• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

brihard said:
You’re presenting a false either/or. Western nations should gauge what’s in our best interests based on our best assessment of likely adversary responses, do the things that assess to be in our best interests based but then remain concerned about and attentive to what the other guy does- it may not match our expectations, and the math might change in ways we weren’t anticipating.

China has a way of looking at things holistically and on very long time frames that we struggle with.
Click to expand...
China has a way of having civil wars when it gets too big for the rulers in the centre to effectively impose their authority everywhere.

Appeasement and co-operation makes their position stronger. Then I suppose we'd "gauge our interests", find our position weakening, and order up more appeasement and co-operation. Etc.
 
Brad Sallows said:
China has a way of having civil wars when it gets too big for the rulers in the centre to effectively impose their authority everywhere.

Appeasement and co-operation makes their position stronger. Then I suppose we'd "gauge our interests", find our position weakening, and order up more appeasement and co-operation. Etc.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you’re replying to exactly. It certainly doesn’t address anything I’ve actually said.
 
brihard said:
Not sure what you’re replying to exactly. It certainly doesn’t address anything I’ve actually said.
Click to expand...
Probably not. I'm addressing the "must punish Russia" / "must accommodate China" crowd. Both governments pose similar threats. Accommodation works cyclically - the more you accommodate, the more powerful they become, and the more you must accommodate. Problems are best solved while small, so don't accommodate when the threat is obvious. Even Russia hasn't managed the degree of political and industrial interference that China does.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Probably not. I'm addressing the "must punish Russia" / "must accommodate China" crowd. Both governments pose similar threats. Accommodation works cyclically - the more you accommodate, the more powerful they become, and the more you must accommodate. Problems are best solved while small, so don't accommodate when the threat is obvious. Even Russia hasn't managed the degree of political and industrial interference that China does.
Click to expand...
Got it. I mistakenly took your post to suggest I was advancing the position you were describing. Assuredly not.
 
Brad Sallows said:
International students, particularly from countries with larger populations, are vital to the interests of the US, provided it can entice most of them to remain in the US. That is how the US can maintain a strategic advantage on the bleeding edges of everything despite a smaller population.

However, that generous education policy is counterproductive if students are a significant gateway for espionage or do not mostly remain in the US.
Click to expand...
US study visa holders MUST leave within 60 days of the end of their studies. They are considered temporary residents.
 
Haggis said:
US study visa holders MUST leave within 60 days of the end of their studies. They are considered temporary residents.
Click to expand...
I'm referring to people who make a subsequent choice to apply for immigration.

The ultimate resource is human intellect. Countries with large populations (eg. China, India) have more of it. If they're turning out millions more university graduates per year (each), the only way to compete is to attract the best talent to immigrate. If the US wants to remain dominant, it must not only educate foreigners, but convince them to stay (or return).
 
Brad Sallows said:
I'm referring to people who make a subsequent choice to apply for immigration.

The ultimate resource is human intellect. Countries with large populations (eg. China, India) have more of it. If they're turning out millions more university graduates per year (each), the only way to compete is to attract the best talent to immigrate. If the US wants to remain dominant, it must not only educate foreigners, but convince them to stay (or return).
Click to expand...
Problem is that there are related national security and economic integrity issues that distort the market. It’a no secret that foreign students have been implicated in state-backed intellectual property and research theft. Our very openness to attracting human capital - and don’t get me wrong; economically you’re right about that in and of itself if it’s set aside on its own - also brings with it very serious vulnerabilities. We need to figure out how to balance those things. Attracting smarter innovators and researchers doesn’t confer much advantage to us if the work they’re paid for here goes right out the door to help a foreign adversary. And there’s lots of that. It’s baked right in to things like China’s Thousand Talents Program.
 
Most people don't really want to risk liberty to spy on behalf of a government, particularly if their prior inclination is to build a better mousetrap. There are risks/costs, but the benefits are huge.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Most people don't really want to risk liberty to spy on behalf of a government, particularly if their prior inclination is to build a better mousetrap. There are risks/costs, but the benefits are huge.
Click to expand...
It’s a lot less simple and a lot more pernicious than that. I’m not talking about the MechEng student doing their co-op placement at Acme Mousetrap Co. Not all sectors are of much interest.

If a sector is of interest, and Chinese students are academically placed in that sector (or potentially could be), they can be quite vulnerable to direct and indirect leverage. The same tools used to try to rein in dissidents can be used to exploit people positioned to bring material advantage.

Some publicly available surface-scratching is mentioned here when Vigneault spoke on it a couple years ago. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-director-five-eyes-research-1.6998874

I’m sure the redacted version of either an NSICOP or a PIFI report covered it in the last few years, I just don’t have it at hand. I’ll try to remember to loop back. There has been at least a bit of a curtain pulled back on this stuff in the public domain over the last six years or so.

As I’ve said, a very considered and balanced approach is needed.
 
brihard said:
It’s a lot less simple and a lot more pernicious than that. I’m not talking about the MechEng student doing their co-op placement at Acme Mousetrap Co. Not all sectors are of much interest.

If a sector is of interest, and Chinese students are academically placed in that sector (or potentially could be), they can be quite vulnerable to direct and indirect leverage. The same tools used to try to rein in dissidents can be used to exploit people positioned to bring material advantage.

Some publicly available surface-scratching is mentioned here when Vigneault spoke on it a couple years ago. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-director-five-eyes-research-1.6998874

I’m sure the redacted version of either an NSICOP or a PIFI report covered it in the last few years, I just don’t have it at hand. I’ll try to remember to loop back. There has been at least a bit of a curtain pulled back on this stuff in the public domain over the last six years or so.

As I’ve said, a very considered and balanced approach is needed.
Click to expand...

And, of course, The West 'spies back' at them too...
 
daftandbarmy said:
And, of course, The West 'spies back' at them too...
Click to expand...
True, but we don't flood China or India with tens of thousands of students, have the mechanism to monitor them and have the practical ability to threaten to 'disappear' their relatives if they don't cooperate with the State.

According to this, Chinese post secondary institutions have a student population of about 38.3 million and, of that, 255.720 were international; less than 1%. A link showed roughly 35,000 were from "the Americas". A number of sources said US students in China was around 800. The US reported 277,398 students from China alone in 2023/4. International students in total make up about 6% of US post-secondary students.
 
brihard said:
It’a no secret that foreign students have been implicated in state-backed intellectual property and research theft.
Click to expand...
Yup, the academic reverse Red Swallow modus operandi.
 
Isn't the "linked to the CCP" criteria a bit broad? Thought Party membership was somewhat the done thing for the ambitious or connected, i.e., the sort of person who'd also be inclined to study abroad if it offered better outcomes than domestic ed.
 
quadrapiper said:
Isn't the "linked to the CCP" criteria a bit broad? Thought Party membership was somewhat the done thing for the ambitious or connected, i.e., the sort of person who'd also be inclined to study abroad if it offered better outcomes than domestic ed.
Click to expand...
The way I understand it, every Chinese citizen is 'linked to the CCP' whether they like it or not or know it or not. The mechanisms of the State in relation to its citizens are both pernicious and insidious. Report on a colleague or fellow student, send us a photo of something. Allegations of 'police stations' in foreign countries like Canada aren't there to look after the well-being of the ex-pats.
 
lenaitch said:
The way I understand it, every Chinese citizen is 'linked to the CCP' whether they like it or not or know it or not. The mechanisms of the State in relation to its citizens are both pernicious and insidious. Report on a colleague or fellow student, send us a photo of something. Allegations of 'police stations' in foreign countries like Canada aren't there to look after the well-being of the ex-pats.
Click to expand...
Yup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top