age.
This website is banned in China. How does that impact on your view of China, if at all?
I take your point on this one Noah but I also think that saying China is trying to dominate the world is a touch bombastic
I don't know what Chinese people care about, but the CCP is plainly trying to dominate Asia. The majority of governments in the region (Korea, Japan, Phillipines, Australia, NZ, Taiwan, etc.) share this view. China is literally attacking foreign military and civilians vessels with ramming, water cannons and blinding lasers in the SCS. Wake up.
It is remarkable how easily most left liberals have become indistinguishable from Dick Cheney or Richard Pearle on foreign policy since 2016.
Noah implies that China is getting what it deserves by being a big, bad authoritarian Communist regime stirring up trouble. I wonder what he believes the rationale or justification was for America similarly trying to cripple Japan's semiconductor industry in the 1980s, given that Japan was our erstwhile democratic ally.
Yeah I've love to know how Noah would respond to 45 year old whataboutism. Fascinating.
It's all just post hoc reasoning for the US being the global hegemon.
Excellent. Thanks
To me, this is a reassuring development. Not understanding the technology, I had thought that the export controls was more akin to a commodity cutoff than an important strategic move to slow down China's progress. If China believes it can overcome the export controls in time, then they are less likely to take any drastic actions. Thanks for clarifying!
robertsdavidn.substack.com.about
It's funny that in China, ignorant people like Noah would be seen as products of the bureaucratic system, while in the United States, such people are seen as experts and think tanks.
I think Noah is less ignorant than you, Mr Liu.
Noah's website is banned in China. So, actually, he would not be "seen" in China at all. Not with his content as it is today. He would just be someone in prison that people never heard of. They would know vaguely perhaps that he is some foreign agent with dangerous and wrong ideas, but they would not be allowed to read his writing.
It's baffling to me how many China lovers miss this key fact. China censors. That's a huge deal for free-thinking people. That you come here to an uncensored Western website that is banned in China and then act like everything is hunky dory there. Please.
On the other hand, unhinged CCP sources are free to run their mouths non-stop here in the US and they are perceived for what they are.
Your assertion that in China there is a more sensible public debate is so laughable it veers into being just plain entertaining. Thank you.
This is typical Western arrogance and ignorance.
Europe and the United States are actually a legal group represented by a bunch of lawyers, and a medical group represented by doctors, which tie up the "old money" of these countries to exploit them domestically and abroad. At the same time, they have raised a group of liberal arts losers to maintain their right to speak. There are some leading dogs (such as Noah) and some dogs with worrying IQs (such as Michael).
Once they talk about China, these people immediately reflexively say "Ah, you are in prison, you can't access our website, you are not free", and then take it for granted that "you are backward, you need to learn from us, you are not as good as us" , or "You don't have wiser public judgment, and your efficiency is poor." Completely ignoring a series of hard-core indicators that human civilization and society really need, including average life expectancy, per capita medical conditions, the gap between rich and poor, the scope of drug spread, the educational conditions available to the poorest people, etc., Europe and the United States have actually fallen behind China. It's like a sleepwalking liberal arts student. When an outstanding science student uses data to prove that A is worse than B, the liberal arts student can't provide any proof. He will only repeat like a mentally retarded three-year-old child, "You are the worst, you are the worst." The worst, you are the worst...".
But is it really stupid or fake? Michael, if you think it's funny, just laugh. If you think it's entertainment, just enjoy it. It’s good. In another 20 years, our next generation will look down from the top of the mountain at you traitors who have ruined their country for your own selfish interests (even though you are selling your country, not mine, but we still despise traitors. --This is the moral code adhered to by Eastern civilization).
"Completely ignoring a series of hard-core indicators that human civilization and society really need, including average life expectancy, per capita medical conditions, the gap between rich and poor, the scope of drug spread, the educational conditions available to the poorest people, etc.,"
I don't see how any of the material conditions you refer to are at odd with human rights. Maybe you can explain that to us?
The hypocritical American dog started clamoring for "human rights" again, hahahaha.
What do you think of human rights? Is it a human right like "oh shit, I'm Black, I can't breathe"? It's a pity that this kind of thing happens on a large scale in the United States rather than China.
However, it is understandable. After all, the Americans are a group of pagans who were eliminated by Catholicism and fled to the American continent on the Mayflower. They killed millions of Indians (what about the human rights of indigenous peoples like Indians? Mr. Michael? ), are a bunch of complete hypocritical losers.
