This report demonstrated that the US is not that far ahead of China in terms of its military, and China may soon be on par. Especially as the Chinese economy and influence around the world grow, the ability for its military to function in an elite manner will only increase.
The Strategic Support Force and the PRC Space Force were particularly interesting to read about. Much like the establishment of the US Cyber Command, this shows that China is also taking these new threats very seriously. The fact that the current target of this department is identified as the US is also worrying. Recent cyberattacks by China against India and European countries shows their capacity, and also demonstrates the need for the US cyber-command to take this threat seriously. Much like the US NSS, this report shows that China is thinking towards the future in terms of its warfare, and is attempting to match US developments step for step and exceed them wherever possible.
Though based on that Military Times article, it is good to see the US Army, Navy, and Marines beginning to adapt to prepare for a potential conflict in the Pacific. And as we briefly discussed yesterday, US partnerships in the region will be essential to assuring we have a strong posture should China seek to threaten any US interests.
China's space force is a very interesting organization based on the historical timeline of space development. Similar to other space exploration organizations in the region, they are working to advance as fast as possible to make up for lost time. Just last month they sent nine satellites into orbit from their sea launch location, making it only the third state to do so behind Russia and the United States. Their advancements will be interesting to monitor over the next several years and an important part of their rise to power.
This article reaffirms what I believe a lot of people already know. The United States is soon to be overtaken by China not only economically, but also militarily if we continue at a consistent rate. The confidence that they had about not commencing a war over the South China Sea is interesting to me and was slightly comforting to hear, although I am not fully convinced that it could not be the tipping point for global conflict. As they go on to say, it is unknown exactly how advanced China's military technologies have become, and with this obstacle, it is almost impossible to predict a comprehensive timeline. I also noticed the mention of cyber attacks throughout, which is a crucial aspect to inspect as a facet of modern war, especially with China. The potential of these technologically advanced weapons to be the driver of the next multilateral war, threaten incalculable damage. This threat expands past hacking into computers and servers and wiping or holding information hostage, but instead the capability to shut down entire networks of energy.
It is encouraging to read the last sections of this article saying the military is "always preparing". The positive side of being able to predict a shift in power like this is that the United States can do everything they can to retain their spot as number one, pushing that shift back.
I would generally say that I think it would take a lot to start a "great power war," as the shear destruction that would ensue would be terrible. But like you, I am not totally convinced that a major conflict couldn't originate with China. I think increasingly, China is overtaking Russia as the most likely nation to take an action that would justify a forceful response.
I also agree with you that it is great to see the US forces responding to this shift in power. US Freedom of Navigation operations in the South China Sea and the deepening of military ties with Vietnam and the Philippines are essential to giving the US claims that it rejects China's claims in the South China Sea legitimate. It is good to see that the US is not acquiescent towards Chinese military buildup.
China's military potential is alarmingly close to that of the US. China's continued power flexes (such as the border standoff with India and the South China Sea) go unchecked by US and NATO security. As @Madeline Smith and @Jay Rosato have said a conflict with China is not unlikely and would be extremely destructive. Analysts worry that a Sino-Indian war is the most likely potential for conflict in the region especially with recent clashes on the border between the two countries. A full-blown war between India and China would be lethal as both countries have over a billion of people in dense urban areas as well as both countries having over a hundred nuclear warheads. The US walks a tightrope with US-China relations as the US can not condemn China too harshly without facing economic backhlash or threats of conflict. As of right now, the warfare the US faces from China is not conventional conflict but attacks on the US economic and cybersecurity infrastructure. https://news.yahoo.com/deadly-sino-indian-border-clash-182203995.html
@Justin Spusta Great points. A Sino-Indian war would be devastating, and is something that should be avoided at all costs. But you are also right that for both the sake of the economy and possibly even to keep tensions low, the US probably should not be overzealous in its criticism of China. But we must know where to draw the line. The South China Sea is an area where the US has enough interest and there is enough at stake that we should take a strong response. But in India placing US support on one side or the other may not only damage the US relations, but also unnecessarily raise tensions. Additionally, the US does not have a direct interest in the area, other than preventing warfare.
You bring up the good point that for the sake of the global economy and global security, the US must balance its options for response carefully. Too much or too little to a given crisis could lead to a serious security crisis.
I have read past reports similar to this one. For this document I focused on the portions related to cyber. The Chinese military has multiple units related to cyber. People’s Liberation Army Unit-78020 is directly linked to the advanced persistent threat Naikon. APT Naikon is attributed with multiple attacks targeting ASEAN nations and Australia. There is also People’s Liberation Army Unit-61486 which is linked to multiple cyber attacks under the title of “Putter Panda”. The NSA has published documentation on this group and their actions such as spear phishing with the political goal of stealing military secrets and blueprints. With all of this being said, I am not surprised to see official documentation detailing the intention to focus on information, cyber, space, and counter-space operations. The usage of these PLA groups supports the political goals reflected in this document. The usage of the SSF Network Systems Department is of no surprise to me. One thing I was not suspecting to see in this document was the inclusion of psychological warfare. The Great Firewall and the treatment of Uighur Muslims both come to mind. What really interests me is how this documentation will be used by U.S. and foreign agencies. The war of information is still raging on between the US and China.
I have of course been aware that tensions between the United States and China were increasing. This report reallly put it into perspective that the government and military are preparing themselves for if and when this happens. it also seems that China is ahead of us on their war strategies as well as weapons that if they were to attack immediately, it would be difficult for the offense. It seems that we are underprepared and if we were to go to war or start trying to protect true US from that, it would take a lot of work that would almost be impossible , like moving marines from island to island every couple of days.
I agree with you this report is concerning. This almost seems like a proto-arms race between the two nations, only occurring around the globe and beyond, expanding into space and the cyber realm.
As for the challenges in defending key interests you bring up, I think this is why I think. developing regional partnerships are vital. If we can position US forces and materials in places close to sources of conflict, such as the Philippines in the South China Sea, South Korea and Japan in the East China Sea, or the Diego Garcia US Navy base in the Indian Ocean, then the armed forces will be far more able to respond in the situation that large scale conflict erupts.
I think the power struggle between the United States and China will be the intelligence field’s new focus as security concerns continue to develop. According to the House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff, the intelligence community’s “capacity to address hard targets like China has waned” after two decades of focusing on counterterrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. He is adamant that having the intelligence community work with the congressional oversight committees will be effective in creating changes that will help counter Chinese intel.
