SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (148358)5/7/2019 12:46:47 PM
From: Elroy Jetson1 Recommendation

Recommended By
elmatador

  Respond to of 217927
 
Being a hedgemon within your own borders is always the best type of hedgemon.

Tibetans certainly look forward to the hedgemon returning home to become inwardly focused and discover there is still so much left uncontrolled in China - Hong Kong for starters.



To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (148358)5/8/2019 10:29:50 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217927
 
If below report is reporting factual, and i would not be surprised if factual, then perhaps we can agree that team China is going toe-to-toe w/ team America. I suppose one can argue that team America needs a near-peer strategic competitor in order for the world to be spared perpetual uni-polarity

zerohedge.com

Here's Why The China Trade Deal Fell Apart

Readers who have been paying close attention to every leak related to the ongoing US-China trade talks might remember this FT story from six weeks ago about Beijing's penchant for returning trade-deal draft proposals to Washington riddled with red-line stikeouts.

We only bring it up now because, according to a play-by-play published by Reuters Wednesday morning, it appears President Trump finally lost his patience with Beijing when they returned a draft trade deal with strikeouts eliminating virtually all of the major concessions made during the past few weeks.



Though reports about Beijing's unwillingness to compromise had begun appearing with more regularity during the preceding week, according to Reuters, it appears Beijing was deliberately trying to provoke President Trump. And if this was indeed China's goal, it appears it succeeded.

The diplomatic cable from Beijing arrived in Washington late on Friday night, with systematic edits to a nearly 150-page draft trade agreement that would blow up months of negotiations between the world’s two largest economies, according to three U.S. government sources and three private sector sources briefed on the talks.

The document was riddled with reversals by China that undermined core U.S. demands, the sources told Reuters.

In each of the seven chapters of the draft trade deal, China had deleted its commitments to change laws to resolve core complaints that caused the United States to launch a trade war: theft of U.S. intellectual property and trade secrets; forced technology transfers; competition policy; access to financial services; and currency manipulation.

U.S. President Donald Trump responded in a tweet on Sunday vowing to raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods from 10 to 25 percent on Friday – timed to land in the middle of a scheduled visit by China’s Vice Premier Liu He to Washington to continue trade talks.

One administration insider said the changes "undermines the core architecture of the deal", particularly since Robert Lighthizer has prioritized an enforcement regime that's closer to something typically used for punitive economic sanctions than a trade deal.

Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said earlier this week that Trump's tariff threats were prompted by Beijing reneging on its promises. But they refused to disclose any details. It now appears that Beijing has gone back on practically all of the concessions it had made during the negotiations, including deals on currency stabilization, enforcement and market access for cloud-computing firms, to name a few.

But despite the steady stream of optimistic trade rhetoric, the only real surprise here - as one administration insider put it - is that it took this long for the White House to blow up the deal.

Lighthizer and U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin were taken aback at the extent of the changes in the draft. The two cabinet officials on Monday told reporters that Chinese backtracking had prompted Trump’s tariff order but did not provide details on the depth and breadth of the revisions.

Liu last week told Lighthizer and Mnuchin that they needed to trust China to fulfil its pledges through administrative and regulatory changes, two of the sources said. Both Mnuchin and Lighthizer considered that unacceptable, given China’s history of failing to fulfil reform pledges.

One private-sector source briefed on the talks said the last round of negotiations had gone very poorly because "China got greedy."

"China reneged on a dozen things, if not more...The talks were so bad that the real surprise is that it took Trump until Sunday to blow up," the source said.

"After 20 years of having their way with the U.S., China still appears to be miscalculating with this administration."

Though Vice Premier Liu He will visit Washington later this week, the notion that a deal can be salvaged, at least in the short term, looks almost impossibly remote. And it's not hard to see why.

Even as the standoff in the Pacific between the US and China has grown increasingly tense - thanks in part to Washington's belligerently pro-Taiwan (and its refusal to allow Beijing to have its cake and eat it, too when it comes to contested islands in the South China Sea) - Beijing has put on a happy face and parroted Washington's line that American military meddling in the region is a separate issue.

But as Washington prepares to sell billions of dollars in arms to Taiwan (only months after President Xi vowed to bring the errant province back under Beijing's control), it appears the Chinese might finally be losing their patience.

On Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told reporters that Beijing had lodged "stern representations" with the US over a House bill expressing support for Taiwan. Beijing complained that this "severely violates" the longstanding "One China" policy and represents "gross interference" in China's affairs.

While the Communist Party might have been willing to countenance repeated American intrusions into the South China Sea, Xi earlier this year threatened to smite anybody who dares interfere with Beijing's plans for Taiwan.

Walking away from the trade-deal table might only be the beginning.



To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (148358)5/8/2019 3:10:56 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217927
 
let's watch canola, coal, and news.metal.com




To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (148358)5/13/2019 12:46:40 AM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217927
 
get ready to buy at the bottom

the script is playing out and tracking true, as described by the lady back in January, and I earlier still

edition.cnn.com

Why the US would never win a trade war with China

By Kristina Hooper for CNN Business Perspectives

Updated 1522 GMT (2322 HKT) January 3, 2019

Kristina Hooper is chief global market strategist at Invesco. The opinions expressed in this commentary are her own.

Over the last several decades, lower tariffs and relaxed trade barriers strengthened global supply chains and fueled a major increase in global trade. In fact, the average rate of tariffs on imports by World Trade Organization members declined from slightly more than 12.74% in 1996 to 8.8% in 2016. Global trade went from $5 trillion in 1996 to $19 trillion in 2013.

We are now moving backward. In its efforts to achieve what it believes to be fair trade, the United States has started trade disputes with several different economies. Its conflict with China is by far the most intense, resulting in a series of additional tariffs. Some people believe that because America is the net buyer and China is the net seller in their trade relationship, China will lose the trade war and ultimately surrender. I believe that's wrong.

Tariffs will hurt both countries. Many tariffed products can't easily be substituted, so they will continue to be purchased — just at higher prices. When a tariff is applied to a particular good, one of three things can happen.

Profits suffer

In some industries, companies will be unwilling or unable to pass the cost onto its customers. This means the company's profits are reduced. For public companies, this of course hurts earnings — and therefore could also impact stock prices.

At first blush, for instance, one would assume that Alcoa, a US company, would benefit from tariffs on foreign producers of aluminum, but it's not that simple. Alcoa's input costs have risen because it utilizes a significant amount of primary aluminum from Canada, which it smelts to produce its own aluminum. The CEO of Alcoa has eloquently argued that not only do tariffs hurt profitability, they distort the market and make it less efficient "by incentivizing the restart of aged, inefficient capacity" in the United States.

Prices rise

A company may pass the cost of tariffs to its customers (as Apple, for example, has suggested it would do) and consumers pay more for the same item. This means that, all else being equal, they have less money left to spend on other goods or services.

Demand declines

A company may pass the cost of tariffs to its customers, but demand decreases because consumers cut back their purchases. We have already begun seeing "demand destruction" in an industry that was one of the first to experience the imposition of tariffs at the start of 2018: washing machines. The same thing could happen to other items, including other "big ticket" purchases such as cars, if tariffs are applied to them.
Tariffs have other negative effects. They undermine business confidence by increasing policy uncertainty. Tariffs can create inefficiency and lower productivity.

The United States has legitimate issues with China — valid concerns about access to markets and intellectual property violations. However, it should pursue them with the World Trade Organization, not through tariffs. Using tariffs only opens it up to retaliation from China. And China has a large arsenal of weapons, beyond tariffs, that it can use against the United States. Following are just a few of these potential weapons.

- Counter the drop in foreign purchases of Chinese goods through increased domestic spending (which China is currently doing). The US executive branch cannot execute similar stimulus without a spending bill approved by Congress.

- Depreciate the yuan to lower the price of Chinese goods to American buyers in order to counter the impact of tariffs.

- Stop the purchase of treasuries and/or sell existing holdings of treasuries, at a time when the US government is issuing more debt and the Federal Reserve is normalizing its balance sheet by selling US debt. The net effect would be an increase in borrowing costs for the US government, all else being equal.Create closer trading relationships with other countries to isolate and exclude the United States (for example, China cut auto tariffs for US allies).

