Foreign policy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Sunak’s foreign policy: a Europe-shaped hole | Editorial

      by

      The alliance between Britain and the US, resting on deep foundations of shared history and strategic interest, is not overly affected by the personal relationship between a prime minister and a president.Sometimes individual affinity is consequential, as when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were aligned over cold war doctrine, or when Tony Blair put Britain in lockstep with George W Bush for the march to war in Iraq. But there is no prospect of Rishi Sunak forming such a partnership – for good or ill – with Joe Biden at this week’s Washington summit.Viewed from the White House, the prime minister cuts an insubstantial figure – the caretaker leader of a country that has lost its way. That doesn’t jeopardise the underlying relationship. Britain is a highly valued US ally, most notably in the fields of defence, security and intelligence. On trade and economics, Mr Sunak’s position is less comfortable. The prime minister is a poor match with a president who thinks Brexit was an epic blunder and whose flagship policy is a rebuttal of the sacred doctrines of the Conservative party.Mr Biden is committed to shoring up American primacy by means of massive state support for green technology, tax breaks for foreign investment and reconfiguring supply chains with a focus on national security. Mr Sunak’s instincts are more laissez-faire, and his orthodox conservative budgets preclude interventionist statecraft.The two men disagree on a fundamental judgment about the future direction of the global economy, but only one of them has a hand on the steering wheel. Mr Sunak looks more like a passenger, or a pedestrian, since Britain bailed out of the EU – the vehicle that allows European countries to aggregate mid-range economic heft into continental power.London lost clout in the world by surrendering its seat in Brussels, but that fact is hard for Brexit ideologues to process. Their worldview is constructed around the proposition that EU membership depleted national sovereignty and that leaving the bloc would open more lucrative trade routes. Top of the wishlist was a deal with Washington, and Mr Biden has said that won’t happen. Even if it did, the terms would be disadvantageous to Britain as the supplicant junior partner.If Mr Sunak grasps that weakness, he dare not voice it. Instead, Downing Street emits vague noises about Britain’s leading role in AI regulation. But, in governing uses of new technology, Brussels matters more to Washington. London is not irrelevant, but British reach is reduced when ministers are excluded from the rooms where their French, German and other continental counterparts develop policy.Those are the relationships that Mr Sunak must cultivate with urgency. But his view of Europe is circumscribed by Brexit ideology and parochial campaign issues. His meetings with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, have been dominated by the domestic political obsession with small-boat migration across the Channel. The prime minister has no discernible relationship with the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz. He has not visited Berlin.Negotiating the Windsor framework to stabilise Northern Ireland’s status in post-Brexit trade was a vital step in repairing damage done by Boris Johnson and Liz Truss to UK relations with the EU. But there is still a gaping European hole in Britain’s foreign policy. It is visible all the way across the Atlantic, even if the prime minister refuses to see it. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Wednesday briefing: Inside Rishi Sunak’s whirlwind US visit

