Defense and Military Forces

Latest story

113 Shares199 Views

U.S. Tightens Technology Controls to Target Russian War Machine

by

The Biden administration announced new penalties on shell companies and suppliers that were feeding Russia’s war against Ukraine.The Biden administration said on Friday that it would add more than 100 companies and organizations in Russia, China and several other countries to a restricted trade list and take other measures, as it widens its net to try to capture more advanced technology that is flowing to the Russian military.The new rules aim to disrupt the procurement networks that are funneling semiconductors and other technology to Russian forces, who then use them to wage war against Ukraine. They will give the U.S. government expanded authority to prevent products made with U.S. technology from being shipped to Russia, even if those products are manufactured in countries outside of the United States.The penalties also included the addition of 123 entities in Russia, Crimea, China, Turkey, Iran and Cyprus to a so-called entity list. Suppliers are barred from sending companies on the entity list certain products without first obtaining a government license.The government also added certain addresses in Hong Kong and Turkey to the list that were known to set up shell companies, meaning any further shell companies registered to those addresses would face trade restrictions.The entity list additions include several uncovered in a recent investigation by The New York Times, including an office at 135 Bonham Strand in Hong Kong’s financial district that specialized in setting up shell companies. The office was the place of registration for at least four companies that funneled millions of restricted chips and sensors to military technology companies in Russia, the investigation found.The additions bring the number of organizations that the Biden administration has added to the entity list in relation to Russia’s war in Ukraine to more than 1,000.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Vies With Allies and Industry to Tighten China Tech Controls

    by

    The Biden administration must navigate the interests of U.S. companies and allied governments as it tries to close off China’s access to advanced chipsThe Biden administration is fighting to overcome opposition from allied nations and the tech industry as it prepares to expand restrictions aimed at slowing China’s ability to make the most advanced semiconductors, which could be used to bolster Beijing’s military capacity.The administration has drafted new rules that would limit shipments to China of the machinery and software used to make chips from a number of countries if they are made with American parts or technology, as well as some types of semiconductors, according to people who have seen or were briefed on a draft version of the rules.The rules are aimed at blocking off some of the newer routes that Chinese chipmakers have found to acquire technology, despite international restrictions.The United States has been pushing allies like Japan and the Netherlands to toughen their restrictions on technology shipments to China, during visits to those countries as well as a Japanese state visit to Washington in April. Those nations are home to companies that produce chip-making machinery, like ASML Holding N.V. and Tokyo Electron Limited. But industry in the United States and other countries has argued the rules could hurt them, and it remains unclear when or if foreign governments will issue limitations.In the meantime, some of the rules that the United States plans to impose would have significant carve-outs, the people said. The rules blocking shipments of equipment to certain semiconductor factories in China would not apply to more than 30 allied countries, including the Netherlands, South Korea and Japan.That has sparked pushback from U.S. firms, who argue that the playing field will be further tilted against them if the U.S. government stops their sales but not those of their competitors.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Europe Wants to Build a Stronger Defense Industry, but Can’t Decide How

    by

    Conflicting political visions, competitive jockeying and American dominance stand in the way of a more coordinated and efficient military machine.France and Germany’s recent agreement to develop a new multibillion-dollar battlefield tank together was immediately hailed by the German defense minister, Boris Pistorius, as a “breakthrough” achievement.“It is a historic moment,” he said.His gushing was understandable. For seven years, political infighting, industrial rivalry and neglect had pooled like molasses around the project to build a next-generation tank, known as the Main Combat Ground System.Russia’s invasion of Ukraine more than two years ago jolted Europe out of complacency about military spending. After defense budgets were cut in the decades that followed the Soviet Union’s collapse, the war has reignited Europe’s efforts to build up its own military production capacity and near-empty arsenals.But the challenges that face Europe are about more than just money. Daunting political and logistical hurdles stand in the way of a more coordinated and efficient military machine. And they threaten to seriously hobble any rapid strengthening of Europe’s defense capabilities — even as tensions between Russia and its neighbors ratchet up.“Europe has 27 military industrial complexes, not just one,” said Max Bergmann, a program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which will celebrate its 75th anniversary this summer, still sets the overall defense strategy and spending goals for Europe, but it doesn’t control the equipment procurement process. Each NATO member has its own defense establishment, culture, priorities and favored companies, and each government retains final say on what to buy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    American Firms Invested $1 Billion in Chinese Chips, Lawmakers Find

