Whether it's a company or a country, a product or a technology, competition is a common occurrence. However, deliberately expanding, exaggerating, strengthening competition, and even transforming it into a form of war to a worsened state for some special reasons is an entirely different matter.
In 1998, Microsoft established its first research lab in Beijing during an optimistic era for technology and China. Over time, Microsoft hired hundreds of researchers for the institution, which later pioneered work in speech, image, and facial recognition, leading to the development of AI technologies like ChatGPT. This Beijing research lab eventually became one of the most important AI labs in the world. Microsoft's co-founder Bill Gates called it an opportunity to tap into the "deep pool of intellectual talent" of China.
As tensions between the United States and China intensify, Microsoft's top executives, including CEO Satya Nadella and President Brad Smith, have been discussing how to handle this research lab. Some sources claim that U.S. officials have questioned the rationale behind Microsoft maintaining an advanced technology research institute with 800 employees in China. Microsoft stated that it has implemented security barriers that restrict researchers from engaging in politically sensitive work.
Microsoft, headquartered in Redmond, Washington, has also established a branch of the research institute in Vancouver, British Columbia, and plans to relocate some researchers from China to that location. Two insiders mentioned that if more researchers need to be relocated, this branch could serve as a backup. While the idea of closing or relocating the research lab in China has been considered, Microsoft's leadership currently seems to support keeping the institution in China.
Undoubtedly, for various reasons, relations between the U.S. and China are deteriorating at a fundamental level. Against this backdrop, some have opportunistically proposed the concept of a "High-Tech Cold War" that has garnered certain support within China. Supporters of a Tech Cold War argue that on August 9 last year, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an executive order on tech investment, limiting U.S. investment and transactions with China in so-called sensitive high-tech areas, including semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence, marking the beginning of a Tech Cold War.
An article by an author who holds such a view suggests that the U.S. policy of "decoupling" from Chinese high-tech reflects the escalating intensity of global tech competition in the third decade of the 21st century. This global tech competition is spreading to every corner of the world with unprecedented intensity and will determine the allocation of a new wave of corporate dividends, the emergence of a new batch of tech geniuses, the success or failure of the development of new regions, the outcomes of a new round of great power competition, and even the direction of a new phase of civilization evolution.
The article emphasizes that, unlike the three previous technological revolutions spanning over 300 years, facing the wave of the fourth technological revolution, major economies consider technological transformation as the core capability to safeguard national security. Consequently, they are redefining national security strategies. The U.S., in particular, is exerting maximum effort to establish Western leadership in technology and is consistent in its actions. It is adopting a "High-Tech Cold War" approach against non-Western countries, driven by the development logic that technology determines national security.
I have seen quite some such articles that provide the authors’ definitions, some of the authors are well known, while others are obscure. Regardless, it appears to me that these articles might sound more of an entertainment nature. For instance, if someone says there have been "three technological revolutions", another might insist that there were four. Such definitions set by these authors are questionable. In reality, the trajectory of human industry and technological development has not changed significantly from the past to the present.
It is common knowledge that all technologies possessed by humans can be used for strategic, security, military, and warfare purposes. Every technology, including the simplest ones, can be used for "warfare". Does the food we eat not relate to national security? Hitler initiated World War II, and subsequent studies revealed that it was essentially a "wheat war". This is why the elite German armored divisions abandoned Moscow and turned to sweep the black soil of Ukraine, annihilating large numbers of Soviet troops. Even stones on a hill can be used for warfare. The Eighth Route Army, which was under the Chinese Communist Party during the Second China–Japan War, while lacking weapons, demonstrated this during the war. Hence, the definition of "technologies and sciences related to strategy are all part of national security" is nonsensical.
Technologies and sciences genuinely related to national security do exist in reality, but they are limited to very few specific areas. If we generalize and broadly define them, it downgrades national security because national resources cannot cover every aspect.
Some in China might argue that “the Biden administration did it first by imposing restrictions on technologies such as semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence; therefore we have to follow suit”. This is undoubtedly a reality and a challenge, but it should also be understood that when one country is casually defined by another as a "competitor", "adversary", or "enemy," it is certainly not something to be proud of.
Certainly, there is competition between countries. There is a scale issue when it comes to controlling core technologies, and each country has the right to establish its scale. It is normal for everyone to control technologies based on their respective scales, and it is not necessarily hostile. Europe has control of the United States, and the United States has control of Japan and South Korea, but the categories and intensity differ. It should be clear that for a country to keep its technology under wraps while expecting others to fully open up their technology for casual inspection and acquisition is not "appropriate"; it is "simply impossible".
Ignoring the issue of the scale of technology policy, engaging in arbitrary generalizations, and casually invoking war, fostering conspiracy theories, is a sensationalist approach and logically inverts the importance of issues and the sequence of cause and effect. Guy Fawkes (1570-1606) of England, known for his attempt to blow up Parliament and assassinate James I of England, is now a symbolic figure of conspiracy theories worldwide, recognizable by his two-pronged mustache. I do not think he could have imagined that today, conspiracy theories would be so rampant.
I had the honor of meeting many friends from Microsoft in the late 1990s and even received a lot of support from Microsoft. At that time, I enjoyed the privilege of many free genuine software offerings and even met Bill Gates in person. From a personal perspective, the issue of global control over technology and science is a dilemma and conflict that is hard to avoid. It exists now and will continue to exist in the future. This is an era of systematic manufacturing; goods and important commodities are, in fact, systems. Every system aims to manufacture and own itself entirely, which is almost impossible and fundamentally unrealistic. Therefore, global communication and sharing of technology are inevitable.
In the face of restrictions on technology and science, one must maintain composure and patience. Solutions to these issues should be sought through negotiation, public opinion, cooperation, and communication. This is the proper way to address technological competition and its resolution, based on normal international relations. Escalating confrontation and clamoring for war will not help solve the problem. On the contrary, it may hinder understanding and sympathy in the international relations arena and may not necessarily be in China's best interest.