      by

      Good morning. Archie loves early mornings so much he is having a baby, so I’ll be bringing you this email, with Nimo, for the next few weeks while he’s on paternity leave.As you read this, Rishi Sunak has just landed at Andrews air force base ahead of a whirlwind two-day visit to Washington DC, in which he will discuss trade with Joe Biden and seek investment from US business leaders – but sadly not humiliate himself on the baseball field (of which more below).It’s Sunak’s first trip to the White House as PM, and he is also expected to discuss the two countries’ cooperation on Ukraine, while pitching for a role for Britain in regulating AI – all part of a bid to prove Britain still has a place on the global stage following Brexit and its turbulent aftermath.The Guardian’s Peter Walker is travelling with the prime minister; he spoke to me about Sunak’s ambitions for the trip – and why he’ll be the first PM since David Cameron to stay in one of Washington’s most palatial residences (or as Sunak might call it, “slumming it”). That’s after the headlines.Five big stories
      Ukraine | Russia’s UN envoy was accused of floundering in a “mud of lies” after he claimed at an emergency session of the security council that Ukraine destroyed Kakhovka dam in a “war crime” against itself. Sergiy Kyslytsya, Ukraine’s ambassador, said the Russians were resorting to “flooded earth tactics” because “the captured territory does not belong to them, and they are not able to hold these lands”.
      Media | The parent company of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph faces the threat of being put into administration by lenders. Lloyds Banking Group has threatened to put Press Acquisitions, the company controlled by the Barclay family that owns the newspapers’ parent company, Telegraph Media Group (TMG), into administration after a breakdown in talks over loans the business has racked up over the years.
      Health | Cases of syphilis were at their highest level in 75 years in England last year, rising to almost 8,700, while diagnoses of gonorrhoea rose by 50% in just 12 months – the most since records began in 1918, according to the UKHSA figures.
      UK news | The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said it has won a confidence vote put to its members after sexual misconduct allegations. A majority of its members backed its proposals to overhaul its culture and governance, with 93% of votes cast in favour of continuing to support the CBI.
      Environment | Research has found that it is now too late to save summer Arctic sea ice. Scientists say preparations need to be made for the increased extreme weather across the northern hemisphere. The study also shows that if emissions decline slowly or continue to rise, the first ice-free summer could be in the 2030s, a decade earlier than previous projections.
      In depth: ‘It’s the lesser cousin visiting the rich uncle – the power is very much on their side’There’s a remarkable video of a speech made by Joe Biden last October, on the day Rishi Sunak became prime minister. To guffaws of laughter from his audience, the president said news had come from Britain of Sunak’s elevation – or as he called him “Rashi Sanook”.“As my brother would say, ‘Go figure!’,” grinned the president. Biden didn’t refer explicitly to the chaos that had preceded the latest PM; with a smirk that wide, he didn’t have to.Seven and a half months later, Sunak (pictured above, with Biden) will be hoping Britain is no longer such a laughing stock in Washington – and that the president can at least pronounce his name. The PM has certainly put the miles in – this will be the pair’s fifth meeting in Sunak’s short premiership and their fourth since March.Sunak’s focus this week is on trade, but with a looming election at home, the symbolism of a statesmanlike “bilat” promoting Britain’s interests on the world stage may be just as important.What is No 10 hoping for?“This is a heavily business-focused trip,” says Peter Walker, the Guardian’s deputy political editor. Sunak will meet with senators and members of Congress today at Capitol Hill, and tomorrow he will address a major meeting of US business leaders, hosted by the CEO of General Motors. Their investments already account for thousands of British jobs, and Sunak will be hoping for more.“They’ve given up on the idea of a full post-Brexit, UK/US free-trade agreement,” says Peter – much vaunted by Brexiteers, but abandoned as a short-term goal by Downing Street – “but they’re trying to just get lots of kind of mini deals done.”That could mean concessions to help the British car industry, for example, and deals in the digital and technology sectors.Is Britain back?Given that it’s only weeks since Biden had to deny being “anti-British”, it’s fair to say the much-vaunted “special relationship” has had a bumpy time of late, particularly through the Boris Johnson years (and Liz Truss weeks).“As with any British prime minister visiting the US, it’s the lesser cousin visiting the rich uncle: the power is very much on their side,” says Peter. That said, Sunak’s achievement in securing the Windsor agreement in Northern Ireland – an area of British politics to which Biden pays close attention – impressed the White House.With cooperation over Ukraine and Nato critical, too, “having someone in Downing Street, at least for the next year, who they believe is reasonably stable, will say the right things on Ukraine and not do anything completely bonkers over Brexit, is actually quite important [for Washington]”, says Peter.And Sunak is getting the red carpet treatment. Unlike Theresa May, Johnson and Truss, he is being put up in Blair House, a palatial residence opposite the White House that has been described as “the world’s most exclusive hotel”.He will also give a joint press conference with Biden – relatively rare for the US president – and this evening will attend a baseball game between the Washington Nationals and the Arizona Diamondbacks, billed as a “friendship event” between the US and UK and featuring joint military bands and a flyover.Alas, however, reported discussions over Sunak throwing the ceremonial have come to naught – despite the PM fancying himself as a rather handy bowler in cricket.