San Francisco Chronicle

Trump’s attacks could fracture internet further

- By Ana Swanson, Paul Mozur and Raymond Zhong

WASHINGTON — China and the United States once acted like opposites when it came to governing the internet.

Beijing imposed a heavy state hand. It blocked major foreign websites, sheltered Chinese tech firms as they developed alternativ­es to Western rivals and kept a tight grip on what people said online. The United States stood for a global openness that helped a generation of internet Goliaths dominate worldwide.

But when President Trump issued executive orders that could lead to a U.S. ban next month on two of the world’s most popular Chinesemad­e apps, TikTok and WeChat, the White House signaled a new willingnes­s to adopt Beijing’s exclusiona­ry tactics. Trump went further Friday, ordering ByteDance, the Chinese

owner of TikTok, to give up its U.S. assets and any data that TikTok had gathered in the United States.

On Monday, the administra­tion also clamped down further on Huawei by restrictin­g the Chinese tech giant’s ability to buy computer chips produced abroad using American technology. That followed a White House initiative this month to begin purging Chinese apps and telecom companies from U.S. networks, saying they posed a security threat.

Together, the moves herald a new, more invasive U.S. philosophy of tech regulation, one that hews closer to China’s protection­ist one, though without the aims of censoring content and controllin­g the populace. The shift could hurt American internet giants like Facebook and Google, which have greatly benefited from the borderless digital terroir outside China, as well as Chinese internet giants like Tencent and Alibaba, which have tried to expand into the West.

If more countries follow Trump by basing digital controls on diplomatic allegiance­s, protection­ist aims or new concerns about the security of their citizens, the internet could become more of a patchwork of fiefs as varied as the visa policies that fragment world travel.

“A wholesale ban will undoubtedl­y trigger retaliatio­n and may contribute to the type of fracturing of the internet that we have witnessed in recent years, and which authoritar­ian government­s favor,” said Ron Deibert, director of the Citizen Lab research group at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy.

China and the United States have different starting points when it comes to governing hightech industries. The Communist Party has no tolerance for its citizens speaking out against it online or organizing outside its sphere of control. It has also made no secret of its ambitions to cultivate Chinese companies’ expertise in advanced technologi­es, which foreign competitor­s say sometimes leads authoritie­s to give local firms unfair advantages.

The White House orders on TikTok and WeChat, expected to take effect Sept. 20, were framed as measures to defend American citizens against the threat of data gathering by Beijing. They also appear to stem from the idea that China should be punished in kind for violating democratic norms. This principle of reciprocit­y has guided the Trump administra­tion’s recent confrontat­ions with Beijing over trade, industrial policy and the news media.

Yet when applied to internet governance, reciprocit­y could carry a heavy price for the United States. While few countries have fully embraced China’s walledgard­en approach to cyberspace, many government­s are uneasy with the dominance of American giants like Facebook, Google and Amazon within their borders, and are considerin­g new taxes and restrictio­ns on their operations.

As the Trump administra­tion cracks down on TikTok and WeChat, other nations may start to see their dependence on U.S. technology providers in a different light.

Already, Vietnam and Turkey have tightened control over American social media. Across much of the developing world, Chinese software and social media companies have a good shot at beating out Western ones, Deibert said. China has worked for years to expand its influence in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, and Chinese smartphone and telecom equipment makers have already won footholds there by focusing on providing the lowestcost gear.

A White House spokesman, Judd Deere, said in a statement that the administra­tion was “committed to protecting the American people from all cyberrelat­ed threats to critical infrastruc­ture, public health and safety, and our economic and national security.”

A spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, Wang Wenbin, this month called Trump’s executive orders “nothing short of bullying.”

Wang did not address

China’s own restrictio­ns on American websites, saying only that other countries might begin using national security as an excuse to act against U.S. companies. “The United States must not open Pandora’s box, or it will suffer the consequenc­es,” he said.

China’s digital cleaving dates to the late 1990s, when it began constructi­ng the Great Firewall, a sophistica­ted set of internet controls. Viewing the internet inside China as an issue of national sovereignt­y, Beijing heavily censored online content and over time blocked Google searches, social media like Facebook and Twitter, and news sites including The New York Times.

Behind that wall, Chinese internet companies like Alibaba, Baidu and Tencent, the maker of WeChat, thrived on a huge captive market. But China also tried to play it both ways as these companies began expanding into regions such as Southeast Asia and Europe.

In a May 29 speech in the Rose Garden, Trump criticized China for stealing American intellectu­al property, violating its commitment­s to the World Trade Organizati­on and raiding U.S. factories. But he said he “never solely blamed China” for those actions.

“They were able to get away with a theft like no one was able to get away with before because of past politician­s and, frankly, past presidents,” he said. “But unlike those who came before, my administra­tion negotiated and fought for what was right. It’s called fair and reciprocal treatment.”

Trump has seen the appeal of Chinesesty­le policies in other areas as well. He praised China’s leader, Xi Jinping, for extending his own term limits. He curtailed access for Chinese journalist­s and researcher­s in the United States, mirroring Beijing’s media restrictio­ns. Trump’s advisers and others in Congress have also pointed to Chinese industrial policies as evidence that the United States should put more funding toward its hightech sectors.

Elsewhere, the Trump administra­tion is still pushing for a more open internet and fighting for the interests of its tech giants by opposing other countries’ efforts to regulate their digital economies.

This includes an offensive against new or proposed digital services taxes in countries including France, Britain, Italy and India, which would fall heavily on Google and Amazon. The administra­tion has also objected to European efforts to address privacy concerns by blocking the flow of consumer data to the United States.

In its executive orders restrictin­g WeChat and TikTok, the White House pointed to a recent move by India to ban the two apps. To some in Washington, that seemed like a bizarre rationale, given how vociferous­ly the United States has criticized India’s use of protection­ist policies in other areas.

Clete Willems, a partner at Akin Gump and a former trade official in the Trump administra­tion, said the executive orders were motivated by national security concerns, not by reciprocit­y.

“A lot of people have asked: ‘Should China be angry? Twitter is already banned. Google is already banned. How angry can China be?’ But we’re not just copying their playbook,” Willems said. “The administra­tion is trying to respond to what it sees as a legitimate national security threat.”

Others said outandout bans, if not coupled with more meaningful regulation, might prove selfdefeat­ing.

“There’s a strong argument to be made that the Great Firewall of China was the first salvo in this battle,” said Samm Sacks, a fellow at the New America think tank. “My response to that is: Is mirroring the Chinese government’s approach the right way? Is that even going to make us more secure?”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States