Counterterrorism efforts are influenced by global powers and with China’s harsh treatment of Uighur Muslims to counter violent extremism it shows they are not tolerant of religious/racial minorities that are unwillingly associated with extremist groups. It is not enough to condemn China’s internment camp actions to the UN Human Rights Council, if Chinese power goes unchecked then this form of “re-education” to combat terrorism goes unchecked as well.
China's rhetoric about a "return" and a "great rejuvenation" is worth a closer look.
Unlike many places in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, China was never directly colonized by European empires. However the 1800s were full of political machinations and interventions by European powers in Chinese affairs. The result was a China that was defined by division and internal strife, which significantly impeded its ability to have a strong impact on the world stage.
National narratives are powerful tools, and it seems very likely that Chinese authorities are using a historically-rooted resentment against the West to justify their quest for superpower status.
My simple statement glosses over some very complex history. This video provides some more detail:
The potential fallout of a possible war with China was very interesting to read. Not only would it be a devastation on China and the United States, but it could also lead to a global economic disaster and domino effect if war broke out. The United States and China finance several different areas of the world and if the focus is on war that would force capital to go towards war efforts and not investing in other areas. That would snowball causing a massive economic collapse. If one was to put aside the money aspect and focus on the physical aspects the United States would be at a serious disadvantage due to the disparities in Chinese and US deployable assets. I found the fact that China has 350 ships and the US having 296 ships to be overwhelming. In the US, you an always hear how we have the best military and best assets, but will the US be in a good position with quality rather than quantity. Chinese missiles could pose a great risk, experts say that the threat is not immediate because of the loss of life and money however with the stockpiles of nuclear weapons on both sides is the US looking at the next Cuban missile crisis? With that being said, maybe the US should focus on stepping up their defense in the cyber realm because experts are saying China is more likely to cause political and economic warfare then physical warfare which could cause the same damage if not more. In the situation if an all-out war broke out it would be an all hands on deck time and when preparing for an aftermath of a pre-emptive strike should we put all bases on standby and raise the threat level in areas overseas or here in the US? One fascinating tidbit that caught my eye was the artillery piece, with that being my background, I agree once we get boots on ground it would be harder to get missiles that way but not impossible. The problem would be getting the clearance for fire missions not the getting missiles that way because as artillery personnel, you are trained to be super accurate so not to cause harm to friendly forces. In the event of artillery or troops in general, transportation is needed. With the sealift command vessels being neglected for so long should they be the next focus point of the military due to the potential increased need for them?
I think your assessment of the risk as a possible Cuban Missile Crisis type situation is very interesting. Is this just a connection based on the threats of the specific technology or do you think that contextually these two situations have more in common?
@Madeline Smith I think that drew the connection from both aspects. The specific technology definitely is similar because the outcome could be an all-out war. On the other hand, contextually, this is similar, the US could be drawn into war because of the US involvement with Taiwan just the US involvement with Cuba.
Powerful states around the world are constantly improving their military capabilities. The US military is focusing on new threats and improving to overcome such, China is doing the same. However, with the mention of the US as major competitor to China there is reason to be worrisome. I am sure we have all seen the rise of the PRC and that it is becoming a top global competitor in many aspects. With that being said, it is not ideal that the China is seemingly closing the gap between our military capabilities. Like @Roy Rashke it would be a global disaster if tensions between China and the US increased to warfare, especially if we are nearly equal in several aspects of warfare. The increasing nuclear stockpile China is planning with their goal of becoming more active with foreign policy is not a situation the US wants to be in.
This document of Chinese Military Power was very interesting to examine after so closely reading the National Security Strategy of the United States. I feel like this format was very similar and made it easier to draw direct connections and parallels. Some of the themes are similar, as I believe they would be for any international superpower like both of these. Things like state sovereignty at all cost and retaining a nuclear force while actively working for nuclear deterrence. In the United States version, they claimed to be seeking peace, prosperity, and security while the Chinese government boiled it down to countries being bound by peace, development, and mutual benefit, which seem similar in the message but after observing has been quite differently reflected in execution. Some things that were mentioned in the United States National Security Strategy, but not here was the protection of the environment as an aspect of national stability and the mutual interest to play their hand in stabilizing other countries. Regardless of whether or not I agree with this responsibility that the United States has taken on, I think this is a topic we are currently seeing very clearly. China, as a quickly rising global superpower, thrives on other strong states being destabilized. A good very recent example is the debate on Tuesday night. The pure chaos and lack of substantive discussion are good for China because it makes the leadership of the United States look broken, frantic, and defective.
This really was a lot like reading the NSS. Even the rhetoric and structures were similar. A lot like the Trump moniker of "make America Great Again" a lot of this document focused on restoring China's status as a great power. The "Eight Strategic Tasks" kind of lined up with the five pillars of US NSS. Protecting the American homeland and defending China's territorial security were both the first priority of both nations. I also noted the priority both documents gave to focusing on modern threats, such as cyber-security and space.
As for your comments about the debates, I agree with you completely, and as I hinted at in my post, I generally think the current political situation in America is great for autocracies all over the world. Much like the Uighurs and Hong Kong are damaging China's reputation,its own internal divides must be damaging that of the US.
@Jay Rosato That is a good way to compare the media coverage of the negative ongoing situations in each country. Another similarity that could be drawn is the police being sent into peaceful BLM protests and the new laws in Hong Kong not allowing citizens to speak on the merits of democracy. These are all definitely cases to keep an eye on in the name of free speech.
This was definitely an interesting read. The fact that China was ready to “shoulder its responsibility as a major country” stood out to me. This is particularly pertinent on the continent of Africa, where China has been working particularly hard to boost its presence. China has nearly 2,500 soldiers supporting six UN peacekeeping missions, which is more than any other western nation. Perhaps this is meant as a way for China to demonstrate its leadership role in the world. Their construction of the African Union building in Addis Ababa also suggests that they may now be seeking to take over the role of the EU and the US as a chief development partner on the continent.
I particularly found this one line about "domestic security issues that [China] believes could undermine the overriding strategic objective to perpetuate communist rule. These include longstanding concerns regarding Taiwan independence, Uighur, and Tibetan separatism" to be very informative. To many western nations, the Chinese actions in Tibet and Xinjianghave been akin to genocide, but for China, it is an internal security issue that threatens their territorial sovereignty. Yet even though Chinese leadership have crafted a reason to respond to issues in the region, it has irreparably harmed the image and reputation of China. It is always interesting to look at the intersection between domestic issues and international relations. It makes me wonder what other foreign populations think about the current racial strife the US is going through, and how our internal political divides are being interpreted by people across the world.