“At the very best, you get an OK photo opportunity,” says Peter. “But if it goes even slightly wrong, that will dominate the trip. That’s very much No 10’s mindset – to play it as safe as they possibly can.”What else will Sunak be hoping for?Amid tricky headlines at home over Covid and immigration and determinedly dreadful polling figures, a trip that cast the prime minister as a bold statesman, out there lobbying for Britain, would be hugely welcomed by his allies, says Peter.“Talking to Tory MPs and to ministers, some of them think their only election hope is to have Sunak travelling around the UK and the world seeming broadly competent and not openly mad while, in the meantime, they hope inflation goes down, growth goes up and the number of small boats goes down.“If everything goes right, they think there is a small chance they could be the biggest party after the election – but it all depends on him plugging on in quite a managerial way. So he doesn’t want to rock the boat. He’ll just want to go out there, be sensible and strike trade deals if he can.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhat else we’ve been reading
      Melissa Jeltsen’s report into the growing tension between some independent abortion clinics (pictured above) and Planned Parenthood, the US’s largest single abortion provider, is enlightening. Jeltsen reveals how the deteriorating relationship between the abortion providers is impeding patient care. Nimo
      More than 10 years ago, Stuart Jeffries’s car was towed to the pound, and when he realised it would cost more to release it than it was worth, he decided to leave it there. In this lovely piece, he talks about a decade of happy car non-ownership – but recognises going car-free not as easy for everyone. Esther
      Jason Okundaye’s compelling analysis on the rise of Mizzy, an 18-year-old TikToker who found fame online by filming himself terrorising strangers or trespassing (sometimes both at the same time), is worth a read. In pursuing this “cloutrage”, Okundaye writes, Mizzy is gaming the “amoral, algorithmic universe that rewards anything that garners attention – he is engaging in a twisted form of online entrepreneurship”. Nimo
      I know, I know, you’ve read everything you could possibly ever want to about Phil and Holly. Make an exception for Marina Hyde. Her column is worth the price alone for her joke about This Morning editor Martin Frizell and a warder from HMP Full Sutton. Esther
      ICYMI: This week’s edition of the How we survive series is a must-read. Jonathan Freedland spoke with Ivor Perl about the year he spent, from the age of 12, as a prisoner in Auschwitz and the eight decades since. It is a remarkably moving story on survival, luck, hope and compassion. Nimo
      SportFootball | Chelsea midfielder N’Golo Kanté is reportedly being offered a salary that could reach €100m (£86.2m) a year to join a club in Saudi Arabia. Kanté’s Chelsea contract expires this month and emissaries from Saudi Arabia are in London to present their proposal. His salary would include image rights and commercial deals.Golf |PGA Tour, DP World Tour and Saudi backed LIV Golf have agreed to merge, ending a bitter split in the sport. The shock announcement will mean that the Saudi public investment fund will pour money in a new company that will effectively control top-level golf. Litigation between long-term rivals LIV and the PGA Tour has come to an abrupt end.Tennis | Aryna Sabalenka, the second seed, defeatedUkraine’s Elina Svitolina 6-4, 6-4. The win has moved her to the French Open semi-finals for the first time. Novak Djokovic will also be at the semi-finals after his 4-6, 7-6 (0), 6-2, 6-4 win against Karen Khachanov, the 11th seed, and confidently passing his biggest test of the tournament so far.The front pages“‘Environmental disaster:’ floods hit Ukraine as dam is destroyed”. That’s the Guardian lead today, as it is in some other papers. “Bombing of dam ‘a new low’ for Russia” says the Daily Telegraph and the i has “40,000 fleeing ‘war crime’ after dam blown up”. “Russia set off ‘environmental bomb’ by breaching dam, Zelenskiy claims” – that’s the Financial Times. It’s on the front of the Times as the picture but the lead is “Duke launches political attack”. For others it’s less about the constitutional implications – the Sun goes with “Harry’s day in court – Me, Hewitt … and that two-faced s**t Burrell”. The Daily Mail taunts: “He must have longed for the schmaltzy embrace of Oprah!”. The page one splash in the Daily Express is “‘Game-changer’ new drug to slim down nation”. The Metro leads with assaults on ambulance crews: “999 heroes under attack”. “Knight these heroes” – the Daily Mirror has a call to “Make it Sir Rob & Sir Kevin” about ex-rugby league player Kevin Sinfield’s motor neurone disease campaigning. His fellow star Rob Burrow has the condition.Today in FocusHow to develop artificial super-intelligence without destroying humanitySam Altman, the founder of the revolutionary application ChatGPT, is touring Europe with a message: AI is changing the world and there are big risks, but also big potential rewardsCartoon of the day | Ella BaronThe UpsideA bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all badIt has been 25 years since Sex and the City debuted and became an instant classic. While the show has clear, and at points painful to watch, flaws (namely its focus on white cis, mostly heterosexual women with lots of disposable income), it is still one of the best female-led series that centres sisterhood, friendship and romantic love. SaTC successfully reimagined the single woman, portraying her not as a desperate spinster or an ice queen but as a complicated, messy and (gasp) unlikable figure who is still deserving of whatever kind of love she desires. The protagonists spoke frankly and openly about sex and relationships in a way that still defines the genre. In commemoration of the anniversary, perhaps it’s time for a rewatch.Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every SundayBored at work?And finally, the Guardian’s puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day – with plenty more on the Guardian’s Puzzles app for iOS and Android. Until tomorrow.
      Quick crossword
      Cryptic crossword
      Wordiply More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      China wants to subordinate west, US politician claims on UK visit

