Back in the 1970s, I occasionally travelled to Mexico. At the time, the people I met seemed slightly paranoid, seeing CIA conspiracies behind many events in their own country. Now I wonder whether America is becoming similarly suspicious.
In recent years, there has been hysteria over the supposed threat posed by TikTok, a Chinese owned social media app. There has been fear of Chinese purchasing American real estate, and Chinese students attending American universities. And now there is fear that Chinese cars represent a “national security threat“:
Joe Biden has ordered an investigation into whether Chinese “connected” vehicles, including electric cars, pose a security risk to Americans, as he tries to prevent China from flooding the US market.
At first, I thought this referred to a risk of job loss. But the administration actually claims that these cars could be used to spy on Americans:
Biden said most cars were now “connected”, making them “like smartphones on wheels”. He said he was concerned Chinese vehicles could collect sensitive data about US citizens and infrastructure, and that the information could be sent back to China and enable its government to remotely access the vehicles.
I have a hard time believing the administration actually believes this far-fetched theory. More likely, they are using “national security” as a fig leaf to cover up old fashioned crude protectionism:
US Treasury officials recently told the Financial Times that EVs were one of the areas where the Biden administration was most concerned about the possibility of China flooding the US and other markets.
“This particular inquiry is motivated by the national security risk . . . though it fits into a broader strategy for making sure that we are supporting a strong US auto industry,” said one official.
Today, the US has a large surplus in its auto trade with China, and the Biden administration seems determined to maintain that surplus. Unfortunately, these protectionist actions have three negative effects:
1. US consumers are hurt because Chinese electric vehicle provide far more value for the dollar.
2. The global environment is damaged, as this slows the transition to cleaner electric cars.
3. US taxpayers are hurt as the US government has spent large sums in a futile attempt to make the “big three” competitive in electric cars. This policy is now widely viewed as a failure.
Mathias Miedreich, chief executive of Umicore, said sales of Chinese electric cars were surging in contrast to the US due to better performance and affordability.
“They are simply good cars and people buy them,” he said in an interview, referring to Chinese vehicles. “The American ones [producers] seem to struggle to bring good electric vehicles [to market].”
The current level of anti-Chinese paranoia is something I’d expect in a third world country, not a great power like the US.
PS. The Economist recently injected a bit of sanity into the debate over the China threat:
Since 1978 foreign owners of agricultural land have been required to declare it to the us Department of Agriculture (usda). The agency’s data show that, at the end of 2022, around 3% of privately held land nationwide was declared foreign-owned. The biggest holders were firms and individuals from Canada, followed by the Netherlands and Britain. Declared Chinese entities held less than 1% of all foreign-owned land, or 0.03% of the total. People in Luxembourg own more. Foreign land ownership has grown by 40% since 2016, but China is not evidently the driver. From 2021 to 2022 the total amount of land owned in full or in part by Chinese firms shrank from 384,000 acres to 347,000. In Iowa, Chinese holdings totalled just 281 acres—an area smaller than the state fairgrounds in Des Moines.
PPS. While visiting China last year I rode in several BYD cars. The quality seemed to be very high and they are quite cheap.
READER COMMENTS
David Seltzer
Mar 4 2024 at 4:57pm
In 1978, the Trigger Price Mechanism (TPM) curbed steel imports because the Carter Administration was protecting the consumer of from unfairly low prices. Competition from foreign steel producers forced domestic producers to seek gov protection while dealing with outdated plants, high union wages and low capacity utilization. Having worked in Steel mills while I was an undergrad; the average open hearth burn time was about twelve hours. Today it’s about an hour. Steel making technology has defied the central planners.
Lizard Man
Mar 4 2024 at 5:21pm
To play devils advocate, the government of China does use connected devices to collect information on its own population. It does have relationships with IT/app companies that it uses as a means of social control. Why would they treat foreigners, much less those of their main rival, any better than they treat their own citizens? I believe that Tesla’s vehicles have software updates pushed out to them wirelessly and without owners having to actively choose to accept the updates. All that the Chinese government would have to do to at least disable a Chinese branded electric vehicle would be to order the brand to push down a software update that keeps the car from functioning. Maybe they could remotely control it as well, but that seems a little more difficult.