    by

    A congressional investigation determined that U.S. funding helped fuel the growth of a sector now viewed by Washington as a security threat.A congressional investigation has determined that five American venture capital firms invested more than $1 billion in China’s semiconductor industry since 2001, fueling the growth of a sector that the United States government now regards as a national security threat.Funds supplied by the five firms — GGV Capital, GSR Ventures, Qualcomm Ventures, Sequoia Capital and Walden International — went to more than 150 Chinese companies, according to the report, which was released Thursday by both Republicans and Democrats on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.The investments included roughly $180 million that went to Chinese firms that the committee said directly or indirectly supported Beijing’s military. That includes companies that the U.S. government has said provide chips for China’s military research, equipment and weapons, such as Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, or SMIC, China’s largest chipmaker.The report by the House committee focuses on investments made before the Biden administration imposed sweeping restrictions aimed at cutting off China’s access to American financing. It does not allege any illegality.In August, the Biden administration barred U.S. venture capital and private equity firms from investing in Chinese quantum computing, artificial intelligence and advanced semiconductors. It has also imposed worldwide limits on sales of advanced chips and chip-making machines to China, arguing that these technologies could help advance the capabilities of the Chinese military and spy agencies.Since it was established a year ago, the committee has called for raising tariffs on China, targeted Ford Motor and others for doing business with Chinese companies, and spotlighted forced labor concerns involving Chinese shopping sites.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and Europe Eye Russian Assets to Aid Ukraine as Funding Dries Up