- Encourage North Korea to antagonize the United States, given that improved relations with North Korea has been an important goal of President Donald Trump's.

- Execute a regulatory crackdown on American companies (environmental or anti-monopoly investigations, for example).

- Place an embargo on the sale of rare earth metals to American companies and the US government (this is a necessary material for many smart phones and US missile defense systems).

The good news is that the two countries have agreed to a temporary cease fire in their trade battles. But it's not at all clear whether they will be able to work out a resolution.

The bottom line is that, given President Xi's status as president for life, China can play a long game. President Trump has a reelection campaign to worry about in less than two years. I assume that Xi will attempt to ride out the current conflict without making any significant concessions and that the United States, once its economy is damaged enough, is likely to ultimately capitulate.



To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (148358)5/14/2019 4:54:32 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217927
 
<<IP theft>>

bad china stole again, and this time w/ intent to replace more t-shirt exports w/ deflation of order-of-battle

but the side effect is small nations can put up a tactical fight against their liberators, so that there would be less Yemens and Ukraines and Georgias and and and in the future as the calculus on the battle field changes

it would tend to compel larger nations to go robotic to conduct warfare / peace-keeping / police-action / regime-change

but if robotic, then rare earth and 5G comes to the fore, and ... oops ... thinking too far ahead

neat looking truck. wondering if it would be tariff protected at 25% as dictated out of Washington to be applied across the world, per campaign Huawei II

c4isrnet.com

This Chinese truck can launch a salvo of drones
Kelsey Atherton



What is most striking about modern warfare is the synthesis of technologies. A light truck for carrying troops is over a century old. Tube-launched artillery mounted on trucks was a stable of World War II. Explosive-tipped drones are a new variation on loitering munitions that have been around in some form since the 1980s. Combined, however, these components turn a light and mobile troop carrier into not just an artillery piece, but an artillery piece that can potentially scout an entire battlefield and then launch multiple precision strikes across it. It is the synthesis that makes the machine.

On display at the Beijing Civil-Military Integration Expo 2019 from May 6 to May 8 was a truck outfitted with 12 tubes capable of launching drones. Developed by Yanjing Auto, the 4x4 vehicle can drive off-roads and has a top speed of around 77 mph. The truck is arguably the least impressive part of the whole package, but the mundanity of its appearance and the easy mobility it provides likely make it a perfectly viable platform for shoot-and-scoot attacks.

The heart of the truck’s striking power is in its tubes.

Four of the tubes launch smaller SULA30 drones, which are scouts with over an hour of flight time, according to reporting from China’s state-owned Global Times. The remaining eight tubes will hold larger SULA89 drones, which can carry over 4 pounds of explosives and crash into targets at a speed of over 110 mph.

Notably absent from the report is the role of humans in the targeting. The scout drones can relay information back to humans in a command center, but it’s unclear if the one-way drone missiles will fly to targets selected by humans or make the choice of target while in transit. The volume of drones launched, and the way rocket artillery is designed to fire rapidly in salvos, suggest that human control would largely be limited to target selection before firing.

The duration of flight times for target-selecting munitions is already a major concern for nongovernmental organizations interested in stopping an AI arms race. The longer a drone-like weapon flies before ultimately exploding something, the more opportunity there is for the situation on the ground to change and the targets to change from lawful to lawful in the presence of civilians, and that’s without accounting for false positives. How command-and-control is built into the exploding flocks of flying robots launched from vehicles is a major concern with both tactical and ethical implications. This is hardly a unique problem for China; two U.S. companies announced plans May 7 for a scouting drone that can tube-launch other attritable aerial assets.

It’s also a risk that extends beyond just the formal militaries of superpowers. At the show, Yanjing Auto noted that the 4x4 has variants that can field multiple armed hexacopter scout drones or an array of eight missiles. All of these, including the truck with drone-launching tubes, are reportedly available for export.




To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (148358)5/15/2019 3:12:07 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217927
 
Canadian lawyer residing in the Caymans and with benefit of distance for observation says the Neo-con lot shall inherit the government, and if so, expect harder kicks

in the mean time let's see what happens in Australia on Saturday

interesting that team Spain appears to be doing something

zerohedge.com

Spanish Frigate Peels Off From US Carrier Group Over Iran Conflict FearsWith things fast heating up in the Persian Gulf, including a recent US military build-up and the hasty blaming of Iran for a mysterious "sabotage" attack on oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, will international powers begin drawing a line in the sand? Famously, France condemned Bush's rush to war in 2003, and along with Germany refused to send military support to the coalition invasion.

