Dear Listers, There is no "angel" or "villain" in the US-China trade war. Both countries have historically relied on (and continue to rely on) gangster tactics to grow and prosper - and they are not the only ones; Russia, France, Britain, Singapore, Switzerland etc are also gangster nations in different ways and to varying extents - if you understand how global economic crime works.. remember the idea of anarchy in international relations? If you pick sides on normative grounds you'll be fooling yourself because, in reality, you'll be choosing a "favorite gangster". Strategic countries will pick the side that best advances their own interests; that's why Europeans, who readily send their own children to die in America's wars, are hesitating when it comes to Silicon Valley and 5G. America's tech hegemony is very scary because we're now talking about taking control of people's MINDS. Very few people understand this - especially in Africa. Americans are exceptional strategists who make very-long-term global scale plans; for example, in tech sphere, they knew - and zealously protected - their foundational technology and core know-how advantage from "day 1", even as they relocated manufacturing to China - and that is why they can strike Chinese tech companies with such precise - yet highly effective moves. On the other hand, the Chinese, coming from a point of disadvantage that was very similar to where Africa is currently - relied on sheer cunning: effective but unsustainable asymmetric / flanking strategy (e.g. leveraging US corporate greed to play the 3rd world card and gain unbalanced market concessions, focus on cost advantage - and supplementing R&D gaps by stealing IP wherever they can, tolerating inhumane labor conditions - including child labor - and so on). This has worked for China and catapulted it into the global "Number 2". However China did not have a plan for what to do once they reach a global leadership position; the quick-and-easy wins of stealing IP, as well as belief in their competitive advantage as the world's factory, fooled them into adapting their national education and incentives systems on the basis of status quo, rather than parallel development of "first principles" advantage, and though that would have involved "reinventing the wheel", it would have been much smarter - in terms of creating a robust foundation for economic self-reliance. Even their much touted 5G leadership relied on certain assumptions about US tech and consequently has now been thrown into disarray. What really triggered the trade war is the BRI. It signaled a maturing China that wants to transition from underdog tactics to global leadership - a direct threat to the dominant power. The US had been distracted by its numerous tactical wars, to the extent that it forgot to keep tabs on the bigger picture - and, now, in panic, has resorted to big moves to compensate and try swing back China's gains. This could backfire because China has essentially been given a free "audit" of their status and weaknesses - and all they need now is time to compensate. We can expect some short-term global turbulence in the next decade or so, because the incumbent (US) is unlikely to cheerfully relinquish its lucrative unilateral advantage - but the future is unlikely to be uni-polar. CONCLUSIONS:
From an interests perspective, there is too much homogeneity in tech and it needs to be balanced. The world clearly needs geopolitical neutrality in globally pervasive ICTs. That means an open internet, open OS, open core components, open fundamental designs, open formats, open protocols, open architectures and so on. It is clear that core global infrastructure should be owned, managed and developed by multilateral states under treaty arrangements (rather than corporate owned).
The rest of the world has an opportunity to leverage the US-China trade-war as justification for forming what I will term as a "Neutral Basics Tech Consortium", where they pool resources to accelerate the development of universally open core technology alternatives. KEY LESSONS FOR KENYA & AFRICA: The big lesson here is that long-term strategists will reinvent the wheel (or seek to have it jointly owned) if it doesn't belong to them: they think of "plan Bs" far ahead of time, whereas short-term strategists have to bank on certain key assumptions, such as the wheel-owner's greed and focus on the immediate need of assembling and selling the vehicles. The former is costly - but very profitable on the long run, the latter is risky and potentially unsustainable - but yields quicker profits. Both have their time and place. Kenya / Africa can only execute short-term strategies due to resource constraints, but it is smarter to have long-term frameworks that recognize the value and importance of developing indigenous capabilities. Africa should also join global coalitions for Neutral Basics Tech if/when they are established. But that is not to say that Africa should not develop its own proprietary technological advantage; it must, if it wants to prosper. Another thing that comes out clearly, at least to me, is the need for multiple (rather than universal) education systems. You can't predict the future - so you should not have one education system for your entire country. Instead of choosing between CBC (future oriented) and 844 (present-day oriented) - we should consider running both in parallel, improving 844's weaknesses (instead of discarding it completely), giving parents the option to choose what system they want, designing the economy to leverage the advantage of each - and influencing choice at demand side (let opportunities be what influences the education preferences made by parents / learners). We must understand, positively (as opposed to normatively), that the purpose of formal schooling is to create human tools / robots - to work in established factories / institutions. Formal schooling suppresses imagination and creativity by design and out of necessity. If you want people who can create a new world, you should train them outside the formal system - where they can develop curiosity-driven (rather than curriculum-driven) knowledge. Formal schooling graduates are not trained to create jobs - they are trained to work in jobs that already exist. This is important if we want to understand unemployment in Kenya / Africa. Let us not under-estimate the incredible value of home-schooling and informal learning. Gifted children do not fit well within mass programs (in fact they are suppressed and alienated) - so there needs to be a non-stigmatized path that they can take in order to thrive. Homeschooling is one such path. In fact, the people who had the greatest impact the modern world were home schooled (or drop-outs). Think Alexander Graham Bell (Telephone), Wright Brothers (Airplane), Thomas Edison (Phonograph), Peter Cooper (Skyscrapers / Train), Guglielmo Marconi (Radio), SEVENTEEN US presidents (including well known names like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franlkin & Theodore Roosevelt). Kenya has a good number of intelligent parents who would rather (and have the time + ability to) home-school their children, or form home-schooling coalitions within neighborhoods. What is needed to make this work best for the children is a system of supervision (homeschooling regulations) to ensure homeschooling is not used as an excuse for child neglect or child abuse (there needs to be some evidence of pedagogical philosophy - even if its not formal). If we want to prosper as a nation / continent, we must open up our minds and embrace the idea of parallel education systems. We need to get our act together as a country / continent and focus on leveraging ability and talent instead of placing total reliance on signaling heuristics (e.g. certificates - which only signal ability to pass exams - not ability to actually do a job well or to innovate). If you doubt my argument, consider the present day chaos and incompetence in African governments - yet they are full of impressive PhDs, MBAs, MAs and Mscs. By relying on "factory-system grading" as key indicators of competence, Africa's public-sector has missed out on the advantage of leveraging real talent which is the key to genuine progress and prosperity. We need to develop better ways of identifying and developing talent. Good day,Patrick. Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations] On Monday, May 27, 2019, 9:25:59 PM GMT+3, Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 20:21, S.M. Muraya via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: competitors, chiefly Sweden’s Ericsson or Finland’s Nokia, if the ban persists. ...The question now is whether the Trump Administration will find a compromise. Chinese firm ZTE almost collapsed last year after similar action to that taken against Huawei. Eventually, President Trump negotiated a $1 billion fine in lieu that allowed ZTE to keep trading. US can extort bribes to any entity regardless of where it is domicile. "If you go ahead of us, you pay rent". This is not any different from how Mungiki and other vigilante groups operate_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pmaina2000%40yahoo.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.