    by

    Despite legal reservations, policymakers are weighing the consequences of using $300 billion in Russian assets to help Kyiv’s war effort.The Biden administration is quietly signaling new support for seizing more than $300 billion in Russian central bank assets stashed in Western nations, and has begun urgent discussions with allies about using the funds to aid Ukraine’s war effort at a moment when financial support is waning, according to senior American and European officials.Until recently, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen had argued that without action by Congress, seizing the funds was “not something that is legally permissible in the United States.” There has also been concern among some top American officials that nations around the world would hesitate to keep their funds at the New York Federal Reserve, or in dollars, if the United States established a precedent for seizing the money.But the administration, in coordination with the Group of 7 industrial nations, has begun taking another look at whether it can use its existing authorities or if it should seek congressional action to use the funds. Support for such legislation has been building in Congress, giving the Biden administration optimism that it could be granted the necessary authority.The talks among finance ministers, central bankers, diplomats and lawyers have intensified in recent weeks, officials said, with the Biden administration pressing Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan to come up with a strategy by Feb. 24, the second anniversary of the invasion.The more than $300 billion of Russian assets under discussion have already been out of Moscow’s control for more than a year. After the invasion of Ukraine, the United States, along with Europe and Japan, used sanctions to freeze the assets, denying Russia access to its international reserves.But seizing the assets would take matters a significant step further and require careful legal consideration.President Biden has not yet signed off on the strategy, and many of the details remain under heated discussion. Policymakers must determine if the money will be channeled directly to Ukraine or used to its benefit in other ways.They are also discussing what kinds of guardrails might be associated with the funds, such as whether the money could be used only for reconstruction and budgetary purposes to support Ukraine’s economy, or whether — like the funds Congress is debating — it could be spent directly on the military effort.The discussions have taken on greater urgency since Congress failed to reach a deal to provide military aid before the end of the year. On Tuesday, lawmakers abandoned a last-ditch effort amid a stalemate over Republican demands that any aid be tied to a crackdown on migration across the U.S. border with Mexico.The Financial Times reported earlier that the Biden administration had come around to the view that seizing Russia’s assets was viable under international law.A senior administration official said this week that even if Congress ultimately reached a deal to pay for more arms for Ukraine and aid to its government, eroding support for the war effort among Republicans and Ukraine’s increasingly precarious military position made it clear that an alternative source of funding was desperately needed.American officials have said that current funding for the Ukrainians is nearly exhausted, and they are scrambling to find ways to provide artillery rounds and air defenses for the country. With Europe’s own promise of fresh funds also stuck, a variety of new ideas are being debated about how to use the Russian assets, either dipping into them directly, using them to guarantee loans or using the interest income they earn to help Ukraine.“This amount of money that we’re talking about here is simply game-changing,” said Philip Zelikow, a State Department official in both Bush administrations and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “The fight over this money which is occurring is actually in some ways the essential campaign of the war.”Seizing such a large sum of money from another sovereign nation would be without precedent, and such an action could have unpredictable legal ramifications and economic consequences. It would almost certainly lead to lawsuits and retaliation from Russia.Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, referred to the discussions in a video address to his country last week, saying that “the issue of frozen assets was one of the very important decisions addressed” during his recent talks in Washington. He seemed to suggest that the funds should be directed to arms purchases, adding, “The assets of the terrorist state and its affiliates should be used to support Ukraine, to protect lives and people from Russian terror.”In a sign that some European countries are ready to move forward with confiscating Russian assets, German prosecutors this week seized about $790 million from the Frankfurt bank account of a Russian financial firm that was under E.U. sanctions.The Biden administration has said little in public about the negotiations. At the State Department on Tuesday, Matthew Miller, a spokesman, said: “It’s something that we have looked at. There remains sort of operational questions about that, and legal questions.” He said he did not have more information.Very little of the Russian assets, perhaps $5 billion or so by some estimates, are in the hands of U.S. institutions. But a significant chunk of Russia’s foreign reserves are held in U.S. dollars, both in the United States and in Europe. The United States has the power to police transactions involving its currency and use its sanctions to immobilize dollar-denominated assets.