Dave Bossman
Mar 4 2024 at 5:35pm
Why would China want to disable these cars or control them remotely? And what sort of information would it want to collect from American drivers?
Lizard Man
Mar 4 2024 at 7:39pm
Driving records should allow you a pretty good guess as to who works with the military/intelligence/ sensitive assets in a way that you wouldn’t be able to figure out from trawling LinkedIn or the rest of the web. It could show who belongs to what church, and potentially show other information that could be used to blackmail people, or perhaps as a way to sow division in the US. In a related vein, it could allow a good guess as to hidden partisan affiliation, again which could be used to blackmail people, or to sow division and distrust in organizations where people have strong political beliefs, which I believe is often the case among institutions employee highly educated employees, like research labs.
Scott Sumner
Mar 4 2024 at 6:43pm
Dave has responded for me. I cannot imagine why China would want to do something like this. It seems extremely far-fetched. If something like this were to happen, we could always ban Chinese cars. They presumably know this, and would not do something so crazy.
A paranoid person can always dream up scary scenarios, but people need to use common sense.
Lizard Man
Mar 4 2024 at 7:31pm
China’s leadership is preparing for a war with the US and its allies. Not that it means that they will necessarily start a war. From what I have read being able to win a war against the US and its allies has long been a goal of CPC leadership, but they are now close enough to achieving that aim that they are actually weighing their options as opposed to hiding their strength and biding their time. It isn’t clear that they value trade with the US more than possessing Taiwan and exercising hegemony over Asia. If Xi had come to the conclusion that he did value that trade more than other things, it isn’t readily evident from his actions and Chinese policy. Chinese policy has at the very least gestured towards greater autarky since he came to power.
Jose Pablo
Mar 4 2024 at 9:40pm
It isn’t clear that they value trade with the US more than possessing Taiwan and exercising hegemony over Asia
“The ‘re-possessing’ of Taiwan would extend Chinese territory by 0.4% and increase its population by 1.7%. No doubt a game changer for the country!
Furthermore, even in the event of this repossession, there is still the possibility that the U.S. might not intervene significantly. Afterall, the UK (the world ruling country back then) didn’t intervine when the US carried a much more significant land grab from Mexico in 1845-8 and the US is not deciselivy intervening now to avoid Russia land grab in Ukraine.
Hence, I suppose history supports the notion that the entire electric car spying scheme makes complete sense
Lizard Man
Mar 4 2024 at 10:03pm
In order to take Taiwan, China would have to defeat the US’ Navy. And in doing so, they would achieve naval dominance over most of the trade routes in Asian waters (with the Pacific Ocean being the most notable exception), as it would be obvious that the Chinese Navy could blockade anyone they want at anytime they want, though a nuclear arsenal might be a sufficient deterrent for India and Japan to escape that fate. Other countries would be unable to develop their own nukes, as China would rationally blockade and/or wage war on that country to prevent it from happening, and I doubt that US allies would be safe either, as if the US was unwilling to use nukes for Taiwan, why would they use nukes for South Korea or the Philippines?
Scott Sumner
Mar 5 2024 at 12:20pm
China has no intention of attacking the US. If there’s a war between the US and China, it will be because the US attacks China (presumably in response to a Taiwan invasion.) That would be as insane as the US attacking Russia over Ukraine.
vince
Mar 5 2024 at 7:33pm
But they do intend to take over Taiwan. And they already violated Hong Kong’s democracy. Is Xi a thug that we, as the world’s police, need to remove from power, too?
How do you suspect China would respond if we run a proxy war like we are in Ukraine, for example sending a couple hundred billion worth of weapons to Taiwan to attack China? And do things like bombing the Nordstream pipeline?
Scott Sumner
Mar 6 2024 at 12:37pm
“Is Xi a thug that we, as the world’s police, need to remove from power, too?”
Isn’t the answer pretty obvious? We have no ability to remove Xi, nor should we even try to do so.
vince
Mar 6 2024 at 1:24pm
Isn’t our goal with Russia to remove the thug Putin? Why wouldn’t the same apply to the thug Ping?
Jon Murphy
Mar 6 2024 at 1:34pm
No. Why would you think it is?