      by

      Beijing wants to “subordinate and humiliate” the west, according to the Republican chair of a newly created China committee in Congress who is leading a delegation of hawkish US politicians on a two-day trip to the UK.Mike Gallagher argued that China, under President Xi Jinping, believed in “the inevitable demise of capitalism”, and said he hoped to better understand how far British politicians of all parties shared his committee’s concerns.Beijing’s goal, Gallagher argued, was “to render us subordinate, humiliated and irrelevant on the world stage and make the CCP [Chinese Communist party] the dominant global power”. He thanked the UK for adopting a “forward posture” in the Indo-Pacific after Britain deployed an aircraft carrier there two years ago.Gallagher was speaking alongside Haley Stevens, the China committee’s lead Democrat. She said the US was overly reliant on the Chinese market, particularly when it came to commodities and green technology. That was “not a preparedness strategy” when thinking about a conflict over Taiwan, she said.Gallagher said he believed the world was “in the window of maximum danger” for “a potential kinetic confrontation” – a possible war – over Taiwan, and he hoped the UK’s commitment to supplying nuclear submarines to Australia would “help prevent world war three before it’s too late”.He said the long-term goal of the US was to “win the competition” with China, which he defined as “reclaiming our economic independence”. Stevens said the US and China both “want access to one another’s markets” but the US-China trade deficit was “egregious”.Xi has accused the US of pursuing a policy of “containment” against China, and has criticised what he describes as the “new cold war” mentality of the west. The Biden administration has introduced a number of policies designed to prevent China from accessing advanced technologies, such as semiconductors, the supply chains of which are concentrated in the US and its allied countries.Gallagher suggested the US should instead pursue a policy of “constrainment”, which “recognises the fact that … we’re not going to totally decouple, but we want to constrain [the CCP’s] worst behaviour”.The Republican, who has not been to China himself, argued against “relentless engagement”, saying “30 years of experimentation with that hypothesis” had proven unsuccessful.He is leading a delegation of eight Republicans and three Democrats, who met Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, for lunch on Friday and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (Ipac), a cross-party group of MPs and peers concerned about Beijing’s rising assertiveness and treatment of its Uyghur minority.At a joint press conference of the US delegation and Ipac on Friday, MPs criticised the British prime minister for failing to take a tough enough stance on China.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDavid Alton, a crossbench peer, said: “Only a few months ago, Rishi Sunak himself was saying that he regarded the CCP as a threat to this country.”However, Sunak was now “backing off”, Alton said, adding: “If you go on feeding the crocodiles, then one day the crocodile will come and eat you.”Concern at the rise of China is a rare issue of bipartisan consensus in the US, although some European lobbyists argue that the rhetoric of a clash of civilisations is provocative and risks inching the two sides closer to a new cold war. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US China hawks to press UK minister for tougher line on Beijing