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine at the Capitol this month. A Biden administration official said that even if Congress ultimately reached a deal to send more aid to Ukraine, an alternative source of funding was still desperately needed.Kent Nishimura for The New York TimesThe bulk of the Russian deposits are believed to be in Europe, including in Switzerland and Belgium, which are not part of the Group of 7. As a result, diplomatic negotiations are underway over how to gain access to those funds, some of which are held in euros and other currencies.American officials were surprised that President Vladimir V. Putin did not repatriate the funds before the Ukraine invasion. But in interviews over the past year, they have speculated that Mr. Putin did not believe the funds would be seized, because they were left untouched after his invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. And bringing the funds home to Russia would have been another tipoff that an invasion was imminent, at a time Mr. Putin was vigorously denying American and British charges that he was preparing for military action.One Group of 7 official said the coalition had been considering a variety of options for how to use Russia’s assets, with the goal of putting forward a unified proposal around the second anniversary of the war, when many top officials will be gathering in Germany for the Munich Security Conference. The first debates have focused on what would be permissible under international law and under each nation’s domestic laws, as they consider Russia’s likely legal responses and retaliatory measures.Earlier in the year, American officials said they thought the frozen assets could be used as leverage to help force Russia to the negotiating table for a cease-fire; presumably, in return, Moscow would be given access to some of its assets. But Russia has shown no interest in such negotiations, and now officials argue that beginning to use the funds may push Moscow to move to the negotiating table.Among the options that Western countries have discussed are seizing the assets directly and transferring them to Ukraine, using interest earned and other profits from the assets that are held in European financial institutions to Ukraine’s benefit or using the assets as collateral for loans to Ukraine.Daleep Singh, a former top Biden administration official, suggested in an interview this year that the immobilized reserves should be placed into an escrow account that Ukraine’s Ministry of Finance could have access to and be used as collateral for new bonds that Ukraine would issue.If Ukraine can successfully repay the debt — over a period of 10 to 30 years — then Russia could potentially have its frozen assets back.“If they can’t repay, my hunch is that Russia probably has something to do with that,” said Mr. Singh, who is now the chief global economist at PGIM Fixed Income. “And so in that way, Russia has a stake in Ukraine’s emergence as a sovereign independent economy and country.”Settling on a solid legal rationale has been one of the biggest challenges for policymakers as they decide how to proceed.Proponents of seizing Russia’s assets, such as Mr. Zelikow and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, have argued that nations that hold Russian assets are entitled to cancel their obligations to Russia and apply those assets to what Russia owes for its breach of international law under the so-called international law of state countermeasures. They note that after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, $50 billion of Iraqi funds were seized and transferred through the United Nations to compensate victims in Iraq and other countries.Robert B. Zoellick, the former World Bank president, has been making the case to Group of 7 finance ministers that as long as they act in unison, seizing Russian assets would not have an impact on their currencies or the status of the dollar. He suggested that other countries were unlikely to rush to put their money into another currency, such as China’s renminbi.“With reserve currencies, it’s always a question of what your alternatives are,” said Mr. Zoellick, who was also a Treasury and State Department official.One of the obstacles in the United States for seizing Russian assets has been the view within the Biden administration that being able to lawfully do so would require an act of Congress. At a news conference in Germany last year, Ms. Yellen highlighted that concern.“While we’re beginning to look at this, it would not be legal now, in the United States, for the government to seize those statutes,” Ms. Yellen said. “It’s not something that is legally permissible in the United States.”Since then, however, Ms. Yellen has become more open to the idea of seizing Russia’s assets to aid Ukraine.Factions of Congress have previously tried to attach provisions to the annual defense bill to allow the Justice Department to seize Russian assets belonging to officials under sanction and funnel the proceeds from the sale of those assets to Ukraine to help pay for weapons. But the efforts have faltered amid concerns that the proposals were not thoroughly vetted.With Ukraine running low on funds and ammunition, the debate about how to provide more aid could shift from a legal question to a moral question.“One can understand the precedential point made by those who do not believe the assets should be seized,” said Mark Sobel, a former longtime Treasury Department official who is now the U.S. chairman of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum. “Given skirmishes and wars in many spots, one could easily argue such a precedent could get out of hand.”However, Mr. Sobel argued that the barbarity of Russia’s actions justified using its assets to compensate Ukraine.“In my mind, humanity dictates that those factors outweigh the argument that seizing the assets would be unprecedented simply because Russia’s heinous and unfathomable behavior must be strongly punished,” he said.Eric Schmitt More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Administration Chooses Military Supplier for First CHIPS Act Grant