I thought that was a very interesting section as well, as I am curious how China would define those responsibilities. This worries me for the sovereignty of states surrounding China, seeing as they have already made it increasingly clear that they will pursue their goals at all costs. As I have talked about before, the BRI is a good example of this and has been discussed as a clear form of neocolonialism perpetuated by a rising state.
China is becoming a more influential military power in recent years competing with the military superpowers of the US and Russia. China's influence on global geopolitics has become more noticable. As @Jay Rosato mentioned, China's influence in Africa, particularly East Africa has been a worrisome trend for US security. East Africa is rapidly urbanizing, take for example Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, which aspires to be the "Singapore of Africa". As such, East Africa needs further economic stimulus to acheive this level of growth. China has been the one to support this growth by extensive trade, promoting Chinese companies in East Africa and lending out loans to African countries. Some analysts believe that this is simply Chinese companies finding profits in a new market whereas others are skeptical about China's motives in Africa. https://allafrica.com/stories/202009260018.html
China's military flexes in and around its borders have largely been ignored by the international community. China's blatant attempt to take Exclusive Economic Zones from other Southeast Asian countries in the South China Sea by creating artificial islands has yet to be dealt with. Within recent years, China and India have been engaged in more frequent clashes on the Sino-Indian border. The third notable military flex by China is its forced "re-education" and imprisonment of the Muslim Uyghurs/Uighurs in Xinjiang. The Uyghur community abroad has pushed for international communities to condemn the Chinese government and seek justice for the Uighur population but so far little has been done to stop China.
@Justin Spusta Great post as always. China's involvement in Africa is definitely worrying. Djibouti is a prime example of this. In 2018, Djibouti owed China roughly $1.2 billion, as a result of a variety of expensive projects, including port facilities, railroads, and airports in the country. And for a country with a GDP of only about $3 billion, this is very worrying. Especially given Djibouti's strategic location in relation to world trade and the fact that it currently hosts the only permanent US military base on the continent. If China continues to gain influence on the continent, it could be detrimental for US trading and security interests in the region.
I also think you bring up a good point that China is kind of allowed to do whatever they want due to their massive economy. Turkey was once very critical of the Uighur detention, but after trade talks with China began, they backed down, and did not sign the 22 nation letter criticizing China's concentration camps. they have also recently been accused of attempting to deport Uighurs back to China.
When looking at the reading today I tried to put items in perspective to the US military to gain a better level of comprehension. The PLA has 5 main services; Army, Navy, Air Force, Rocket Force, and the Strategic Support Force; while the US has 6 main services; Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, Marines, and sometimes the Coastguard. The next point of force strengths, China having about 2 million personnel and the US having 1.43 Million. That was where I started to find wider differences. The PLA gets personnel from conscription and volunteers while the US gets personnel from volunteerism solely. The PLA has strengths in long-range precision strikes, information warfare, nuclear retaliatory capability and increasing strength in maritime power projection, special operations. The US has strengths in having a high budget for defense, cohesive military branches, organized operations and good communication between units and branches. The article brought up territorial disputes along China’s border with India, causing periodic tension. This along with the Taiwanese straight conflict could be seen by some as lesser acts of terrorism but terrorism none-the-less. Is this something that China should take another look at because China states terrorist activities are growing increasingly worrisome, but can also be seen as committing these same “terrorist activities”? The document brings up the forces for world peace are on the rise; so are the factors against war. In the foreseeable future, a world war is unlikely, and the international situation is expected to remain generally peaceful. However, yesterday, my colleagues, @Jay Rosato, @Madeline Smith and I were speaking about the Taiwanese conflict potentially turning into the next Cuban Missile crisis so is it really that are fetched that world war is not likely when things in the pacific region can hit the fan easily in the US gets involved? One of the last pieces of this article that drew up some questions on my end is when China has superiority in long-range weapons, far more then the US or many other countries why are long-range weapons posing new and severe challenges to China’s military security when they are the country with the superiority?
@Roy Rashke I really appreciate your comparison between the PLA and the US Armed Forces. It was very insightful and helpful to see the two juxtaposed to each other.
I agree with you that the Pacific cannot be discounted as a potential source of conflict. The South China Sea, the East China Sea, or the Indian Border could all lead to conflict. Especially with a creeping up in tensions in the South China Sea and both the US and China rely increasingly on military force to achieve their objectives.
Today's reading made repeated references to Chinese national security documents that have downplayed concerns about world war, but have stated the need for China to be prepared for local wars. This has been a large part of the justification for upgrading their military capabilities.
However, today's document also explains how China has been equipping the PLA for strategic tasks such as global maritime operations and participation in international security cooperation. @Jay Rosato has already talked about China's investments in Africa, and similar movements are under weigh in Latin America and even Eastern Europe. The more China expands its military and economic influence worldwide, the more it will find itself in direct competition with US hegemony.
Both American and Chinese documents stress that a world war is unlikely, and I believe that is true. But the way Chinese global ambitions are progressing, the probability of a wider conflict seems like it will inevitably increase, even if it only increases by a slight margin.
That timeline by the council on foreign relations was a great resource for covering nearly 80 years of ups and downs in relations between the US and China. It is interesting, and also perhaps worrying, to see more and more strains, both economic, diplomatic, and military, between the two as the Xi Jinping and Trump administrations, have risen to power.
It was good to see China agree to cooperate with the US on matters of intellectual property, as this has been a major source of strain between the two nations for many years now. It was good to see this document prioritize pushing China to crack down on property theft and use proper judicial measures to regulate the issue. I was somewhat surprised by the number of concessions China made to the US. This section of the treaty was very comprehensive and covered everything from pharmaceuticals to copyright.
I do wonder how the US will enforce the many new administrative burdens it has placed on China. The US has little leverage over China in terms of economics, and as far as I can tell, another trade war would be the only method to assuring Chinese compliance with these terms.
I agree that it is alarming to see the dissolve of partnership, with China rising so quickly this sets a disturbing trend for the United States for the coming years and next administration. I noted in my response as well that the Chinese seemed to concede quite a bit in this agreement and, like you said, how will new sanctions be upheld when China has the economic upper hand? It is unlikely that the United States could engage in any sort of punishment long-term given their growing imbalance in power and debts.