      by

      A Republican-led group of China hawks from the US Congress will visit Westminster on Friday where they are expected to meet the defence secretary, Ben Wallace, for lunch and press for the UK to take a tougher line on Beijing.The 11-strong delegation is led by the Republican congressman Mike Gallagher, who chairs a high-profile, newly created China committee. Some fear a strident anti-Beijing tone will alienate centrist and left-leaning politicians in the UK.Gallagher has called for a total ban on the Chinese-owned app TikTok, and argued in the committee’s first prime-time hearing that the US and China were locked in an “existential struggle over what life will look like in the 21st century”.The group of eight Republicans and three Democrats – one senator and 10 from the House – will see Wallace informally in a restaurant away from the Ministry of Defence building, where they are almost certain to lobby him in person.The MoD declined to say whether the meeting meant Wallace supported Gallagher’s anti-China positions. “Ministers routinely engage with elected representatives from different governments to discuss our respective policy positions on the key issues,” an official said.Heavy Republican-led China lobbying has been seen as counterproductive in Europe, where critics of Beijing’s authoritarianism, such as the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (Ipac), want to build a cross-party consensus for firmer action against Beijing.One British-based China expert said: “The US select committee has a reputation for being exceptionally hawkish on China, and it’s clear the energy comes from the Republican side.” They warned there could be a clash with Ipac when they meet.A group of eight British MPs and peers, including members of the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, are due to hold a joint event with Ipac on Friday before the lunch with Wallace. They are expected to include the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, Labour’s Rushanara Ali and the Lib Dem peer David Alton.A statement released by Gallagher before the visit set out the visiting delegation’s aspirations. “Chinese Communist party aggression is global, and the United States and United Kingdom face common economic, military and ideological threats posed by the CCP,” the congressman began.“For the sake of both our nations and the sake of the free world, we must work hand in hand to stand up to CCP tech theft, united front work [Beijing’s global influence operation], transnational repression and flagrant violations of our sovereignty.”The US delegation’s arrival in the UK comes shortly after the former prime minister Liz Truss began a five-day visit to Taiwan, where she gave a speech calling for an “economic Nato” to tackle Beijing’s authoritarianism and growing military strength.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTaiwan’s independence from China could only be protected by “hard power”, Truss said, arguing that the answer was greater defence cooperation between western nations in the Indo-Pacific.Leaked Pentagon papers from February show that Wallace was considering whether to base one of the UK’s two aircraft carriers in either Japan or South Korea after 2025, which the US said would demonstrate Britain was committed to a previously announced Indo-Pacific tilt in foreign policy.Worries about the economic and military rise of China are a rare bipartisan issue in the US, with the Pentagon closely monitoring the development of Beijing’s armed forces and sabre-rattling over Taiwan. But in the UK, Labour has argued that Britain should show realism and focus on Russia and the Euro-Atlantic rather than the Indo-Pacific. More

    • 263 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Two decades later, it feels as if the US is trying to forget the Iraq war ever happened | Stephen Wertheim