    by

    The award, which will go to BAE Systems, is part of a new government program aimed at creating a more secure supply of semiconductors.The Biden administration will announce on Monday that BAE Systems, a defense contractor, will receive the first federal grant from a new program aimed at shoring up American manufacturing of critical semiconductors.The company is expected to receive a $35 million grant to quadruple its domestic production of a type of chip used in F-15 and F-35 fighter jets, administration officials said. The grant is intended to help ensure a more secure supply of a component that is critical for the United States and its allies.The award is the first of several expected in the coming months, as the Commerce Department begins distributing the $39 billion in federal funding that Congress authorized under the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. The money is intended to incentivize the construction of chip factories in the United States and lure back a key type of manufacturing that has slipped offshore in recent decades.Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, said on Sunday that the decision to select a defense contractor for the first award, rather than a commercial semiconductor facility, was meant to emphasize the administration’s focus on national security.“We can’t gamble with our national security by depending solely on one part of the world or even one country for crucial advanced technologies,” she said.Semiconductors originated in the United States, but the country now manufactures only about one-tenth of chips made globally. While American chip companies still design the world’s most cutting-edge products, much of the world’s manufacturing has migrated to Asia in recent decades as companies sought lower costs.Chips power not only computers and cars but also missiles, satellites and fighter jets, which has prompted officials in Washington to consider the lack of domestic manufacturing capacity a serious national security vulnerability.A global shortage of chips during the pandemic shuttered car factories and dented the U.S. economy, highlighting the risks of supply chains that are outside of America’s control. The chip industry’s incredible reliance on Taiwan, a geopolitical flashpoint, is also considered an untenable security threat given that China sees the island as a breakaway part of its territory and has talked of reclaiming it.The BAE chips that the program would help fund are produced in the United States, but administration officials said the money would allow the company to upgrade aging machinery that poses a risk to the facility’s continuing operations. Like other grants under the program, the funding would be doled out to the company over time, after the Commerce Department carries out due diligence on the project and as the company reaches certain milestones.“When we talk about supply chain resilience, this investment is about shoring up that resilience and ensuring that the chips are delivered when our military needs them,” said Jake Sullivan, President Biden’s national security adviser.BAE, partly through operations purchased from Lockheed Martin, specializes in chips called monolithic microwave integrated circuits that generate high-frequency radio signals and are used in electronic warfare and aircraft-to-aircraft communications.The award will be formally announced at the company’s Nashua, N.H., factory on Monday. The facility is part of the Pentagon’s “trusted foundry” program, which fabricates chips for defense-related needs under tight security restrictions.In the coming months, the Biden administration is expected to announce much larger grants for major semiconductor manufacturing facilities run by companies like Intel, Samsung or Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, known as TSMC.Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Ms. Raimondo said the grant was “the first of many announcements” and that the pace of those awards would accelerate in the first half of next year.The Biden administration is hoping to create a thriving chip industry in the United States, which would encompass the industry’s most cutting-edge manufacturing and research, as well as factories pumping out older types of chips and various types of suppliers to make the chemicals and other raw materials that chip facilities need.Part of the program’s focus has been establishing a secure source of chips to feed into products needed by the American military. The supply chains that feed into weapons systems, fighter jets and other technology are opaque and complex. Chip industry executives say that some military contractors have surprisingly little understanding of where some of the semiconductors in their products come from. At least some of the chip supply chains that feed into American military goods run through China, where companies manufacture and test semiconductors.Since Mr. Biden signed the CHIPS act into law, companies have announced plans to invest more than $160 billion in new U.S. manufacturing facilities in hopes of winning some portion of the federal money. The law also offers a 25 percent tax credit for funds that chip companies spend on new U.S. factories.The funding will be a test of the Biden administration’s industrial policy and its ability to pick the most viable projects while ensuring that taxpayer money is not wasted. The Commerce Department has spun up a special team of roughly 200 people who are now reviewing company applications for the funds.Tech experts expect the law to help reverse a three-decade-long decline in the U.S. share of global chip manufacturing, but it remains uncertain just how much of the industry the program can reclaim.While the amount of money available under the new law is large in historical proportions, it could go fast. Chip factories are packed with some of the world’s most advanced machinery and are thus incredibly expensive, with the most advanced facilities costing tens of billions of dollars each.Industry executives say the cost of operating a chip factory and paying workers in the United States is higher than many other parts of the world. East Asian countries are still offering lucrative subsidies for new chip facilities, as well as a large supply of skilled engineers and technicians.Chris Miller, a professor of Tufts University who is the author of “Chip War,” a history of the industry, said there was “clear evidence” of a major increase in investment across the semiconductor supply chain in the United States as a result of the law.“I think the huge question that remains is how enduring will these investments be over time,” he said. “Are they one-offs or will they be followed by second and third rounds for the companies involved?”Don Clark More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Europe Rushes to Build Defenses But With Little Consensus on How