Peter
Mar 5 2024 at 1:26am
Jim nailed it and yes, they (nations) do this all the time. Same reason the US banned Chinese 5G equipment. Same reason US banned Kaspersky software on Federal systems. The US back in WikiLeaks or one of the hacker dumps has the CIA working with Cisco to ship compromised systems to foreign government or create fake CALEA backdoors. Remember the Swiss CIA front of Crypto AG.
Even outside the government, vendors collect telemetry all the time. It would be ludicrous to think the Chinese government wouldn’t install the same future exploitable capabilities the USG would (or does) in our own export systems.
john hare
Mar 4 2024 at 5:38pm
Question concerning Chinese car prices and quality. How much (if any) of the low price is enabled by lack of crippling federal requirements?
Jim Glass
Mar 4 2024 at 6:52pm
Hello? China started actually banning Teslas — as a security risk — from parts of the country six months ago, and the ban is spreading…
You don’t mention this???
When the CCP began all this observers asked, “are they paranoid? or are they not paranoid and just projecting their own behavior on others?” But you don’t care at all?
The Biden Administration’s response is classic tit-for-tat, threatening to do what the other side is already actually doing, citing the other side’s justification back at them. Tit-for-tat is ‘Negotiating 101’ in diplomacy, business, dealing with your soon-to-be ex-spouse’s divorce lawyer.
Yet you describe this Administration response of an “investigation” into whether Chinese EVs are a security risk as “paranoia” — while to you China’s actual and growing banning of USA-firm EVs as an openly declared security risk is … so sane and sound on the merits that it’s not worth any mention at all?
Really???
Scott Sumner
Mar 5 2024 at 12:23pm
I thought it wasn’t even necessary to say that we should not emulate the CCP. I guess it wasn’t.
Jon Murphy
Mar 5 2024 at 2:26pm
Amazing how often one hears that argument, no? “We need to become the CCP to defeat the CCP.” But, if that is the case, then what’s even the point of being paranoid about Chinese infiltration? Just cut out the whole thing and surrender to them now.
Honestly…who needs the CCP to take over when there are so many people already willing to emulate them?
Lizard Man
Mar 7 2024 at 11:06pm
There is one thing about the CPC that the US does need to copy, and that thing is having access to the industrial base necessary to produce dramatically more military supplies than your enemies during war time. Now, I don’t think that all of that manufacturing capacity needs to be located in the US, which gives the US some advantages over China, which would need a fairly self contained supply chain during a war. And the US shouldn’t follow the CPC’s policy of suppressing wages to increase the manufacturing base, or looking the other way on pollution, or taking land and giving it to manufacturers for free, etc. But I would argue that the deterrence value of the US and its Allie’s having demonstrable capacity to at least match China’s output of military supplies would be well worth even a very high price. But that price should be paid transparently in the form of budgets and taxes that are approved by an elected legislature, and not by fiat.
Michael S.
Mar 20 2024 at 10:06am
you make 2 claims1. security concerns about smart cars are far-fetched
2. the US reaction to it is in bad faith
You are better placed to judge claim 2. than a foreigner.
But the Chinese example is meant to support claim 1.
Your dismissal of the technical danger also lacks any substantiation. Handwaving and saying it’s obviously crazy is not enough.
For the record: I think it’s anything but. Lizard Man (above) has given good examples. For a tech savvy person, it’s actually the other way around: it’s pretty far-fetched to dismiss this particular danger
Mactoul
Mar 4 2024 at 7:13pm
And these third world countries should just accept Chinese encroachments, like in Bhutan, Ladakh and South China Sea?
Jose Pablo
Mar 4 2024 at 9:08pm
The ‘encroachment’ of American firms (notably the infamous United Fruit Company), and the American government, in Latin America, gave rise to a whole new concept: ‘banana republic.’
It seems the Chinese may be drawing lessons from our historical actions. However, it appears they have yet to master this art, as no comparable ‘whole new concept’ has emerged in South Asia… yet.
Perhaps, we should allow them to ‘encroach.’ We know firsthand that such endeavors do not typically end well for the ‘encroachers.’
Jose Pablo
Mar 4 2024 at 8:53pm
At some point, the government might entertain the suspicion that Elon Musk is utilizing Tesla cars for the purpose of spying on American citizens, collecting sensitive data about US citizens and infrastructure, and that the information could be sent back to Tesla headquarters and enable the company to remotely access the vehicles.This access could, for example, facilitate the implementation of autonomous driving features, taking control of vehicles out of American car owners hands.