Agreeing with the sentiments of my peers, I would say that this document shows that the US are similar in not only their economic power, but military power as well. Many of their military stresses are quite similar, which shows that the US needs to be concerned with the possible overtaking of power from Chinese military, in order to protect national security. With China‘s strong cyber force, and past attempts from China on other states, the US should take this as a signal to strengthen cyber security, especially since China sees the US as its #1 threat. With China attempting to surpass the US in anyway, it is possible, as many have predicted, that the international community will sees this unipolar system become China dominated, overtaking the US.
How do you think this shift in economic and military power is aided by the state of the United States? Do you think China would be more inclined to engage militarily at a time like this, when the US seems vulnerable?
I agree with you. Cyberthreats will be a major front of any potential conflict, large or small, between the US and China, and must be taken seriously.
As it relates to intellectual property I think thus far, as @Justin Spusta echoed China has been able to get away with things due to their large economy. Few nations are willing to directly confront China, and when they do it tends to reflect poorly on their domestic performance at home. President Trump's trade war against China was not well received, regardless of its ultimate impacts.
An agreement between China and the United States on intellectual property is highly fruitful seeing as this has been the source of several conflicts, historically. It was surprising to me how, for lack of a better word, clean this agreement is and I would be interested to hear how this has held up in the last year or so. The current administrations on both end seem fairly content bending legality to their will, especially when it comes to things like innovation, which this agreement would protect. It also seems like this agreement heavily favors the United States, especially when it comes to persecutions if it is violated. The Chinese must go through a much more thorough process to convict the US.
In 2019 there was much concern over China not respecting intellectual property of the United States and IMF data showed that their IP purchasing was much lower that was statistically probable given their exports. Cracking down on China has been one of Donald Trump's biggest goals and this has been a large portion of that fight, despite how little has actually changed.
I agree with you that it seems as though China is making more concessions in this document. Though one thing I noted was that most of the restrictions put on China were accompanied by a clause that said the US already had agreed to this via another trade agreement. Nevertheless, I still find it impressive China agreed to this.
That article you posted was really interesting to read, and after viewing it I am also interested to see the statistics over the next few years to see if IP spending in China increases.
@Jay Rosato I have found that it is really interesting to observe the outcomes of policies like this through statistics, like the ones the IMF releases, because it often gives a less biased analysis of the outcomes. Economic policies often take between three to six years to see a quantifiable response, so finding a consistent source of reliable statistics to analyze through is helpful.
After reviewing today’s reading, I was very fascinated by it. Federal Law Enforcement have agents that study and help enforce Patent law. The US Patent and Trademark Office is very important in that effort. With today’s reading being around trade secrets and intellectual properties that seemed very similar to the US’s procedures. The United States recognizes the importance of intellectual property protection, there are two main types of patents you can apply for in the United States. Those are a Design Patent and a Utility Patent. A design patent is issued based on the design of a product such as a water bottle with a keychain holder. That patent protects the design of the product, the colors, process it is made under etc. The Utility patent protects the function of a product such as a squeezable portion of the water bottle. The Utility patent protects the function of a product. Both the United States and China agree on the vital importance patents and intellectual property rights play on establishing a comprehensive legal system. This document highlighted that the US offered many protections and it is my opinion that this document was made to establish competitive patent issuing in China for American companies. The United States emphasizes trade secret protection and both the US and China regard trade secret protection as a core element of business. In both countries the burden of proof is on accused part to prove innocence in civil proceedings which is different then most are used to because the burden of proof is on the prosecution in criminal proceedings. The threshold for criminal enforcement is clarified as a “great loss” including remedial costs for getting back to normal operations and penalties cover instances of force, fraud, and theft both physically and electronically. This difference and combination of civil and criminal law it is imperative people know the difference in burdens of proof. For investigations, the information needed for evidence must be limited to the scope of the investigation and not full records. I was also glad to see in this document sections covering patent disputes and extensions or renewals. With keeping up with your patent renewal, that is the best way to ensure your always have protection on your processes. As with medical patents and intellectual property rights, that is a pivotal part of patent laws too. They serve in the medical community to protect pharmaceutical companies from being miscredited with discovery of medicines. Overall, Patents can make or break a company so you must always do your research and apply for them if needed.
Thanks for this description of patent law. It was very helpful for better understanding this document. I agree with you that tools such as patents and copyright are key tools for companies, and assuring that the laws are enforced is key to maintaining an environment of innovation. I would be curious if you have any thoughts on how the US could ensure that China is cooperating with these commitments to protect international trade.
@Jay Rosato in regards to making sure China follows these commitments you can look at 3 different treaties that help facilitate IP and patent filings, The Paris Convention, The Patent Cooperation Treaty, and The Madrid Protocol. You can view more of each down below.
One common misconception is that once you file a patent in the US you are protected in every country around the world. That is not true. You have to file your ain patent in the country of origin, so the United States for example, and then file a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application. You complete that process for every country you want protection in. As for another enforcement organization you can also look at the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) they currently have 193 countries under their organization which China and the US being two of them. If someone has a patent dispute in another country you can file a complaint and seek an injunction from the WIPO.
An agreement on intellectual property would be great progress for US and China economic relations. Chinese companies have skirted the laws on intellectual properties in the past so it is exciting to see an agreement being made to respect intellectual property. This deal will be beneficial for both the US and China, as the US can worry less about intellectual theft and China will be able to seem more trustworthy and reliable in the view of the international community. Hopefully, this is only the start of more cooperation between the two countries, as the current economic tension between China and US has had dire consequences on the Stock Market and economy.
From a public diplomacy standpoint, I think this is a good move for China. I personally know a lot of people that dislike China for their blatant disregard of copyright and technology. I imagine that many around the world share the same view, so them taking action will certainly work to improve their image. Furthermore, this further integrates them into the global economic community by forcing them (at least in theory) to abiding by international trade laws. I agree with you that it is great to see economic cooperation between the two nations. I hope that this spirit of economic cooperation continues between the two nations.
This report demonstrated that the US is not that far ahead of China in terms of its military, and China may soon be on par. Especially as the Chinese economy and influence around the world grow, the ability for its military to function in an elite manner will only increase.
The Strategic Support Force and the PRC Space Force were particularly interesting to read about. Much like the establishment of the US Cyber Command, this shows that China is also taking these new threats very seriously. The fact that the current target of this department is identified as the US is also worrying. Recent cyberattacks by China against India and European countries shows their capacity, and also demonstrates the need for the US cyber-command to take this threat seriously. Much like the US NSS, this report shows that China is thinking towards the future in terms of its warfare, and is attempting to match US developments step for step and exceed them wherever possible.
