Latest news with #FareedZakaria
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Business
- Express Tribune
Sino-US rivalry — collusion, competition, conflict
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam Listen to article The US-China competition remains the 'defining issue' of international politics. My last piece titled the "Sino-US rivalry" was published in this space on January 11, 2024, where some relevant writings of the CNN-famed Fareed Zakaria and others were discussed. Given the comparative National Power Potential (NPP), the world seems to be drifting from unipolarity, ushered in after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990s; to the 'present state' of bipolarity (the US and China); and to the likely future scenario of multipolarity (China, Russia, EU, India and Brazil). First, a bipolar comparison. Conventional view is that China is 'already a US peer or near-peer, economically'. However, as I had pointed out, in the present state of competition, China still needs to do a lot of catching up, as the American NPP — especially its military strength, power of alliances and its cosmopolitan, multicultural and educated demography — far outpaces China, the 'hesitant regional power' that is trying to become a more assertive superpower. The US GDP is almost twice as large as China's and some analysts believe that the Chinese official figures are fudged, with Beijing manipulating key economic metrics, including GDP. China is heavily dependent upon fuel imports; has almost 20% housing vacancy rates and over $1 trillion in debt from its 48,000 km high-speed rail networks. The US by comparison leads in key high-technology sectors like the IT/software and services sector (80% of global profit shares); aerospace and defence (66.35%); drugs and biotechnology (60%) and semi-conductors/chips (58%, compared to China's miniscule 2.6% share). Then there are studies indicating that in a full-blown trade war, 'decoupling' China from the international economic system (sanctions) will disproportionately hurt Beijing, if China has not undertaken economic hardening like Russia. Moscow, in anticipation of the West Plus's reaction to Ukraine, had taken on years of pre-emptive economy-hardening steps to mitigate the ill-effects of sanctions. China's other handicaps include demographic weakness (overpopulation, effects of one-child policy, aging population); lack of alliances; its lighter presence in important global regions (Europe, the Middle East); its comparatively subdued power to influence others; China's lack of experience and exposure to act big, unlike the US, having the benefit of history and multicultural pluralism; and China's nagging legacy of trouble-spots (Spratly Islands, Tibet, Turkestan, human rights, etc). So far, there is no alternative to US power. But that does not mean China is and will not catch up. Second, the prospect of a Sino-US conflict. One had disagreed with the likelihood of conflict, as Beijing is likely to blink first, because the global status quo is protective of its core interests. Additionally, China is not a 'spoiler state' like Russia. President Xi abandoning his 'lone-wolf diplomacy' has often asked the US to lift sanctions, especially on technology transfers. And President Trump recently lifted ban on the sale of America's Nvidia-made semiconductors (especially the H20) to China. US's I-Phone is designed in California and assembled in China by a Taiwanese company, Foxconn. And in more curious case of inter-dependence, China monopolises supply of rare-earths, needed for US-manufactured semiconductors, to be used in China's high-end products, for export to the US/Western markets. There are more anti-conflict indicators, especially about the much-touted US-China conflict over Taiwan. There is a great deal of soul-searching in the American policy establishment about the cost-benefit of a war to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. The US rationale in defending Taiwan is to prevent China from gaining a new foothold to project power in East Asia and disrupt trade routes in the western Pacific, thus upsetting the western-dominated global economy. America's 'vital' interest, however, is to prevent China from regional hegemony in Asia. In reality, Taiwan does not confer any outsized military advantages to China, other than extending the range of its missiles, AD assets and surveillance systems by a couple hundred 'unneeded' kilometres. Beijing can still target US regional assets in Guam, Japan and Philippines. China's under-sea gains would similarly be modest. In sum, Beijing's control of Taipei hardly overturns the regional military balance. Military logic and economic considerations, hence, do not warrant direct US involvement to defend Taiwan. Taiwan's TSMC still produces 90% of the world's most advanced chips. However, by 2032, the US company, Boston Consulting Group, will be producing 28% of the most advanced semiconductors. Likewise potential blockade of the narrow sea-lanes in East and South China seas by China marginally affects the global sea trade, as bypassing options exist through Indonesian and Philippine archipelago. Similarly, the notion that Chinese invasion undermines the US credibility is also geostrategically flawed, as fighting China over Taiwan unnecessarily binds US resources, needed elsewhere for the bigger objective of containing China. The US military prioritises developing the 'second island chain' of Guam, Marshal and Northern Mariana Islands, Micronesia and Palau for this purpose. In the US reckoning, Taiwan certainly matters, but not enough to justify war with China, as composite deterrence would likely work to dissuade China. And if push comes to shove, PLA will prevail in a conflict with Taipei with or without the US, the former scenario being more costly for the US Armed Forces. The suggestions that Taiwan should become a 'porcupine' in its denial-focused strategy against Chinese invasion is also not likely to work, as the island just does not spend enough on its defence, and ignores acquisition of anti-ship defence, naval mines, uncrewed weapons and drones. Taiwan can make the invasion slow, long and costly but not impossible, as its geography, low and dwindling materiel stockpiles in case of a Chinese naval blockade would ultimately tilt the operational balance in China's favour. So, no wonder, Washington officially supports 'One China' policy, respects China's redlines and there is much noise in Washington about 'competitive co-existence' with China. Third, alliances and economic integration. China remains one of the most important markets for EU especially Germany's export-driven economy. It meanders carefully through bloc politics, tries to be a peacemaker in the Middle East and vies for leadership mantle in the Global South. It is wary of a conflict with the US and so is the US. So, collusion, competition short of conflict will persist and recur.