A plausible resolution to this issue could be achieved through the unionization of Tesla and the exclusive sale of their vehicles through traditional car dealerships.
What is truly unbelievable is the government’s apparent lack of imagination in exploiting the perceived gullibility of the average voter
Peter
Mar 5 2024 at 2:14am
Actually they are hoping he does because they can then subpoena it at whim. It’s hard to get data that doesn’t exist whereas US companies will roll over data to the USG on the drop of a time via something as simple as asking.
Jose Pablo
Mar 6 2024 at 9:38pm
Nah, Peter! Do you really think that the same “system” that is unable to clear one half of the homicides and 75% of the rapes is going to catch someone as highly intelligent as Elon? No way!
Don’t let our inner paranoids to drop their guard.
To ensure accountability, we should consider unionizing Tesla and prohibiting the company from directly owning dealerships. He is coming for us and should be stopped!
Trina Halppe
Mar 5 2024 at 3:26am
This alone won’t stop China cars from being imported to the U.S.. Whether powered electrically or with an internal combustion engine, under current law, no car needs to have a data transceiver and a subscription to a wireless data service. The connected aspect of a connected car is just an option. It is not an option for the consumer if the manufacturer decided connected features are standard features. However it’s an option from the manufacturer’s point of view. Until connectivity is something consumers cannot drive without, there’s a huge incentive for the manufacturer to delete the option in order to access big markets.
Scott Sumner
Mar 5 2024 at 12:25pm
Yes, but then the US government will find some other excuse to block Chinese cars. This is about protecting the big three, not national security.
Jose Pablo
Mar 7 2024 at 7:43am
This is about winning elections with the narrative, playing to some of the well-researched voter’s biases.
If the new winning elections narrative goes against the big three, politicians will not hesitate to talk the narratives and pass the supporting bills either.
The only surprising thing is that this “tendency” has not starter earlier …
But, wait a minute, it has!
https://booksandideas.net/British-Protectionism-Through-the-Ages
David Todd: Starting with Oliver Cromwell, who was in power between 1649 and 1658, England wholeheartedly embraced mercantilism. There is no single definition of the word “mercantilism” but in this context, it can be understood as policies designed to minimise imports and maximise exports. To that end, England relied on a wide-ranging legal apparatus that included extremely high tariffs, the Navigation Acts (which only allowed English ships to carry out England’s trade) and bounties for the export of manufactured goods
Trina Halppe
Mar 5 2024 at 3:37am
Cars and phones and computers and refrigerators and TVs represent huge export revenue for China. It’s time to tie trade and investment to freedom of speech within China. The U.S. should monitor freedom of speech and re-establish VoA radio broadcasts in Mandarin and report on the state of it several times a year. Trade and investment restrictions should be increased in the absence of progress towards freer speech. This is a win-win for the U.S. consumer and the Chinese citizen.
David S
Mar 5 2024 at 7:32am
Scott actually identified the real threat here, and it’s not China—it’s another country that starts with the letter “C” and it’s quite literally breathing down our necks. They own too much of our farmland and play a critical role in many of our major supply chains. I recently found out that I drive a Toyota that was assembled there, which means that while everyone was sleeping they managed to subvert the Japanese. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re responsible for all the propaganda about migrants at the Southern Border–the ultimate deflection. Maybe I sound paranoid but there could come a day when the only beer for sale in our supermarkets will be Molson, and the only sport on TV will be hockey. Be on guard.
Jon Murphy
Mar 5 2024 at 8:11am
Indeed so. Like maple syrup, Canada’s evil oozes over America
Dave
Mar 5 2024 at 9:29pm
Be on guard
ym “stand on guard”.
Jon Murphy
Mar 5 2024 at 8:17am
One thing that has struck me recently is how much paranoia (not just anti-Chinese, but paranoia in general) has spread into highly intelligent people. It’s no suprise to have paranoid ramblings in comments sections, blog posts, and even cable news. But I’m even seeing people I know and love, who are highly intelligent, repeat increasingly paranoid claims.
Scott Sumner
Mar 5 2024 at 12:27pm
Even the economics profession has been infected by the rise in nationalism. Very sad.