Though based on that Military Times article, it is good to see the US Army, Navy, and Marines beginning to adapt to prepare for a potential conflict in the Pacific. And as we briefly discussed yesterday, US partnerships in the region will be essential to assuring we have a strong posture should China seek to threaten any US interests.
China's space force is a very interesting organization based on the historical timeline of space development. Similar to other space exploration organizations in the region, they are working to advance as fast as possible to make up for lost time. Just last month they sent nine satellites into orbit from their sea launch location, making it only the third state to do so behind Russia and the United States. Their advancements will be interesting to monitor over the next several years and an important part of their rise to power.
This article reaffirms what I believe a lot of people already know. The United States is soon to be overtaken by China not only economically, but also militarily if we continue at a consistent rate. The confidence that they had about not commencing a war over the South China Sea is interesting to me and was slightly comforting to hear, although I am not fully convinced that it could not be the tipping point for global conflict. As they go on to say, it is unknown exactly how advanced China's military technologies have become, and with this obstacle, it is almost impossible to predict a comprehensive timeline. I also noticed the mention of cyber attacks throughout, which is a crucial aspect to inspect as a facet of modern war, especially with China. The potential of these technologically advanced weapons to be the driver of the next multilateral war, threaten incalculable damage. This threat expands past hacking into computers and servers and wiping or holding information hostage, but instead the capability to shut down entire networks of energy.
It is encouraging to read the last sections of this article saying the military is "always preparing". The positive side of being able to predict a shift in power like this is that the United States can do everything they can to retain their spot as number one, pushing that shift back.
I would generally say that I think it would take a lot to start a "great power war," as the shear destruction that would ensue would be terrible. But like you, I am not totally convinced that a major conflict couldn't originate with China. I think increasingly, China is overtaking Russia as the most likely nation to take an action that would justify a forceful response.
I also agree with you that it is great to see the US forces responding to this shift in power. US Freedom of Navigation operations in the South China Sea and the deepening of military ties with Vietnam and the Philippines are essential to giving the US claims that it rejects China's claims in the South China Sea legitimate. It is good to see that the US is not acquiescent towards Chinese military buildup.
China's military potential is alarmingly close to that of the US. China's continued power flexes (such as the border standoff with India and the South China Sea) go unchecked by US and NATO security. As @Madeline Smith and @Jay Rosato have said a conflict with China is not unlikely and would be extremely destructive. Analysts worry that a Sino-Indian war is the most likely potential for conflict in the region especially with recent clashes on the border between the two countries. A full-blown war between India and China would be lethal as both countries have over a billion of people in dense urban areas as well as both countries having over a hundred nuclear warheads. The US walks a tightrope with US-China relations as the US can not condemn China too harshly without facing economic backhlash or threats of conflict. As of right now, the warfare the US faces from China is not conventional conflict but attacks on the US economic and cybersecurity infrastructure. https://news.yahoo.com/deadly-sino-indian-border-clash-182203995.html
@Justin Spusta Great points. A Sino-Indian war would be devastating, and is something that should be avoided at all costs. But you are also right that for both the sake of the economy and possibly even to keep tensions low, the US probably should not be overzealous in its criticism of China. But we must know where to draw the line. The South China Sea is an area where the US has enough interest and there is enough at stake that we should take a strong response. But in India placing US support on one side or the other may not only damage the US relations, but also unnecessarily raise tensions. Additionally, the US does not have a direct interest in the area, other than preventing warfare.
You bring up the good point that for the sake of the global economy and global security, the US must balance its options for response carefully. Too much or too little to a given crisis could lead to a serious security crisis.
I have read past reports similar to this one. For this document I focused on the portions related to cyber. The Chinese military has multiple units related to cyber. People’s Liberation Army Unit-78020 is directly linked to the advanced persistent threat Naikon. APT Naikon is attributed with multiple attacks targeting ASEAN nations and Australia. There is also People’s Liberation Army Unit-61486 which is linked to multiple cyber attacks under the title of “Putter Panda”. The NSA has published documentation on this group and their actions such as spear phishing with the political goal of stealing military secrets and blueprints. With all of this being said, I am not surprised to see official documentation detailing the intention to focus on information, cyber, space, and counter-space operations. The usage of these PLA groups supports the political goals reflected in this document. The usage of the SSF Network Systems Department is of no surprise to me. One thing I was not suspecting to see in this document was the inclusion of psychological warfare. The Great Firewall and the treatment of Uighur Muslims both come to mind. What really interests me is how this documentation will be used by U.S. and foreign agencies. The war of information is still raging on between the US and China.
I have of course been aware that tensions between the United States and China were increasing. This report reallly put it into perspective that the government and military are preparing themselves for if and when this happens. it also seems that China is ahead of us on their war strategies as well as weapons that if they were to attack immediately, it would be difficult for the offense. It seems that we are underprepared and if we were to go to war or start trying to protect true US from that, it would take a lot of work that would almost be impossible , like moving marines from island to island every couple of days.
I agree with you this report is concerning. This almost seems like a proto-arms race between the two nations, only occurring around the globe and beyond, expanding into space and the cyber realm.
As for the challenges in defending key interests you bring up, I think this is why I think. developing regional partnerships are vital. If we can position US forces and materials in places close to sources of conflict, such as the Philippines in the South China Sea, South Korea and Japan in the East China Sea, or the Diego Garcia US Navy base in the Indian Ocean, then the armed forces will be far more able to respond in the situation that large scale conflict erupts.
Good insight. Thank you for sharing!
I think the power struggle between the United States and China will be the intelligence field’s new focus as security concerns continue to develop. According to the House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff, the intelligence community’s “capacity to address hard targets like China has waned” after two decades of focusing on counterterrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. He is adamant that having the intelligence community work with the congressional oversight committees will be effective in creating changes that will help counter Chinese intel.
Counterterrorism efforts are influenced by global powers and with China’s harsh treatment of Uighur Muslims to counter violent extremism it shows they are not tolerant of religious/racial minorities that are unwillingly associated with extremist groups. It is not enough to condemn China’s internment camp actions to the UN Human Rights Council, if Chinese power goes unchecked then this form of “re-education” to combat terrorism goes unchecked as well.
