Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1787988620-2-scaled

Why Trump’s ban on WeChat and TikTok will fail

Banning the popular mobile apps will only fan tensions between the US and China and spark blowback against American companies.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

The Trump administration is moving ahead with its ban on the popular Chinese apps WeChat and TikTok. This is a significant step in what has become a growing consensus in Washington that the two largest economies in the world need to create a different framework for their relationship to continue on equal footing.

There is some merit to confronting China on a whole host of economic issues, such as forced technology transfers, theft of intellectual property, and subsidies to national champions like Huawei that give an unfair advantage to Chinese companies over their American and European counterparts.

But banning TikTok and WeChat does little to advance any of Washington’s long-term strategic objectives and amounts to nothing more than playing whack-a-mole with two widely popular apps that could force China to take retaliatory actions that negatively affect American consumers and companies.  

WeChat is much more than a social media platform for China — messaging is just one aspect of what it does. It is used to book flights and hotels, facilitate payments, and it acts as a gaming platform. It is PayPal, WhatsApp, Amazon, Expedia, and PlayStation rolled into one portal and  averages 1.2 billion monthly users. American businesses in China such as Starbucks, McDonalds, and Nike depend heavily on its payment platform to conduct their China-related business. 

The app works differently in the United States and is mostly used by Chinese Americans and Chinese citizens who live, study, and work here. The Trump administration is right to be concerned about how China censors the content that is disseminated on the app. WeChat’s parent company, Tencent, is close to the Chinese Communist Party, and, as with Huawei, there is always a fear that Chinese regulators could force the transfer of personal information of the app’s users.

But banning the app does little to resolve any of those concerns. Rather, it is a giant leap toward a tech cold war that would bifurcate the world between U.S. and Chinese tech powerhouses. It gives China a powerful incentive to block or ban American companies from doing business in China.

Take Apple, the world’s largest company by market capitalization — more people buy Apple smartphones in China than in the United States, and most of Apple’s assembly plants are based in China. What would happen if WeChat decided to stop allowing its app to be downloaded on Apple’s operating system? A phone in China without WeChat is worthless, and Apple’s customer base there would evaporate overnight as Chinese customers flock to alternatives. This would have a dramatic effect on Apple’s bottom line. 

China has foreshadowed a bit of what it could do when the Trump administration demanded that China's ByteDance, the parent company of the popular app TikTok — which has over 100 million U.S. users — to sell its U.S. operations. Beijing’s regulatory watchdog ruled that TikTok’s valuable algorithm could not be a part of any sale. Without that algorithm, it is unclear that an actual sale of TikTok would be of any value. It is the code within the algorithm that uses advanced machine learning (AI) to direct content with which it believes the user is most likely to interact with. The Trump administration has signaled over the weekend that it will approve a deal that will spin TikTok off from ByteDance into an American company, but it’s still unclear if China will approve the deal.

Is it really going to be Washington’s policy that every time China produces an innovative tech company, the U.S. president will ban it? What will that do for technological innovation which has always benefited from global collaboration? As China’s tech sector becomes increasingly advanced and sophisticated, will we erect our own version of a “a great fire wall” and deny their apps to U.S. users?

A better strategy would be to develop coherent criteria for determining what information U.S. and international tech firms can collect from users and how and under what circumstances that information can be shared. The U.S. can work with like-minded allies such as the European Union, Japan, and South Korea — whose technology architecture is intertwined with it — to come up with universal principles and then demanding all companies that seek access to U.S. tech platforms adhere to that standard.

Such a policy would be far more equitable, and beneficial to both American and Chinese companies and users than going through the pain of decoupling which will only accelerate a tech cold war.   


Image: rafapress via Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
AEI
Top image credit: DCStockPhotography / Shutterstock.com

AEI would print money for the Pentagon if it could

QiOSK

The American Enterprise Institute has officially entered the competition for which establishment DC think tank can come up with the most tortured argument for increasing America’s already enormous Pentagon budget.

Its angle — presented in a new report written by Elaine McCusker and Fred "Iraq Surge" Kagan — is that a Russian victory in Ukraine will require over $800 billion in additional dollars over five years for the Defense Department, whose budget is already poised to push past $1 trillion per year.

keep readingShow less
Biden weapons Ukraine
Top Image Credit: Diplomacy Watch: US empties more weapons stockpiles for Ukraine ahead of Biden exit

Diplomacy Watch: Biden unleashes stockpiles to Ukraine ahead of exit

QiOSK

The Biden administration is putting together a final Ukraine aid package — about $500 million in weapons assistance — as announced in Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s final meeting with the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which coordinates weapons support to Ukraine.

The capabilities in the announcement include small arms and ammunition, communications equipment, AIM-7, RIM-7, and AIM-9M missiles, and F-16 air support.

keep readingShow less
US Military General David Petraeus in 2005
Top Photo Credit: US Military General David Petraeus in 2007 (Reuters)

Yes, US generals should be fired

Military Industrial Complex

In October 1939, just one month after he took over as Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall famously winnowed the ranks of hidebound senior officers to prepare for war. “Most of them have their minds set in outmoded patterns,” Marshall told his leadership team, “and can’t change to meet the new conditions they may face if we become involved in the war that started in Europe.”

Every democracy since a defeated Athens has pruned its senior leaders proven inadequate to the demands of their respective era – often more painful than mere public shame. Ours may be the only era when an entire general and admiralty class — more than 80% of which gain employment in the defense sector after retirement — has been consistently rewarded with lucre and prestige for losing.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.