    by

    At Saab’s sprawling combat production center in Karlskoga, Sweden, the 84-millimeter shells that can take out a battle tank in a single stroke are carefully assembled by hand. One worker stacked tagliatelle-shaped strips of explosive propellant in a tray. Another attached the translucent sheafs around the rotating fins of a guiding system.Outside the squat building, one of hundreds in the guarded industrial park, construction is underway on another factory. Capacity at this plant — a few minutes’ drive from the home of Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite and founder of the peace prize — is scheduled to more than double in the next two years.The enlargement is part of a titanic expansion in military spending that every country in Europe has undertaken since Russia invaded Ukraine 18 months ago. Yet the mad dash by more than 30 allied countries to stockpile arms after years of minimal spending has raised concerns that the massive buildup will be disjointed, resulting in waste, supply shortages, unnecessary delays and duplication.“Europeans have not addressed the deeply fragmented and disorganized manner in which they generate their forces,” a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies said. “Investing more in an uncoordinated manner will only marginally improve a dysfunctional status quo.”The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which sets overall defense strategy, and the European Union have pushed for greater cooperation and integration, creating several new initiatives, including one to coordinate weapons procurement.Manufacturing shells at a Saab facility in Karlskoga, Sweden.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesAnother step in the production at the Karlskoga facility.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesCleaning the main charges on the production line.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesStill, a growing chorus of weapons manufacturers, political figures and military experts warn the efforts fall far short of what is needed. “There needs to be some clarity since we’re not the United States of Europe,” Micael Johansson, the president and chief executive of Saab, explained from the company’s headquarters in Stockholm. “Every country decides themselves what type of capabilities they need.”Each country has its own strategic culture, procurement practices, specifications, approval processes, training and priorities.Alliance members may sometimes use the same aircraft but with different encryption systems and varying instruments. As Ukrainian soldiers have discovered, 155-millimeter shells produced by one manufacturer do not necessarily fit into a howitzer made by another. Ammunition and parts are not always interchangeable, complicating maintenance and causing more frequent breakdowns.The European Union does not “have a defense planning process,” said Mr. Johansson. This summer, he was appointed vice chairman of the board at the Aerospace and Defense Industries Association of Europe, a trade association representing 3,000 companies. “NATO has to rethink how do we create resilience in the whole system,” including supply chains that produce the munitions soldiers use on the battlefield.Saab’s president and chief executive, Micael Johansson, at the company’s headquarters in Stockholm.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesCrucial raw materials like titanium and lithium, as well as sophisticated electronics and semiconductors, are in great demand.And there is a shortage of explosives, particularly powder, which manufacturers across the entire weapons industry depend on. But there has been little detailed discussion about which systems should get priority or how the supply of powder as a whole could be increased.“I suggested it,” Mr. Johansson said, “but it hasn’t happened yet.”The discussions are taking place at a time when the resilience of far-flung supply chains of all kinds are being re-examined. Memories are still fresh of interruptions in the flow of natural gas and grain resulting from the war in Ukraine, not to mention the severe backlogs in the production and delivery of goods and materials caused by the Covid pandemic.The big trend now, said Michael Hoglund, head of business area ground combat at Saab, is to bring supply chains closer to home and to create reliable backups. “We’re no longer buying the cheapest,” he said. “We’re paying a fee to feel safer.”Workers on the production line.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesAssembling a weapon.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesCoordinating supplies is just one element. Getting a jumble of varying weapons systems, practices and technologies to smoothly perform in concert has always been a challenge. NATO has set standards so that the different systems are compatible — what is known as interoperability.The practice, though, can be less than harmonious.The European Defense Agency’s annual review last year found that only 18 percent of defense investments are done together, half of the targeted amount. “The degree of cooperation among our armies is very low,” Josep Borrell, the European Union’s top diplomat, said at the time.Sweden is on the cusp of joining NATO, but it has partnered with the military alliance before, and Saab, which produces a range of weapons systems including the Gripen fighter jet, sells to scores of countries around the world.Managers there have seen some of the challenges to coordination up close in large and small ways.A Gripen aircraft at the Saab test center in Linkoping.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesJakob Hogberg, a Gripen test pilot, discussing the aircraft.Loulou d’Aki for The New York Times“The whole system in each army is built up in a special way,” said Gorgen Johansson, who oversees the Karlskoga operation. (He is not related to the chief executive.) Behind him sat an empty green tube used to launch Saab’s shoulder-fired NLAW anti-tank missile. It was signed by Ukraine’s former minister of defense and returned to its maker as a token of appreciation.Some customers, he said, want two launchers packed in a single box, another wants four, or six, because they have bought vehicles and equipment that can hold different numbers of launchers.Mr. Johansson said that until very recently, it was impossible to get the players to even talk about standardizing where labels were positioned or what color they should be.Bigger problems remain. After the Cold War ended, there was an enormous consolidation of defense companies as military spending shrank. Still, like varying brands of cereal, there is a wide range of each major weapons system. Europe has 27 different types of howitzers, 20 types of fighter jets and 26 types of destroyers and frigates, according to an analysis by McKinsey & Company.In building a unified fighting force, Europe must balance competition, which can result in improvements and innovation, with the need to eliminate waste and streamline operations, by ordering or even designing weapons in concert.Underlying the once-in-a-generation military expansion is that the continent is still primarily dependent on the United States for its safety. President Trump’s complaints in 2018 of insufficient spending in Europe and veiled threats to withdraw from NATO profoundly shook the region.A staff member collecting equipment from a tank used as a target at a test center.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesHolding up shrapnel that hit the target after a firing exercise.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesBut the view that Europe has to take more financial responsibility for its own defense is now widespread, urgently ratcheting up the pressure to better unify Europe’s defenses.Coordination, though, faces several built-in hurdles. As the center’s report concluded, integrating European defense “will be a slow laborious process and a generational effort.”Governments are already funneling millions or billions of dollars to defense and, naturally, every one wants to support its own industries and workers.And whatever Europe’s overall defense needs may be, each nation’s first priority is protecting their borders. There is limited trust even among alliance members.“We think we are friends,” said Gorgen Johansson in Karlskoga. But he noted that during the pandemic when there was a shortage of ventilators, Germany, which had a surplus, stopped supplying them to Sweden, Italy and other countries in need.“The talks have started,” Mr. Johansson said of efforts to improve coordination. “Do I think it will go quickly? No.”Working on a plane at Saab’s fighter production facility in Linköping.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesWorkers assembling an aircraft in Linköping.Loulou d’Aki for The New York Times More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Biden to Restrict Investments in China, Citing National Security Threats