TMC
Mar 5 2024 at 9:26am
The largest Chinese hacker group is run by the Chinese army. They hacked the OPM a few years ago to get the identities of all US federal workers. I have no doubt they would also be interested in their whereabouts and in-car conversations. I’ve been in security for over a decade and China has always been the world’s #1 digital security threat. While they do steal a lot of IP, they also put a lot of effort in data about people. One medical insurance company I’m aware of gets over 10 million hits on their firewalls a month from China.
TMC
Mar 5 2024 at 9:53am
Last week: https://www.securityweek.com/us-gov-disrupts-soho-router-botnet-used-by-chinese-apt-volt-typhoon/
Michael Sandifer
Mar 5 2024 at 2:49pm
I agree that this is likely not about national security. It’s about politics again, as given that we have the electoral college, marginal votes in Presidential elections in Michigan matter much more than they should.
Jon Murphy
Mar 5 2024 at 8:31pm
One of the problems with these various conspiracy theories is that we have to assume the Chinese government is full of absolute idiots.
Let’s assume that the Chinese really did want to do all these things. If you’re going to be nefarious, you wouldn’t advertise what’s what you’re doing. You wouldn’t build spy equipment into your own products and sell it under your name. That would instantly flag suspicions. And when you do get caught, there’s no deniability.
So, why are people making massive, people hurting decisions based on the idea the foreign government is an idiot? Call me old fashioned but I feel like there should be a better reason for national security actions.
Jon Murphy
Mar 6 2024 at 9:06am
One final point:
Even if we assume the Chinese paranoia is correct*, a crucial question that must be answer is: why are trade actions required? The actions alleged or feared are already illegal. There is already an established body to investigate and prosecute these behaviors. Trade actions are superfluous without anyone explaining why the current institutions are inadequate.
Trade actions are not that precise. There is significant collateral damage around them. The bar for justifications for them should be high, especially when there are already well-established institutions, processes, and proceedures for handling the very problem the trade actions are supposed to solve.
*To quote one of my favorite book series, The Dresden Files: “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean there isn’t an invisible demon about to eat your face”
Mark Barbieri
Mar 6 2024 at 9:15am
I live in a well off Texas suburban county. The following question was on the Republican Primary ballot. And keep in mind that a lot of Democrats vote in the Republican Primary here because all state and local offices are always won by Republicans, so the primary is effectively the real election.
“Texas should ban the sale of Texas land to citizens, governments, and entities from China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.”
This got more than 96% of the vote. It got a higher vote percentage than school choice, hating on immigrants, or any of the other propositions. Fear mongering about China has been extremely successful.
Scott Sumner
Mar 6 2024 at 12:39pm
Yes, the US is in the midst of an anti-Chinese hysteria.
BC
Mar 7 2024 at 11:18am
I guess we can file this one under, “Just because you’re ‘paranoid’, it doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get you”: [https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/espionage-probe-finds-communications-device-on-chinese-cargo-cranes-867d32c0].
For those that can’t access WSJ articles, the gist is that they’ve discovered modems on Chinese-built cranes installed in US ports. The modems do have a legitimate use of providing remote access and monitoring of cranes but, in these cases, the ports didn’t ask for that functionality. “Some of the modems had active connections to operational components to the cranes…While it isn’t unusual for modems to be installed on cranes to remotely monitor operations and track maintenance, it appears that at least some of the ports…hadn’t asked for that capability.” No one seems to know why the modems were installed or what purpose they serve.
I guess one could always hypothesize that it’s just easier to install the modems on every crane whether the customer requests it or not, although it’s probably worth noting that the Chinese state-owned company itself has not offered that explanation. It didn’t respond to requests for comment.
It’s really a burden of proof question. When security concerns arise over products produced by a hostile, adversarial nation, should the assumption be that the products pose no threat until proven otherwise or should the burden fall on the products’ manufacturer to address any security concerns? We could ask the same question of free “weather balloons” that are sent our way…
vince
Mar 7 2024 at 4:58pm
Better to error on the side of caution rather than say, oops, later. Even if you’re called paranoid and a conspiracy theorist by apologists.
Thomas Strenge
Mar 10 2024 at 11:48pm
And let’s not forget Edward Snowden. If we’re accusing the Chinese of doing something, then it’s probably because we’re doing it as well.
Comments are closed.