      by

      Two decades ago, the United States invaded Iraq, sending 130,000 US troops into a sovereign country to overthrow its government. Joe Biden, then chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, voted to authorize the war, a decision he came to regret.Today another large, world-shaking invasion is under way. Biden, now the US president, recently traveled to Warsaw to rally international support for Ukraine’s fight to repel Russian aggression. After delivering his remarks, Biden declared: “The idea that over 100,000 forces would invade another country – since world war II, nothing like that has happened.”The president spoke these words on 22 February, within a month of the 20th anniversary of the US military’s opening strike on Baghdad. The White House did not attempt to correct Biden’s statement. Reporters do not appear to have asked about it. The country’s leading newspapers, the New York Times and Washington Post, ran stories that quoted Biden’s line. Neither of them questioned its veracity or noted its hypocrisy.Did the Iraq war even happen?While Washington forgets, much more of the world remembers. The flagrant illegality of bypassing the United Nations: this happened. The attempt to legitimize “pre-emption” (really prevention, a warrant to invade countries that have no plans to attack anyone): this mattered, including by handing the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, a pretext he has used. Worst of all was the destruction of the Iraqi state, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and nearly 4,600 US service members, and radiating instability and terrorism across the region.The Iraq war wasn’t the only law- or country-breaking military intervention launched by the US and its allies in recent decades. Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya form a tragic pattern. But the Iraq war was the largest, loudest and proudest of America’s violent debacles, the most unwarranted, and the least possible to ignore. Or so it would seem. Biden’s statement is only the latest in a string of attempts by US leaders to forget the war and move on.Barack Obama, who came into the White House vowing to end the “mindset” that brought America into Iraq, decided that ending the war was good enough. “Now, it’s time to turn the page,” he said upon ordering the withdrawal of US forces from the country in 2011. Three years later, he sent troops back to Iraq to fight the Islamic State, which had risen out of the chaos of the invasion and civil war. It fell to Donald Trump to harness public outrage over not only the war but also the refusal of elites to hold themselves accountable and make policy changes commensurate with the scale of the disaster.Tempting though it is to look forward, not backward, the two are not mutually exclusive. And it might not be possible to reach a better future without understanding and appreciating why past attempts failed.Ukrainians are now paying part of the price for western misdeeds. Russia’s invasion was an act of blatant aggression. Moscow violated the UN charter and seeks to annex territory as part of an explicitly imperial project (in this respect unlike America’s war in Iraq). Few people outside Russia have genuine enthusiasm for Putin’s effort. Yet, much of the world sees the conflict as a proxy war between Russia and the west rather than a fight for sovereignty and freedom.According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, approximately 58% of the world’s population (excluding the two direct belligerents) lives in countries that are either neutral toward the war or lean toward Russia’s side. Over the past year, support for the west’s position has shrunk rather than grown: a handful of countries initially critical of Russia have shifted toward neutrality. Just last month, 39 countries did not support a UN resolution demanding that Russia withdraw its forces from Ukraine. Those that took a neutral stance, including China and India, represented an estimated 62% of the population of the global south.Russia has not become the international pariah that western leaders claim it to be. Its economy has mostly weathered international sanctions, in part because the only countries willing to impose them are wealthy strategic partners of the US.In this context, the White House should think about the message that Biden sent the world when he acted as though the war in Iraq never happened. When the US commits aggression, he implied, America’s misdeeds do not count. Or perhaps, in saying that “since world war II, nothing like that has happened”, Biden was thinking only of Europe but neglected to say so – in which case he treated the west’s history as synonymous with the world’s, effacing the experience of most of humanity. Either way, Biden conveyed that support for Ukraine is mere power politics, not a principled cause in which all countries have a stake.Hypocrisy alone is not the problem. Hypocrisy is all around us. What matters is whether we are working to build a better world.When Biden memory-holes the obvious, he is not doing so. He is perpetuating the hegemonic project that brought the US into Iraq in the first place. He sends a similar message when he routinely frames the Ukraine war as a struggle of democracy against autocracy – as though countries deserve support against an unprovoked invasion only if the nature of their government meets with Washington’s approval.Countries outside the west have an interest in defending the principle that sovereignty should be respected. They have no interest in defending the principle that sovereignty is conditional. If Washington still claims the right to judge who is sovereign, then has it really renounced the right invade Iraq after all?The US should admit past errors frankly and demonstrate, through words and deeds, that it has learned difficult lessons. No time is too late to build a better world. But even as the US takes the right side of the latest war, it is far from clear what lessons it has learned.
      Stephen Wertheim is a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School and Catholic University. He is the author of Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of US Global Supremacy More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      The TikTok wars – why the US and China are feuding over the app