And now Spain has ordered its military frigate, the Méndez Núñez, which has 215 sailors on board, out of a US coalition naval group en route to the Persian Gulf, citing "it will not enter into any other type of mission" in the Persian Gulf region, according to the Spanish Minister of Defense.

Minister of Defense Margarita Robles ordered the “temporary measure of withdrawal of the frigate Méndez Núñez (F-104) from the combat group of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln while it is in the Middle East,” sources from her office told the digital edition of El País.

Spanish frigate ‘Méndez Núñez’ (front) and ‘USS Abraham Lincoln, via El Pais/Spanish Navy“The frigate is on a mission of circumnavigation and will not enter into any other type of mission,” sources revealed, cited by the El Mundo news website.

The statements came in the context of the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group deployment to the area, along with a B-52 bomber group monitoring the air from Qatar, and new Patriot missile batteries. Washington and Tehran have recently exchanged threats of direct conflict while jostling to assert control over the vital Strait of Hormuz narrow oil shipping passage, which has further left global oil markets on edge and rattled.

Interestingly the decision to remove the frigate was made in Brussels during a meeting of European Union defense ministers on Monday, which could suggest other European powers may start divesting their military assets from US support roles in the Middle East.

"The United States government has embarked on a mission that wasn't scheduled when the agreement was signed," Robles told reporters during her trip to Brussels. The move could trigger a diplomatic crisis with the US given the White House is likely to see Spain as backing out of its commitments.

According to El Pais:

Spain wants to avoid being involuntarily dragged into any kind of conflict with Iran amid rising tensions between Washington and Tehran. The fleet has already crossed the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, which joins the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, and is headed to the Strait of Hormuz where it will enter the Persian Gulf. It will be doing so, however, without the Spanish vessel.

The defense minister further insisted that Spain is a “serious and reliable partner,” however, noted it is only bound by EU and NATO commitments.

The question remains, should the White House begin beefing up troop presence posturing against Iran - and with plans for this already under review - could more US allies decide to pull their ships and embedded forces from US coalition operations?



To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (148358)5/15/2019 3:49:48 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217927
 
in the mean time this is how the big boyz wearing big pants play ...

go for the jugular but by acupuncture-precision karate move

I suppose such, already weaponised, shall be tee-ed up the minute team china is cut off of chips supply, without if and or buts, and cardiac arrest shall happen to Intel, AMD, Nvidia, and Cisco, Ericsson, Nokia, and Toshiba, Matsushita and Fujitsu, and and and

whilst the world would still be able to buy any and everything china 2025

is the theory.

Knowing such be the end-game, what should the alleged allies of team USA do? would imagine thinking twice might be well advised, at the very least.

Knowing such, what would enemies of team USA do? edging on the trade war as the Jetson has been doing, I would guess.

let's see

euronews.com

U.S. leaves rare earths, critical minerals off China tariff list
• last updated: 14/05/2019 - 14:04



FILE PHOTO: U.S. and Chinese flags are seen before Defense Secretary James Mattis welcomes Chinese Minister of National Defense Gen. Wei Fenghe to the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., November 9, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas -
Copyright

YURI GRIPAS(Reuters)

BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States has again decided not to impose tariffs on rare earths and other critical minerals from China, underscoring its reliance on the Asian nation for a group of materials used in everything from consumer electronics to military equipment.

The minerals are set to be among the few items spared from U.S. tariffs in an escalating trade war with China, which is by far the world's biggest producer of rare earths.

Beijing, however, is set to raise tariffs on around $60 billion in U.S. goods, including rare earth ores, hitting back at a tariff hike by Washington on $200 billion (154.46 billion pounds) of Chinese goods in the bitter trade dispute.

The office of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer also on Monday released a list of further Chinese goods, worth around $300 billion annually, that have been earmarked for a 25 percent tariff. Lighthizer on Friday said this next round of tariffs would cover "essentially all remaining imports from China" not yet hit by tariffs.