This post makes some of the same mistakes that many other commentators have on this topic (mistakes that are common on both sides of the issue, btw). Two things can be true: 1/ The 9000s isn't proof that US export controls have no effect; 2/ Huawei/SMIC have made a genuine capability breakthrough on a far faster timeline than was predicted just 2 or so years ago.
When Huawei was first added to the Entity List in 2019 and then restrictions were tightened further in 2020 to preclude its use of TSMC to fab its in-house HiSilicon chips, the state of the art was 7nm (with 5nm in sight). Lots of observation at the time pegged China as being "roughly a decade" away from being able to reach best in class. And yet, 3-4 years later, they've now reached what was (at that time) the best in class.
This has taken them less than half the time many predicted and demonstrates not so much the power of Beijing's industrial policy, but the power of what can be achieved when the incentives of China's leading private sector players (e.g., Huawei) are forcibly aligned with the Chinese state's due to US export controls. Huawei was happy to continue procuring from US suppliers (it was buying ~$20B a year!). Yes, it was developing in-house alternatives for many components as part of its longstanding strategy of vertical integration, but it saw its central role in global tech supply chains as something that was desirable, not regrettable. Until the US government intervened.
The US has now given Huawei no choice but to throw its entire self into developing credible alternatives to US and western suppliers and it's bringing its army of 100,000+ engineers to bear on the problem. This was something Beijing's industrial policy never could have accomplished on its own.
Although it's true that the cat is, to some degree out of the bag here, it would be a mistake to claim that US has no policy choice at this point and must continue on the export control course. One claim in the piece is particularly outlandish:
"It’s hilariously unrealistic to think that if the Biden administration dropped all export controls tomorrow, Chinese companies would just go right back to buying their chips from Qualcomm, cheerfully relying on U.S. technology and scrapping their plans for innovation."
The above quote belies a complete misunderstanding of the current situation in China. All of Huawei's main competitors (Xiaomi, Oppo/Vivo/OnePlus, Lenovo, ZTE, etc.) procure most of their chips from US suppliers, particularly Qualcomm. That's because they've wanted to and they have to: not only is Qualcomm best in class, its main alternative (MediaTek) isn't a strong competitor at the high end. Those firms will all continue on procuring from Qualcomm (and Intel and Broadcom and Qorvo, and Skyworks, etc., etc.) if they are allowed. But unlike a year ago, if the US government decides to export control those Chinese firms too, they have a credible domestically-sourced alternative: Huawei's chips fabbed at SMIC. Based on rumors trickling out of the China tech scene, the same may soon be true for HPC needs and Nvidia. The closing of these gaps doesn't get China all the way to the cutting edge, but it buys it time. We shouldn't act like they aren't in parallel frantically pursuing a domestic EUV capability - various research and patent filings are giving glimpses of the movement on that front.
Yes, Beijing's march for self-sufficiency would have continued in either case. But Washington's moves against Huawei inadvertently (though predictably) pumped rocket fuel into that effort in a way that is already having significant unintended effects. Hand-waving away any potential for a modification of US policy to re-calibrate private sector incentives in China is a mistake. Washington still has choices.
Being on the leading edge is important for cellphones, but less so for most products. I see a lot of innovation coming from Chinese engineers and companies, there are a lot of fabs compared to what we have in the west. Engineers and scientists are saying we need to be able to work with our counterparts in China and promote the ideals of fair play, cooperation and meritocracy. We do not have the infrastructure to grow ASIC engineers in the US.
Insightful article as always. Let’s take a look at the purpose of export controls on chips. The stated objective is to constrain China from using advanced chips for military deployment. Other less clearly stated objectives are to constrain China’s overall development and stifle business competition in favour of American companies. As the objectives are conflated under “national security” it can be confusing. How sustainable are policies based on one or more of these objectives when the world is moving towards multi-polarity, challenging American hegemony?
America's sanctions on China aren't a solo move. Japan and the Netherlands and other countries agreed to similar blocks on key technology exports.
Why did those other countries agree? Because China's been a scary jerk for the last ten years, so now nobody wants Beijing to have more leverage for abuse. All the "multipolar" thinking and all China's economic temptation were outweighed by China's own record of bad behavior.