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says 'we don't have to worry' about the Chinese military using US chips to improve their capabilities because 'they simply can't rely on it'
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang sat down with CNN's Fareed Zakaria on Sunday to discuss a variety of issues, including the ongoing AI race between the US and China. Zakaria asked Huang about the previous bipartisan consensus regarding the restriction of high-end AI hardware to China, and to speak towards his previous comments that the sanctions had backfired against American companies. "Depriving someone of technology is not a goal, it's a tactic. And that tactic was not in service of the goal", said Huang (via Bloomberg). "We would like the United States to be the world leader [in AI], there is nothing wrong with that aspiration, and we should definitely try to achieve that, and strive for that." "Our mission, properly expressed... in order for America to have AI leadership", Huang continued, "is to make sure the American tech stack is available to markets all over the world, so that amazing developers, including the ones in China, are able to build on [the] American tech stack." When asked by Zakaria whether this could potentially provide the Chinese military and intelligence services with "the capacity to supercharge their weapons with the very best American chips", Huang responded: "We don't have to worry about that, because the Chinese military, no different [to] the American military, will not seek each other's technology out to be built on top of it. They simply can't rely on it. It could, of course, be limited at any time" "Not to mention, there's plenty of computing capacity in China already. If you just think about the number of supercomputers in China, built by amazing Chinese engineers, that are already in operation." "They don't need Nvidia's chips, certainly, or American tech stacks, in order to build their military." Huang is scheduled to hold a media briefing in Beijing on July 16, his second visit this year after an earlier trip in April where he said he hoped to "continue to cooperate with China." However, US republican senator Jim Banks and democratic senator Elizabeth Warren have sent a letter to Huang ahead of his trip, asking him to abstain from meeting with representatives of companies that are working with the People's Republic of China's military and intelligence bodies. "We are worried that your trip to the PRC could legitimize companies that cooperate closely with the Chinese military or involve discussing exploitable gaps in US export controls", the letter warns. The visit also comes in the wake of reports that China is currently constructing massive data centres to house over 115,000 Nvidia AI GPUs. This would appear be in direct contradiction of current US/China chip export restrictions surrounding high-end AI hardware, although it's unclear how the GPUs in question would be acquired. The Trump administration's AI czar, David Stacks, has previously called for a relaxing of Biden-era regulations surrounding American-made AI chips, while an executive order regulating the developments of AI tools, software, and models was nixed early into Trump's current tenure. Certainly, the Trump administration appears to look more favourably upon AI and AI hardware than the previous US government, so perhaps it's not unthinkable that the two countries could share AI developments (and chips) to their mutual benefit in years to come. That being said, the US hit China with some of the largest trade tariffs of the lot at the start of the year, with little sign of let-up in recent months. So, whether Jensen's calming words might help lead to better technological relations between the two, or perhaps even a retraction of existing chip sanctions in the near future, is anyone's guess for now. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Entrepreneur
14-07-2025
- Business
- Entrepreneur
Nvidia CEO: AI Will Change Everyone's Jobs, Including My Own
In a new interview, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says AI is "the greatest technology equalizer" the world has ever seen — and that "100% of everybody's jobs will be changed" as a result. Huang told CNN's Fareed Zakaria on Sunday that AI was an "equalizer," meaning that it "lifts" people who aren't well-versed in technology to be able to use it. Huang said ChatGPT, an AI chatbot with over 500 million global weekly users, was an example of how people can easily use AI with little to no formal training in interacting with it. "Look at how many people are using ChatGPT for the very first time," Huang told Zakaria. "And the first time you use it, you're getting something out of it… AI empowers people; it lifts people." Related: Here Are the 10 Highest-Paying Jobs with the Lowest Risk of Being Replaced By AI: 'Safest Jobs Right Now' AI results in people being able to do more with the technology than they would have without it, Huang said. He elaborated that he was "certain" that the "work that we do in our jobs" would be dramatically transformed due to AI. Huang, who has been leading Nvidia as CEO since co-founding it in 1993, said his own work has changed because of AI. "The work will change," Huang said in the interview. "My job has already changed. The work that I do has changed, but I'm still doing my job." Huang said that "some" jobs would be lost because of AI, but "many" jobs would be created thanks to the technology. He predicted that AI would result in productivity gains across industries, lifting society as a whole. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang. PhotoHuang's predictions are less dire than those of Dario Amodei, the CEO of $61.5 billion AI startup Anthropic. In May, Amodei told Axios that within the next five years, AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs and cause unemployment to rise to 10% to 20%. In March, he stated that AI would write "all of the code" for companies within a year. Adam Dorr, research director at the think tank RethinkX, stated that by 2045, AI and robotics could make human jobs obsolete. "We don't have that long to get ready for this," Dorr told The Guardian last week. "We know it's going to be tumultuous." Related: 'Fully Replacing People': A Tech Investor Says These Two Professions Should Be the Most Wary of AI Taking Their Jobs
CNN
07-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
On GPS: Tom Friedman on making sense of the Middle East
At the Aspen Ideas Festival, The New York Times' Tom Friedman tells Fareed about the three factors that he thinks are important when analyzing the geopolitics of the region.
CNN
06-07-2025
- Business
- CNN
On GPS: What defines a good society?
At the Aspen Ideas Festival, Fareed and Walter Isaacson discuss the explosion of wealth in America, and what — besides wealth — a society needs to function.