China's rhetoric about a "return" and a "great rejuvenation" is worth a closer look.
Unlike many places in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, China was never directly colonized by European empires. However the 1800s were full of political machinations and interventions by European powers in Chinese affairs. The result was a China that was defined by division and internal strife, which significantly impeded its ability to have a strong impact on the world stage.
National narratives are powerful tools, and it seems very likely that Chinese authorities are using a historically-rooted resentment against the West to justify their quest for superpower status.
My simple statement glosses over some very complex history. This video provides some more detail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0A4EBBx8nk
The potential fallout of a possible war with China was very interesting to read. Not only would it be a devastation on China and the United States, but it could also lead to a global economic disaster and domino effect if war broke out. The United States and China finance several different areas of the world and if the focus is on war that would force capital to go towards war efforts and not investing in other areas. That would snowball causing a massive economic collapse. If one was to put aside the money aspect and focus on the physical aspects the United States would be at a serious disadvantage due to the disparities in Chinese and US deployable assets. I found the fact that China has 350 ships and the US having 296 ships to be overwhelming. In the US, you an always hear how we have the best military and best assets, but will the US be in a good position with quality rather than quantity. Chinese missiles could pose a great risk, experts say that the threat is not immediate because of the loss of life and money however with the stockpiles of nuclear weapons on both sides is the US looking at the next Cuban missile crisis? With that being said, maybe the US should focus on stepping up their defense in the cyber realm because experts are saying China is more likely to cause political and economic warfare then physical warfare which could cause the same damage if not more. In the situation if an all-out war broke out it would be an all hands on deck time and when preparing for an aftermath of a pre-emptive strike should we put all bases on standby and raise the threat level in areas overseas or here in the US? One fascinating tidbit that caught my eye was the artillery piece, with that being my background, I agree once we get boots on ground it would be harder to get missiles that way but not impossible. The problem would be getting the clearance for fire missions not the getting missiles that way because as artillery personnel, you are trained to be super accurate so not to cause harm to friendly forces. In the event of artillery or troops in general, transportation is needed. With the sealift command vessels being neglected for so long should they be the next focus point of the military due to the potential increased need for them?
I think your assessment of the risk as a possible Cuban Missile Crisis type situation is very interesting. Is this just a connection based on the threats of the specific technology or do you think that contextually these two situations have more in common?
@Madeline Smith I think that drew the connection from both aspects. The specific technology definitely is similar because the outcome could be an all-out war. On the other hand, contextually, this is similar, the US could be drawn into war because of the US involvement with Taiwan just the US involvement with Cuba.
Powerful states around the world are constantly improving their military capabilities. The US military is focusing on new threats and improving to overcome such, China is doing the same. However, with the mention of the US as major competitor to China there is reason to be worrisome. I am sure we have all seen the rise of the PRC and that it is becoming a top global competitor in many aspects. With that being said, it is not ideal that the China is seemingly closing the gap between our military capabilities. Like @Roy Rashke it would be a global disaster if tensions between China and the US increased to warfare, especially if we are nearly equal in several aspects of warfare. The increasing nuclear stockpile China is planning with their goal of becoming more active with foreign policy is not a situation the US wants to be in.
How do you think the rise of China's influence economically will effect the rate at which we see war with China becoming a more exigent threat?
This document of Chinese Military Power was very interesting to examine after so closely reading the National Security Strategy of the United States. I feel like this format was very similar and made it easier to draw direct connections and parallels. Some of the themes are similar, as I believe they would be for any international superpower like both of these. Things like state sovereignty at all cost and retaining a nuclear force while actively working for nuclear deterrence. In the United States version, they claimed to be seeking peace, prosperity, and security while the Chinese government boiled it down to countries being bound by peace, development, and mutual benefit, which seem similar in the message but after observing has been quite differently reflected in execution. Some things that were mentioned in the United States National Security Strategy, but not here was the protection of the environment as an aspect of national stability and the mutual interest to play their hand in stabilizing other countries. Regardless of whether or not I agree with this responsibility that the United States has taken on, I think this is a topic we are currently seeing very clearly. China, as a quickly rising global superpower, thrives on other strong states being destabilized. A good very recent example is the debate on Tuesday night. The pure chaos and lack of substantive discussion are good for China because it makes the leadership of the United States look broken, frantic, and defective.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1202523.shtml
This really was a lot like reading the NSS. Even the rhetoric and structures were similar. A lot like the Trump moniker of "make America Great Again" a lot of this document focused on restoring China's status as a great power. The "Eight Strategic Tasks" kind of lined up with the five pillars of US NSS. Protecting the American homeland and defending China's territorial security were both the first priority of both nations. I also noted the priority both documents gave to focusing on modern threats, such as cyber-security and space.
As for your comments about the debates, I agree with you completely, and as I hinted at in my post, I generally think the current political situation in America is great for autocracies all over the world. Much like the Uighurs and Hong Kong are damaging China's reputation,its own internal divides must be damaging that of the US.
@Jay Rosato That is a good way to compare the media coverage of the negative ongoing situations in each country. Another similarity that could be drawn is the police being sent into peaceful BLM protests and the new laws in Hong Kong not allowing citizens to speak on the merits of democracy. These are all definitely cases to keep an eye on in the name of free speech.
This was definitely an interesting read. The fact that China was ready to “shoulder its responsibility as a major country” stood out to me. This is particularly pertinent on the continent of Africa, where China has been working particularly hard to boost its presence. China has nearly 2,500 soldiers supporting six UN peacekeeping missions, which is more than any other western nation. Perhaps this is meant as a way for China to demonstrate its leadership role in the world. Their construction of the African Union building in Addis Ababa also suggests that they may now be seeking to take over the role of the EU and the US as a chief development partner on the continent.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-africa
I particularly found this one line about "domestic security issues that [China] believes could undermine the overriding strategic objective to perpetuate communist rule. These include longstanding concerns regarding Taiwan independence, Uighur, and Tibetan separatism" to be very informative. To many western nations, the Chinese actions in Tibet and Xinjiang have been akin to genocide, but for China, it is an internal security issue that threatens their territorial sovereignty. Yet even though Chinese leadership have crafted a reason to respond to issues in the region, it has irreparably harmed the image and reputation of China. It is always interesting to look at the intersection between domestic issues and international relations. It makes me wonder what other foreign populations think about the current racial strife the US is going through, and how our internal political divides are being interpreted by people across the world.