The list, which is open for public comments until June 17, does not include rare earth materials and other critical minerals, and also excludes pharmaceuticals and select medical goods, the document said.

"These materials are critical to U.S. industry and defence, and with nowhere else to turn for supplies in the near-term, the tariffs would invoke more suffering on U.S. end-users than China," said Ryan Castilloux, managing director of consultancy Adamas Intelligence, in an e-mail.

In July last year, the U.S. Trade Representative office included rare earths on a provisional list of tariffs on Chinese goods, only to remove it later from the final list.

The United States "won't be unable to find a replacement in the short term ... so if they want to tax rare earth products that would make it worse for themselves," said an analyst at stake-backed Chinese research house Antaike, who asked not to be named.

Rare earths were in a list of 35 minerals deemed critical to U.S. security and economic prosperity published one year ago. Most of these 35 minerals are now subject to the U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods, but rare earths, antimony - used in batteries and flame retardant - helium and natural graphite are not.

Cesium and rubidium, used in research and development and neither of which are mined in the United States, are also spared, as are fluorspar, used to make gasoline, steel and uranium fuel.

Beijing said on Monday it would raise tariffs on U.S. rare earth metal ores from 10 percent to 25 percent from June 1, making it less economical to process the material in China.

The 10 percent tariff still left a profit for the processors, but the higher 25 percent rate will be "quite hard to bear," the Antaike analyst said.

(Reporting by Tom Daly; Editing by Tom Hogue)




To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (148358)10/25/2019 8:10:55 PM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation

Recommended By
SirWalterRalegh

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217927
 
Re <<IP theft>>

I love it when one of the cabal refutes another one of the same cabal, and with authority ...

On 25 Oct 2019, at 12:20 PM, J wrote:

S, I think M fell into the echo chamber of Neo-people who essentially are incapable of reflection, but believe that if any alt-take is repeated often enough, the alt- becomes the truth

This is why I posit the ostensibly alt-extreme views so as to dilute Neo-people alt-take.

As far as I can see, at some juncture team America shall have to graduate from robbing nations at gun point (ie. Syrian oil fields, a current and fresh example) and get back into the routine of IP theft, whether by stealth or by free trade between consenting parties

On 25 Oct 2019, at 11:13 AM, S wrote:

M,

I can only speak to the avionic systems which were to be built by a JV between CATIC and GE and the engines which were to be sold by CFM – a GE/French JV. The tech transferred was to paid for by CATIC. I didn’t see evidence of technology theft in our piece of the project.


On 25 Oct 2019, at 12:14 PM, J wrote:

Trump says America is keeping the field, to protect it

Sounds like stealing

On 25 Oct 2019, at 11:55 AM, C wrote:

Yes german tech. Of course...

Syrian fields what in the hell bs is that?

On 25 Oct 2019, at 11:53 AM, J wrote:

German technology?

Syrian oil fields?

I can go on and on

On 25 Oct 2019, at 11:38 AM, C wrote:

Copied. Taken apart and rebuilt. Patents 100% ignored...

On 25 Oct 2019, at 9:26 AM, J wrote:

Define "stolen"

On 25 Oct 2019, at 9:25 AM, M wrote:

Stolen technology to build the C919 aircraft....

Details:

extremetech.com

Report: China’s New Comac C919 Jetliner Is Built With Stolen Technology


Joel Hruska



The C919 is a relatively new narrow-body jet built by the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, or COMAC for short. It’s also apparently the beneficiary (and to some degree, the result) of massive hacking operations undertaken by the Chinese government and a government-affiliated hacking group, dubbed Turbine Panda.

A major report by the infosec security company Crowdstrike lays out the details, and it doesn’t mince words. The opening paragraph of the report states:

Short of kicking down the door just as a cyber actor pushes enter, it is frustratingly hard to prove who is responsible for cyber attacks with 100% certainty. However, a series of recent U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) indictments released over the course of two years, combined with CrowdStrike Intelligence’s own research, has allowed for startling visibility into a facet of China’s shadowy intelligence apparatus.

