October 24, 2024
America Needs Clear Standards for China Tech Decoupling
Last month, the Biden administration proposed a rule to effectively sweep Chinese cars from the U.S. market. If enacted, the rule would ban the sale or import of any “connected vehicle” with certain Chinese technology. Today’s cars are essentially smartphones on wheels, equipped with increasingly sophisticated external connections, software, and sensors that constantly monitor the world around them. The administration rightly worries that Beijing could exploit these underlying technologies to turn American vehicles into unwitting surveillance vans for the Chinese Communist Party—or worse, to hijack them entirely.
Policymakers are slowly awaking to a rise in China’s cyber threat and the United States’ digital vulnerability. If there is a growing consensus to expand the country’s decoupling from Chinese tech, however, there is still no clear vision for how to do so responsibly.
This broad, virtually unchecked authority to ban Chinese apps and products resembles more of a loaded gun than a considered policy.
Washington must soon move beyond ad hoc bans against specific apps (such as TikTok) and categories (such as connected vehicles) and articulate a broader policy that identifies clear risks and limiting principles to inform which Chinese technologies Washington can tolerate in the U.S. market, and which it cannot. Absent this, policymakers risk barreling toward an improvisational, potentially vast tech decoupling from China with poorly understood consequences for American consumers, industry, and foreign policy.
The absence of a clear risk mitigation framework for Chinese tech creates uncertainty for the businesses, factories, and farmers who rightly wonder if their Chinese-linked products and components will be the next mole that Washington decides to whack. Today’s vague and easily abused executive power to ban Chinese tech also gives Beijing pretext to justify its own arbitrary restrictions on the $154 billion of U.S. exports to its massive market.
Read the full article on Foreign Policy.
More from CNAS
-
What Is ‘Sovereign AI’ Anyway?
Pablo Chavez, Adjunct Senior Fellow with CNAS's Technology and National Security Program, joins POLITICO Tech to discuss how the term “sovereign AI” gets thrown around a lot i...
By Pablo Chavez
-
U.S. Chip Controls and the Future of AI Compute
That escalated quickly! Emily and Geoff discuss why the U.S. aim to deny China access to the computing power necessary for frontier AI capabilities has led to an ever expandin...
By Emily Kilcrease, Geoffrey Gertz & Pablo Chavez
-
Asymmetry and AI: The Battle for Power
Paul Scharre, Vice President and Director of Studies at CNAS, joins Zero Pressure to discuss the world of asymmetric warfare, a term used to describe imbalances in conflict. F...
By Paul Scharre
-
Competition, Not Control, is Key to Winning the Global AI Race
The United States, with much of the world’s AI-enabling infrastructure, has positioned itself as the global leader in AI innovation. That might not be the case for much longer...
By Keegan McBride & Matthew Mittelsteadt