    by

    The measure to clamp down on investments in certain industries deemed to pose security risks, set to be issued Wednesday, appears likely to open a new front in the U.S.-China economic conflict.The Biden administration plans on Wednesday to issue new restrictions on American investments in certain advanced industries in China, according to people familiar with the deliberations, a move that supporters have described as necessary to protect national security but that will undoubtedly rankle Beijing.The measure would be one of the first significant steps the United States has taken amid an economic clash with China to clamp down on outgoing financial flows. It could set the stage for more restrictions on investments between the two countries in the years to come.The restrictions would bar private equity and venture capital firms from making investments in certain high-tech sectors, like quantum computing, artificial intelligence and advanced semiconductors, the people said, in a bid to stop the transfer of American dollars and expertise to China.It would also require firms making investments in a broader range of Chinese industries to report that activity, giving the government better visibility into financial exchanges between the United States and China.The White House declined to comment. But Biden officials have emphasized that outright restrictions on investment would narrowly target a few sectors that could aid the Chinese military or surveillance state as they seek to combat security threats but not disrupt legitimate business with China.“There is mounting evidence that U.S. capital is being used to advance Chinese military capabilities and that the U.S. lacks a sufficient means of combating this activity,” said Emily Benson, the director of project on trade and technology at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.The Biden administration has recently sought to calm relations with China, dispatching Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen and other top officials to talk with Chinese counterparts. In recent speeches, Biden officials have argued that targeted actions taken against China are aimed purely at protecting U.S. national security, not at damaging the Chinese economy.At the same time, the Biden administration has continued to push to “de-risk” critical supply chains by developing suppliers outside China, and it has steadily ramped up its restrictions on selling certain technologies to China, including semiconductors for advanced computing.The Chinese government has long restricted certain foreign investments by individuals and firms. Other governments, such as those of Taiwan and South Korea, also have restrictions on outgoing investments.But beyond screening Chinese investment into the United States for security risks, the U.S. government has left financial flows between the world’s two largest economies largely untouched. Just a few years ago, American policymakers were working to open up Chinese financial markets for U.S. firms.In the past few years, investments between the United States and China have fallen sharply as the countries severed other economic ties. But venture capital and private equity firms have continued to seek out lucrative opportunities for partnerships, as a way to gain access to China’s vibrant tech industry.The planned measure has already faced criticism from some congressional Republicans and others who say it has taken too long and does not go far enough to limit U.S. funding of Chinese technology. In July, a House committee on China sent letters to four U.S. venture capital firms expressing “serious concern” about their investments in Chinese companies in areas including artificial intelligence and semiconductors.Others have argued that the restriction would mainly put the U.S. economy at a disadvantage, because other countries continue to forge technology partnerships with China, and China has no shortage of capital.Nicholas R. Lardy, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the United States was the source of less than 5 percent of China’s inbound direct investment in 2021 and 2022.“Unless other major investors in China adopt similar restrictions, I think this is a waste of time,” Mr. Lardy said. “Pushing this policy now simply plays into the hands of those in Beijing who believe that the U.S. seeks to contain China and are not interested in renewed dialogue or a ‘thaw.’”Biden officials have talked with allies in recent months to explain the measure and encourage other governments to adopt similar restrictions, including at the Group of 7 meetings in Japan in May. Since then, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, has urged the European Union to introduce its own measure.The administration is expected to give businesses and other organizations a chance to comment on the new rules before they are finalized in the months to come.Claire Chu, a senior China analyst at Janes, a defense intelligence company, said that communicating and enforcing the measure would be difficult, and that officials would need to engage closely with Silicon Valley and Wall Street.“For a long time, the U.S. national security community has been reticent to recognize the international financial system as a potential warfighting domain,” she said. “And the business community has pushed back against what it considers to be the politicization of private markets. And so this is not only an interagency effort, but an exercise in intersectoral coordination.” More