      by

      TikTok is once again fending off claims that its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, would share user data from its popular video-sharing app with the Chinese government, or push propaganda and misinformation on its behalf.China’s foreign ministry on Wednesday accused the US itself of spreading disinformation about TikTok’s potential security risks following a report in the Wall Street Journal that the committee on foreign investment in the US – part of the treasury department – was threatening a US ban on the app unless its Chinese owners divest their stake.So are the data security risks real? And should users be worried that the TikTok app will be wiped off their phones?Here’s what to know:What are the concerns about TikTok?Both the FBI and the Federal Communications Commission have warned that ByteDance could share TikTok user data – such as browsing history, location and biometric identifiers – with China’s authoritarian government.A law implemented by China in 2017 requires companies to give the government any personal data relevant to the country’s national security. There’s no evidence that TikTok has turned over such data, but fears abound due to the vast amount of user data it, like other social media companies, collects.Concerns around TikTok were heightened in December when ByteDance said it fired four employees who accessed data on two journalists from BuzzFeed News and the Financial Times while attempting to track down the source of a leaked report about the company. Just last week, the director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, told the Senate intelligence committee that TikTok “screams” of national security concerns and that China could also manipulate the algorithm to perpetuate misinformation.“This is a tool that is ultimately within the control of the Chinese government, and to me, it screams out with national security concerns,” Wray said.How is the US responding?White House national security council spokesperson John Kirby declined to comment when asked on Thursday to address the Chinese foreign ministry’s comments about TikTok, citing the review being conducted by the committee on foreign investment.Kirby also could not confirm that the administration sent TikTok a letter warning that the US government may ban the application if its Chinese owners don’t sell its stake but added, “we have legitimate national security concerns with respect to data integrity that we need to observe.”In 2020, then president Donald Trump and his administration sought to force ByteDance to sell off its US assets and ban TikTok from app stores. Courts blocked the effort, and President Joe Biden rescinded Trump’s orders but directed an in-depth study of the issue. A planned sale of TikTok’s US assets was also shelved as the Biden administration negotiated a deal with the app that would address some of the national security concerns.In Congress, US senators Richard Blumenthal and Jerry Moran, a Democrat and a Republican, respectively, wrote a letter in February to the treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, urging the committee on foreign investment panel, which she chairs, to “swiftly conclude its investigation and impose strict structural restrictions” between TikTok’s US operations and ByteDance, including potentially separating the companies.At the same time, lawmakers have introduced measures that would expand the Biden administration’s authority to enact a national ban on TikTok. The White House has already backed a Senate proposal that has bipartisan support.How has TikTok already been restricted?On Thursday, British authorities said they are banning TikTok on government-issued phones on security grounds, after similar moves by the EU’s executive branch, which temporarily banned TikTok from employee phones. Denmark and Canada have also announced efforts to block the app on government-issued phones.Last month, the White House said it would give US federal agencies 30 days to delete TikTok from all government-issued mobile devices. Congress, the US armed forces and more than half of US states had already banned the app on official devices.What does TikTok say?TikTok spokesperson Maureen Shanahan said the company was already answering security concerns through “transparent, US-based protection of US user data and systems, with robust third-party monitoring, vetting, and verification”.In June, TikTok said it would route all data from US users to servers controlled by Oracle, the Silicon Valley company it chose as its US tech partner in 2020 in an effort to avoid a nationwide ban. But it is storing backups of the data in its own servers in the US and Singapore. The company said it expects to delete US user data from its own servers, but it has not provided a timeline as to when that would occur.TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is will testify next week before the House energy and commerce committee about the company’s privacy and data-security practices, as well as its relationship with the Chinese government. In the lead-up to the hearing, Chew has quietly met with several lawmakers – some of whom remain unmoved by their conversation with the 40-year-old executive.After convening with Chew in February, Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat from Colorado who previously called on Apple and Google to remove TikTok from their app stores, said he remained “fundamentally concerned that TikTok, as a Chinese-owned company, is subject to dictates from the Chinese Communist party”.Meanwhile, TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, has been trying to position itself as more of an international company – and less of a Chinese company that was founded in Beijing in 2012 by its current chief executive, Liang Rubo, and others.Theo Bertram, TikTok’s vice-president of policy in Europe, said in a tweet on Thursday that ByteDance “is not a Chinese company”. Bertram said its ownership consists of 60% global investors, 20% employees and 20% founders. Its leaders are based in cities such as Singapore, New York, Beijing and other metropolitan areas.Are the security risks legitimate?It depends on whom you ask.Some tech privacy advocates say that while the potential abuse of privacy by the Chinese government is concerning, other tech companies have data-harvesting business practices that also exploit user information.“If policymakers want to protect Americans from surveillance, they should advocate for a basic privacy law that bans all companies from collecting so much sensitive data about us in the first place, rather than engaging in what amounts to xenophobic showboating that does exactly nothing to protect anyone,” said Evan Greer, director of the nonprofit advocacy group Fight for the Future.Karim Farhat, a researcher with the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech, said a TikTok sale would be “completely irrelevant to any of the alleged ‘national security’ threats” and go against “every free market principle and norm” of the state department’s internet freedom principles.Others say there is legitimate reason for concern.People who use TikTok might think they’re not doing anything that would be of interest to a foreign government, but that’s not always the case, said Anton Dahbura, executive director of the Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. Important information about the US is not strictly limited to nuclear power plants or military facilities; it extends to other sectors, such as food processing, the finance industry and universities, Dahbura said.Is there precedence for banning tech companies?Last year, the US banned the sale of communications equipment made by Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE, citing risks to national security. But banning the sale of items could be more easily done than banning an app, which is accessed through the web.Such a move might also go to the courts on grounds that it could violate the first amendment as some civil liberties groups have argued. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Will UK follow US in demanding TikTok be sold by its Chinese owner?