What's more, China's own economy is slowing down now from its investment boom, just as Japan did in the 1990s, while all the multinational corporations are "de-risking" away from China in case of more trouble.
What does that mean? It means 2022 was peak Chinese leverage. If America could get all the other countries on board with sanctions in 2022, before China's slowdown and the multinationals' derisking, any further sanction rounds will be only easier from here.
Of course, if China mended its reputation by turning peaceful again for a decade, sanctions might become hard to sustain. But if China turns peaceful for a decade and that's why sanctions are lifted, the term for such sanctions isn't "unsustainable." It's "successful."
Let's not forget that those "other countries agreed" under a great deal of pressure from the USA. The agreement with the Netherlands about ASML was (and I believe still is) a secret one.
Here in the Netherlands no one was pushing to limit exports.
The other country's agreed because they are our bitches and do as they're told. Just look at Hungary, who is being punished for being slightly out of line with US foreign policy. Poland, on the other hand, is not substantially different in governance but is at rabidly anti-Russian, or more, than the US, so the ruling coalition there can do what they want.
"Multipolar" isn't a magic word, after all, just an observation that America's economy isn't as huge versus the rest of the world as it once was.
"America alone" isn't as decisive as it used to be. But "America plus the other democracies" is still an overwhelming fraction of the world economy.
So as long as America's enemies also scare the world's other democracies, America can still get its way.
If BRICS were as real as NATO, if fast-growing India and Brazil formed a security alliance with China, then we could talk about America's hegemony being killed off by multipolarity.
But as Noah has observed, BRICS is a slogan not an alliance, especially on security issues. To India, China isn't an ally -- it's the most dangerous threat.
We can imagine a world where the USA allies tightly enough with Pakistan that India decides to make a serious alliance with China. Here in the actual world, India doesn't fully trust the USA -- but it's moving closer to it each year, thanks to ongoing and escalating provocations from China.
In other words, today's biggest force for continued American hegemony is Chinese foreign policy.
If Mate 60 Pro had revealed holes in US export control, China would have not released it now. You think Chinese are stupid enough to expose its own weaknesses so US can tighten control accordingly? The release of Mate 60 means China have found a way to make advanced chips inspite of US export control.
ASML is already at work on building a 2nm machine. In the R&D Lab it’s working toward 1nm, and thinking in terms of picometers (pm) and femtometers (fm). Who knows what the laws of physics will allow. But the each leap to 5nm to 3nm, to 2nm is likely incrementally 10 years. Chasing each integration is exponentially difficult and can’t be achieved repeatedly running a chip through the lithography process. Who’s going to make the mirrors, understand the exact array that is different for each iteration of nanometers, & etc.? There are some things all the government subsidies can’t buy or reverse-engineer.
This is what we know so far:
1- China produces more engineers than the rest of the world
2- Those engineers handicapped by various sanctions were able to produce a comparable product to engineers not handicapped by sanctions.
So, what does that mean? They have quantity and quality engineers. The more time passes the more they get closer to the critical mass that will allow them to break through some ceilings.
If you think the Chinese are not capable of creativity and innovation, then look at the next facts:
1- ASML patents have 35% Chinese names in them
2- If you look at patents outside China a lot of Chinese names are in them too.
3- If you visit research labs in the US in several fields, most of the researchers are Chinese
All what I mentioned, is never factored in conclusions drawn from China's progress in technology.
Because if they were to be included, it will contradict many myths about China.
1- Chinese government is oppressing its people
2- The communist party is incompetent
3- Chinese are low IQ and incapable of innovation and creativity
Yet, the developed tech that allowed them to:
1- Land on the dark side of the moon before everybody
2- Built a space station that will be the only one for earth in a few years
3- Landed on Mars on first shot
4- Took the lead in 5G technology
5- Developed Hyper-sonic missiles that rendered aircraft carriers obsolete
6- According to ASPI, China has dominance in 53 out of 64 critical technology.
"The most dramatic statement of confidence in China’s indigenous chip industry that I’ve seen so far comes from the blog SemiAnalysis, which predicts that Chinese chipmaker SMIC will be able to work around any and all equipment limitations."
What? That's not what we said. Please read it again.
Updated to:
"The most dramatic statement of confidence in China’s indigenous chip industry that I’ve seen so far comes from the research firm SemiAnalysis, which predicts that Chinese chipmaker SMIC will be able to work around all of the equipment limitations that have so far been proposed."