The document describes a sustained effort by China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) to create a network of cyber actors, MSS employees, and company insiders to steal key pieces of technology from the companies China hired to collaborate on the design of the C919. These operations, CrowdStrike says, can ultimately be traced to the MSS Jiansu Bureau. That’s the same group thought to be responsible for breaching the Office of Personal Management (OPM) back in 2015.

Designing the C919It was already obvious a decade ago that China would one day be a huge market for air travel. The country knew that rising per-capita GDP would spark domestic interest in flying and it set out to build a low-cost narrowbody jet that would meet its own needs more effectively than a competing solution from Boeing or Airbus. The C919, while described as being years behind the latest jets from the Boeing / Airbus duopoly, also has a much lower flyaway cost. To meet its own plan for a jet, China allied with a variety of foreign companies to produce various components.


Image by Crowdstrike
In 2009, Comac announced it had chosen CFM International (a joint operation between GE Aviation and French aerospace firm Safran) to produce a variant of the LEAP-X engine, the LEAP-1C, for the C919. At the same time, Comac and another state-owned Chinese business, the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (Avic) were apparently tasked with designing a native Chinese design for the C919. In August 2016, Comac and Avic launched the Aero Engine Corporation of China (AECC), which produces an engine called the CJ-1000AX. The CJ-1000AX has long been suspected of being a copy of the LEAP-1C. The two engines share a great many suspicious similarities, including their dimensions and turbofan blade sizes. The first activity CrowdStrike observed in preparation for this theft came when Turbine Panda targeted the Los Angeles company Capstone Turbine in 2010, just a month after CFM was chosen as the engine provider.

Crowdstrike writes:

Though it is difficult to assess that the CJ-1000AX is a exact copy of the LEAP-X without direct access to technical engineering specifications, it is highly likely that its makers benefited significantly from the cyber espionage efforts of the MSS, which will be detailed further in subsequent blog installments, knocking several years (and potentially billions of dollars) off its development time.

We know so much about this specific situation because of indictments the Department of Justice has issued against various individuals, including “Sakula developer YU Pingan, JSSD Intelligence Officer XU Yanjun, GE Employee and insider ZHENG Xiaoqing, U.S. Army Reservist and assessor JI Chaoqun, and 10 JSSD-affiliated cyber operators in the ZHANG et. al. indictment.” The details revealed in these indictments have corroborated CrowdStrike’s own investigation.


Image by Crowdstrike
Much of the rest of the report is a deep dive into the relationships between various individuals and the espionage they carried out. Honeywell and Safran were both targeted as well. Xu Yanjun recruited Zheng Xiaoqing as an insider informant and coached him on which technology to steal from GE. Ji Chaoqun entered the US on F-1 student visa to study electrical engineering in Chicago but agreed to work for Xu. He was, according to the report:

…eventually recruited to provide assessments on other high-value individuals in the aerospace industry for potential recruitment by the MSS. JI’s position in the U.S. Army Reserve program known as Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) provided a perfect cover for JI’s assessment activities, as the program focuses on potential recruitment of foreign citizens with skills pertinent to national interest and legally residing in the U.S. Had it been successful, JI would have been handing XU other foreign-born recruitment candidates as they were about to enter U.S. military service on potentially sensitive projects.

The final section of the report is a discussion on what happened after these arrests and indictments were handed out. Despite the public nature of these indictments and events, China continues to mount attacks against US assets. The next-to-last paragraph of the report notes:

A major facet of the current Sino-U.S. trade war is forced technology transfer, which Beijing has used to great effect by siphoning intellectual property from foreign firms in exchange for providing joint ventures (JVs) and granting access to China’s lucrative market, only to be forced out later by domestic rivals as they grow competitive with state subsidies and support. Under current laws, the C919’s foreign suppliers (many of whom were targets of TURBINE PANDA operations) are required to physically assemble components in China through a JV with COMAC.

The original idea behind opening trade with China was that US and Chinese customers would both benefit. This has been true in many ways, but there’s a profound difference between manufacturing low-cost consumer goods and building high-performance aircraft parts with huge R&D costs. Such components are the end product of decades of research and manufacturing expertise. Far from competing on a level playing field, China appears to be focused on stealing the information it needs to close the gap with US companies, then limiting their access to its own market once it’s finished taking what it wants.