      by

      When asked this week whether the UK would ban TikTok on government phones, Rishi Sunak’s response signalled a change in stance: “We look at what our allies are doing.”Previously ministers had seemed sanguine, even saying that whether or not the app stayed on someone’s phone should be a matter of “personal choice”.Not any more. The UK’s allies are turning against TikTok and it was when Sunak said he was watching their actions closely that a government ban became inevitable. The US, Canada and the EU’s executive arm have already decided to strip the app from official devices. It is now a matter of geopolitical choice.TikTok is owned by the Beijing-based ByteDance. The fear among its critics on both sides of the Atlantic is that the Chinese state can access data generated by its more than 1 billion users and manipulate its recommendation algorithm in order to push a China-friendly point of view to unsuspecting users.There is no hard evidence this is the case and TikTok says it would refuse any data request from the Chinese government, although the UK government cited concerns about “the way in which this [user] data may be used” for the ban on Thursday. But tensions over Taiwan, concerns that China will supply weaponry to Russia, the shooting down of a spy balloon that hovered over the US and warnings of state espionage have created a toxic backdrop to those denials. And on Monday a refreshed integrated review of UK defence and foreign policy described China as an “epoch-defining” challenge.TikTok’s reputation was severely damaged last year when ByteDance admitted employees had attempted to use the app to spy on reporters.TikTok will be concerned that Sunak will match each upward ratchet in pressure from his counterparts. On Wednesday the Biden administration demanded the platform’s Chinese owner sell the app or face a complete ban. Will the UK ultimately threaten the same?If geopolitics is the leading factor in these moves, as opposed to hard proof that TikTok poses a security threat, then it is likely every deterioration in relations between China and the west will push the app further along the road to a complete ban or forced divestment from its owners in the UK and elsewhere. Indeed, a forced sale in the US – if the Chinese government lets TikTok’s owners do so – could lead to TikTok being peeled off from ByteDance in its entirety.The shooting down of a Chinese spy balloon off the east coast of the US last month was followed by reports that negotiations between TikTok and the Biden administration over a deal to resolve security concerns had stalled, while this week the White House gave its support to a Senate bill giving the president the power to ban TikTok.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTikTok’s attempts to assuage those concerns – for instance announcing plans to store US and European user data on third-party data servers – seem to have failed with the current American president in the same way they did with his immediate predecessor, who also tried to force a divestment of TikTok’s US business. The backstop used by TikTok’s critics is the existence of Chinese laws that could force ByteDance to cooperate with Beijing authorities, including the national intelligence law of 2017, which states that all organisations and citizens shall “support, assist and cooperate” with national intelligence efforts. For many, this is enough evidence.Perhaps eliminating the concerns over Chinese interference by selling TikTok to non-Chinese investors is the only way to quell the critics. But there are plenty of other aspects of the Chinese tech industry – from Huawei mobile phones to other electronic devices – that are just as capable of eliciting similar fears. Without strong supporting evidence there is no way of knowing how proportionate the UK government is being – and the same could be true for moves against other Chinese tech interests. More