  • 75 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and China, by the Numbers

    by

    From movie theaters to military spending, here’s how one of the world’s most important economic relationships stacks up.China and the United States are locked in an increasingly intense rivalry when it comes to national security and economic competition, with American leaders frequently identifying China as their greatest long-term challenger.Yet the world’s two largest economies, which together represent 40 percent of the global output, remain integral partners in many ways. They sell and buy important products from each other, finance each other’s businesses, provide a home to millions of each other’s people, and create apps and movies for audiences in both countries.As Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen meets with top Chinese officials in Beijing this week, her challenge will be to navigate this multifaceted relationship, which ranges from conflict to cooperation. Here are some figures that illustrate the links between the two nations.Economic and military powerThe U.S. economy continues to outstrip China’s by dollar value: In 2022, Chinese gross domestic product was $18 trillion, compared with $25.5 trillion for the United States.But China’s population is more than four times America’s. And the economic picture looks different when adjusted for local prices: Based on purchasing power parity, China’s share of world G.D.P. is 18.9 percent, according to the International Monetary Fund, surpassing the United States at 15.4 percent.China has provided more than a trillion dollars for global infrastructure through its Belt and Road Initiative, which analysts see as an effort to project power around the world.The rapid growth and modernization of China’s military have sparked concerns in the United States. China has more naval vessels than the United States and more military personnel, with 2.5 million in 2019.But American armed forces are far better equipped, and the United States still spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined — $877 billion in 2022, compared with $292 billion in reported spending by China.Trade relationsDespite the rising tensions, trade between the countries remains extremely strong. China is America’s third-largest trading partner, after Canada and Mexico.U.S. imports of goods and services from China hit a record $563.6 billion last year. But the share of U.S. imports that come from China has been falling, a sign of how some businesses are breaking off ties with China.China is also a major export market, with half of all soybeans that the United States sends abroad going to China. The U.S.-China Business Council estimated that U.S. exports to China supported nearly 1.1 million jobs in the United States in 2021.China dominates supply chains for both critical and everyday goods. It is the world’s largest producer of steel, solar panels, electronics, coal, plastics, buttons and car batteries, and it has quadrupled its car exports in just two years, becoming the world’s largest auto exporter through its growing clout in electric vehicles.The United States has steadily expanded sanctions against Chinese companies and organizations because of national security and human rights concerns, placing 721 Chinese companies, organizations and people on an “entity list” that restricts their ability to buy products from the United States, according to the Commerce Department.Financial and corporate tiesChina is one of America’s largest lenders and holds nearly $1 trillion of U.S. debt.Members of the S&P 500 index, which tracks the largest public companies in the United States, generate 7.6 percent of their revenue in mainland China, the biggest source of international sales by far, according to FactSet. The revenue that large U.S. firms derive from China is more than their revenue from the next three countries — Japan, Britain and Germany — combined.But the outlook for American companies doing business in China has turned grimmer. In the American Chamber of Commerce in China’s most recent survey of U.S. companies in China, 56 percent described their business as unprofitable in 2022, with some blaming China’s strict Covid-19 lockdown measures.Also in the survey, 46 percent of American companies thought that U.S.-China relations would deteriorate in 2023, while only 13 percent thought they would improve.Personal and cultural connectionsThe United States is home to nearly 2.4 million Chinese immigrants, making it the top destination for Chinese immigrants worldwide. Chinese immigrants in the United States are more than twice as likely as U.S.-born adults to have a graduate or professional degree.In the 2021-22 school year, 296,000 students from China attended U.S. institutions of higher learning, nearly a third of all international students in the United States.Roughly three in four Chinese Americans experienced racial discrimination in the previous 12 months, and 9 percent were physically intimidated or assaulted, according to a survey by Columbia University and the Committee of 100, a Chinese American leadership organization.Long considered a low-end manufacturer, China has become more of a source for innovation and cultural creation. TikTok, the popular social media app whose parent company is China’s ByteDance, says it has more than 150 million users in the United States.Last year, 20 American movies opened in China, and their box office total was roughly $673 million, according to Comscore. China had more than 80,000 movie screens by late 2021, compared with roughly 39,000 in the United States.Pandemic restrictions have made it much harder to travel between the countries. Air carriers are running only 24 flights a week between the United States and China, compared with about 350 before the pandemic.Sapna Maheshwari and Nicole Sperling contributed reporting. More