I thought that was a very interesting section as well, as I am curious how China would define those responsibilities. This worries me for the sovereignty of states surrounding China, seeing as they have already made it increasingly clear that they will pursue their goals at all costs. As I have talked about before, the BRI is a good example of this and has been discussed as a clear form of neocolonialism perpetuated by a rising state.
China is becoming a more influential military power in recent years competing with the military superpowers of the US and Russia. China's influence on global geopolitics has become more noticable. As @Jay Rosato mentioned, China's influence in Africa, particularly East Africa has been a worrisome trend for US security. East Africa is rapidly urbanizing, take for example Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, which aspires to be the "Singapore of Africa". As such, East Africa needs further economic stimulus to acheive this level of growth. China has been the one to support this growth by extensive trade, promoting Chinese companies in East Africa and lending out loans to African countries. Some analysts believe that this is simply Chinese companies finding profits in a new market whereas others are skeptical about China's motives in Africa. https://allafrica.com/stories/202009260018.html
China's military flexes in and around its borders have largely been ignored by the international community. China's blatant attempt to take Exclusive Economic Zones from other Southeast Asian countries in the South China Sea by creating artificial islands has yet to be dealt with. Within recent years, China and India have been engaged in more frequent clashes on the Sino-Indian border. The third notable military flex by China is its forced "re-education" and imprisonment of the Muslim Uyghurs/Uighurs in Xinjiang. The Uyghur community abroad has pushed for international communities to condemn the Chinese government and seek justice for the Uighur population but so far little has been done to stop China.
@Justin Spusta Great post as always. China's involvement in Africa is definitely worrying. Djibouti is a prime example of this. In 2018, Djibouti owed China roughly $1.2 billion, as a result of a variety of expensive projects, including port facilities, railroads, and airports in the country. And for a country with a GDP of only about $3 billion, this is very worrying. Especially given Djibouti's strategic location in relation to world trade and the fact that it currently hosts the only permanent US military base on the continent. If China continues to gain influence on the continent, it could be detrimental for US trading and security interests in the region.
Congressional Report on China and Djibouti: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF11304.pdf
I also think you bring up a good point that China is kind of allowed to do whatever they want due to their massive economy. Turkey was once very critical of the Uighur detention, but after trade talks with China began, they backed down, and did not sign the 22 nation letter criticizing China's concentration camps. they have also recently been accused of attempting to deport Uighurs back to China.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uighurs-china-turkey-accused-deporting-third-countries
When looking at the reading today I tried to put items in perspective to the US military to gain a better level of comprehension. The PLA has 5 main services; Army, Navy, Air Force, Rocket Force, and the Strategic Support Force; while the US has 6 main services; Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, Marines, and sometimes the Coastguard. The next point of force strengths, China having about 2 million personnel and the US having 1.43 Million. That was where I started to find wider differences. The PLA gets personnel from conscription and volunteers while the US gets personnel from volunteerism solely. The PLA has strengths in long-range precision strikes, information warfare, nuclear retaliatory capability and increasing strength in maritime power projection, special operations. The US has strengths in having a high budget for defense, cohesive military branches, organized operations and good communication between units and branches. The article brought up territorial disputes along China’s border with India, causing periodic tension. This along with the Taiwanese straight conflict could be seen by some as lesser acts of terrorism but terrorism none-the-less. Is this something that China should take another look at because China states terrorist activities are growing increasingly worrisome, but can also be seen as committing these same “terrorist activities”? The document brings up the forces for world peace are on the rise; so are the factors against war. In the foreseeable future, a world war is unlikely, and the international situation is expected to remain generally peaceful. However, yesterday, my colleagues, @Jay Rosato, @Madeline Smith and I were speaking about the Taiwanese conflict potentially turning into the next Cuban Missile crisis so is it really that are fetched that world war is not likely when things in the pacific region can hit the fan easily in the US gets involved? One of the last pieces of this article that drew up some questions on my end is when China has superiority in long-range weapons, far more then the US or many other countries why are long-range weapons posing new and severe challenges to China’s military security when they are the country with the superiority?
@Roy Rashke I really appreciate your comparison between the PLA and the US Armed Forces. It was very insightful and helpful to see the two juxtaposed to each other.
I agree with you that the Pacific cannot be discounted as a potential source of conflict. The South China Sea, the East China Sea, or the Indian Border could all lead to conflict. Especially with a creeping up in tensions in the South China Sea and both the US and China rely increasingly on military force to achieve their objectives.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/rising-tensions-south-china-sea#:~:text=Tensions%20between%20the%20United%20States,spread%20of%20the%20novel%20coronavirus.
Today's reading made repeated references to Chinese national security documents that have downplayed concerns about world war, but have stated the need for China to be prepared for local wars. This has been a large part of the justification for upgrading their military capabilities.
However, today's document also explains how China has been equipping the PLA for strategic tasks such as global maritime operations and participation in international security cooperation. @Jay Rosato has already talked about China's investments in Africa, and similar movements are under weigh in Latin America and even Eastern Europe. The more China expands its military and economic influence worldwide, the more it will find itself in direct competition with US hegemony.
Both American and Chinese documents stress that a world war is unlikely, and I believe that is true. But the way Chinese global ambitions are progressing, the probability of a wider conflict seems like it will inevitably increase, even if it only increases by a slight margin.
*****************TRADE********************Economy************
https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-relations-china
Here is a great history recall of the relations of China and the United States.
That timeline by the council on foreign relations was a great resource for covering nearly 80 years of ups and downs in relations between the US and China. It is interesting, and also perhaps worrying, to see more and more strains, both economic, diplomatic, and military, between the two as the Xi Jinping and Trump administrations, have risen to power.
It was good to see China agree to cooperate with the US on matters of intellectual property, as this has been a major source of strain between the two nations for many years now. It was good to see this document prioritize pushing China to crack down on property theft and use proper judicial measures to regulate the issue. I was somewhat surprised by the number of concessions China made to the US. This section of the treaty was very comprehensive and covered everything from pharmaceuticals to copyright.
I do wonder how the US will enforce the many new administrative burdens it has placed on China. The US has little leverage over China in terms of economics, and as far as I can tell, another trade war would be the only method to assuring Chinese compliance with these terms.
I agree that it is alarming to see the dissolve of partnership, with China rising so quickly this sets a disturbing trend for the United States for the coming years and next administration. I noted in my response as well that the Chinese seemed to concede quite a bit in this agreement and, like you said, how will new sanctions be upheld when China has the economic upper hand? It is unlikely that the United States could engage in any sort of punishment long-term given their growing imbalance in power and debts.
Agreeing with the sentiments of my peers, I would say that this document shows that the US are similar in not only their economic power, but military power as well. Many of their military stresses are quite similar, which shows that the US needs to be concerned with the possible overtaking of power from Chinese military, in order to protect national security. With China‘s strong cyber force, and past attempts from China on other states, the US should take this as a signal to strengthen cyber security, especially since China sees the US as its #1 threat. With China attempting to surpass the US in anyway, it is possible, as many have predicted, that the international community will sees this unipolar system become China dominated, overtaking the US.
How do you think this shift in economic and military power is aided by the state of the United States? Do you think China would be more inclined to engage militarily at a time like this, when the US seems vulnerable?
I agree with you. Cyberthreats will be a major front of any potential conflict, large or small, between the US and China, and must be taken seriously.
As it relates to intellectual property I think thus far, as @Justin Spusta echoed China has been able to get away with things due to their large economy. Few nations are willing to directly confront China, and when they do it tends to reflect poorly on their domestic performance at home. President Trump's trade war against China was not well received, regardless of its ultimate impacts.
An agreement between China and the United States on intellectual property is highly fruitful seeing as this has been the source of several conflicts, historically. It was surprising to me how, for lack of a better word, clean this agreement is and I would be interested to hear how this has held up in the last year or so. The current administrations on both end seem fairly content bending legality to their will, especially when it comes to things like innovation, which this agreement would protect. It also seems like this agreement heavily favors the United States, especially when it comes to persecutions if it is violated. The Chinese must go through a much more thorough process to convict the US.
In 2019 there was much concern over China not respecting intellectual property of the United States and IMF data showed that their IP purchasing was much lower that was statistically probable given their exports. Cracking down on China has been one of Donald Trump's biggest goals and this has been a large portion of that fight, despite how little has actually changed.
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2019/06/14/2003716888#:~:text=China%20is%20a%20big%20exporting,or%2011th%20in%20the%20world.
I agree with you that it seems as though China is making more concessions in this document. Though one thing I noted was that most of the restrictions put on China were accompanied by a clause that said the US already had agreed to this via another trade agreement. Nevertheless, I still find it impressive China agreed to this.
That article you posted was really interesting to read, and after viewing it I am also interested to see the statistics over the next few years to see if IP spending in China increases.
@Jay Rosato I have found that it is really interesting to observe the outcomes of policies like this through statistics, like the ones the IMF releases, because it often gives a less biased analysis of the outcomes. Economic policies often take between three to six years to see a quantifiable response, so finding a consistent source of reliable statistics to analyze through is helpful.
After reviewing today’s reading, I was very fascinated by it. Federal Law Enforcement have agents that study and help enforce Patent law. The US Patent and Trademark Office is very important in that effort. With today’s reading being around trade secrets and intellectual properties that seemed very similar to the US’s procedures. The United States recognizes the importance of intellectual property protection, there are two main types of patents you can apply for in the United States. Those are a Design Patent and a Utility Patent. A design patent is issued based on the design of a product such as a water bottle with a keychain holder. That patent protects the design of the product, the colors, process it is made under etc. The Utility patent protects the function of a product such as a squeezable portion of the water bottle. The Utility patent protects the function of a product. Both the United States and China agree on the vital importance patents and intellectual property rights play on establishing a comprehensive legal system. This document highlighted that the US offered many protections and it is my opinion that this document was made to establish competitive patent issuing in China for American companies. The United States emphasizes trade secret protection and both the US and China regard trade secret protection as a core element of business. In both countries the burden of proof is on accused part to prove innocence in civil proceedings which is different then most are used to because the burden of proof is on the prosecution in criminal proceedings. The threshold for criminal enforcement is clarified as a “great loss” including remedial costs for getting back to normal operations and penalties cover instances of force, fraud, and theft both physically and electronically. This difference and combination of civil and criminal law it is imperative people know the difference in burdens of proof. For investigations, the information needed for evidence must be limited to the scope of the investigation and not full records. I was also glad to see in this document sections covering patent disputes and extensions or renewals. With keeping up with your patent renewal, that is the best way to ensure your always have protection on your processes. As with medical patents and intellectual property rights, that is a pivotal part of patent laws too. They serve in the medical community to protect pharmaceutical companies from being miscredited with discovery of medicines. Overall, Patents can make or break a company so you must always do your research and apply for them if needed.
Thanks for this description of patent law. It was very helpful for better understanding this document. I agree with you that tools such as patents and copyright are key tools for companies, and assuring that the laws are enforced is key to maintaining an environment of innovation. I would be curious if you have any thoughts on how the US could ensure that China is cooperating with these commitments to protect international trade.
@Jay Rosato in regards to making sure China follows these commitments you can look at 3 different treaties that help facilitate IP and patent filings, The Paris Convention, The Patent Cooperation Treaty, and The Madrid Protocol. You can view more of each down below.
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/pursuing-international-ip-protection/china
One common misconception is that once you file a patent in the US you are protected in every country around the world. That is not true. You have to file your ain patent in the country of origin, so the United States for example, and then file a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application. You complete that process for every country you want protection in. As for another enforcement organization you can also look at the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) they currently have 193 countries under their organization which China and the US being two of them. If someone has a patent dispute in another country you can file a complaint and seek an injunction from the WIPO.
Hopefully, that answered your question. Thanks for asking!
@Roy Rashke Thanks! This is some great content, and very helpful for further understanding this issue.
An agreement on intellectual property would be great progress for US and China economic relations. Chinese companies have skirted the laws on intellectual properties in the past so it is exciting to see an agreement being made to respect intellectual property. This deal will be beneficial for both the US and China, as the US can worry less about intellectual theft and China will be able to seem more trustworthy and reliable in the view of the international community. Hopefully, this is only the start of more cooperation between the two countries, as the current economic tension between China and US has had dire consequences on the Stock Market and economy.
From a public diplomacy standpoint, I think this is a good move for China. I personally know a lot of people that dislike China for their blatant disregard of copyright and technology. I imagine that many around the world share the same view, so them taking action will certainly work to improve their image. Furthermore, this further integrates them into the global economic community by forcing them (at least in theory) to abiding by international trade laws. I agree with you that it is great to see economic cooperation between the two nations. I hope that this spirit of economic cooperation continues between the two nations.