Major Essay_ US-China Relations_FINAL

MAJOR ESSAY
US-China Relations
As part of a new cyber security regime China’s leaders have made the
passage of cyber security law a priority, despite protests from
the United States. Are these protests valid?
Student: Louise Collins
Student ID: 198148266
Subject: US-China Relations
Subject Code: GOVT 6359
Date: 4.05.2015
Word Count: 3756 (4455 including bibliography, reference books and end notes)

Abstract
This paper addresses the question as to whether or not the reaction of the United States
Government to proposed new cyber security laws in China is valid. In doing so it acknowledges the
importance of cyberspace as an engine of economic growth for both the United States and China
and as a source of contention in managing national security. It highlights that China is using
cyberspace, and specifically its cyber security laws, to ‘delegitimise’ American power and authority in
cyberspace. As such, it argues that America, as the world’s leading technological innovator, is right
to challenge China and also highlight its concerns.
Introduction
Cyberspace is an enabler for US economic growth and its position as the leading technological
innovator, and for China's emergence as a great power in the twenty-first century. Within this
framework, the last few years have seen the security of information systems become a contentious
issue in U-S China relations.
This paper addresses whether or not the reaction of the United States Government to new cyber
security laws proposed China are valid. These laws are part of a new cyber security regime
implemented in 2014. The laws are extensive and cut across procurement sourcing, intellectual
property provision, pre-sales assessment and market accessibility. They are detailed further in this
paper. China’s new cyber security regime and its adjacent laws, highlight the fundamental economic
and political differences that exist between the U.S and China. This paper argues that these
differences are a valid cause for concern for America.
China is a market of significant potential for the United States. Most particularly, for the high
technology products used to build cyber capability, of which many American companies are amongst
the market leaders. This paper argues that the United States has derived considerable economic
and international soft power benefits from its cyber capabilities and these that are directly
threatened by the proposed new laws. It also argues that, China, as a rising economic and political
power is challenging U.S hegemony through cyberspace. From a realist perspective, it shows that
China is taking advantage of circumstances and situations to challenge America and to re-shape their
cyber relationship. The paper purports that China is seeking to build a comprehensive information
technology capability that will increase its ability to resist the United States. It argues that this is
why America should be concerned.
This paper makes the case that the laws indicate a level of suspicion, by China, about the motives of
the many U.S based technology companies who have provided IT systems infrastructure and services
to China.
The paper postulates that the United States is right to protest the proposed cyber security laws.
However, it further argues that the United States needs to understand the context of the laws within
which China has developed them. The rationale being that by doing so it will be able to negotiate a
stronger, more successful, economic partnership with China and a robust, more resilient, bilateral
relationship overall.
The basis of the arguments presented in this paper is an assumption that cyber security, whilst
fundamentally technical in nature, is actually profoundly economic and political in context and a new
arena of strategic competition. It is written from a realist perspective.
The analysis is developed from reviews and critiques of data and material sourced from scholarly
articles, government press releases and reports, press reports, legal opinion and statistical bulletins.
In addressing the question the paper details the new regime and laws, the rationale behind the laws,

the impacts and implications for the United States, as well as its responses, and then offers some
general conclusions and policy suggestions.
What is China’s New Cyber Security Regime?
To understand America’s concerns about China’s new cyber security regime, and its proposed laws,
it is necessary to understand their framework and structure. By doing so, it is easier to comprehend
and draw conclusions about America’s concerns.
Since the 1990’s, when it introduced the ‘Golden Shield’1
, China has secured its cyber environment
and enabled state level filtering of internet content2
. China has long since perceived cyberspace –
and the internet especially – as “the fifth area of territoriality to be secured”3
. This approach to the
domain, whilst predominantly domestic in focus, establishes some of the context within which the
recent cyber security laws have been created. It also signals the starting point for contentions,
between the United States and China, around the management of cyberspace.
China’s undertook a major shift in focus around cyber security in February 2014. At this time,
Chinese President Mr. Xi Jinping formally acknowledged the role of cyber security in China as a
strategic national priority. President Xi stated that “Without cyber security, there won’t be national
security”.4
From this juncture he was signalling a shift away from purely domestic securitization to
international cyber ‘border control’.
In recognition of the criticality of cyber defence, President Xi Jinping implemented a Multilevel
Protection System (known as MLPS) as part of China’s cyber security policy to minimize threats from
foreign software5
. At this time, the President also announced that he would head the Central
Internet Security and Informatization leading group6
. Along with President Xi Jinping this group
would include Premier Li Keqiang and Liu Yunshan, both members of the Political Bureau of the
Communist Party of China Central Committee and Zhou Xiaochuan – Governor of the Peoples Bank
of China. This indicates the seriousness with which the Chinese Government regarded cyber security.
An outcome of this enhanced focus on cyber security was the announcement, in December 2014, by
the China Banking Regulatory Corporation (CBRC) of guidelines to create a ‘safe and controllable’ IT
environment by 2019. The first guideline - CBRC Notice 3177
- set out the criteria by which hardware
and software procured for Chinese banks would be considered ‘safe and controllable’. The notice
includes, but is not limited toi
:
 Source code disclosure – a vendors source code must be submitted to the IT department of the
CBRC.
 Domestic IP rights – the intellectual property in most network equipment must be owned or
controlled by a Chinese entity.
 Installing a regulator backdoor - surveillance ports must be installed in various types of hardware
to enable CBRC access.
1
Chris Demchak, Peter Dombrowski, The Global Politics of Science and Technology – Vol 1, Rise of a Cybered Westphalian Age: The
Coming of Decades , Springer, Heidelberg, 2014, p99
2
George Chen, Steve Dickinson, David Schlesinger, Xiao Qiang, Roger Creemers, David Wertime, Chinas Great Firewall is Rising, Foreign
Policy, 3.02.2015, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/03/china-great-firewall-is-rising-censorship-internet/, Last accessed 8.06,2015
3
4
Jing De Jong-Chen, US-China Cybersecurity Relations: Understanding China’s Current Environment, Georgetown Journal of International
Affairs, http://journal.georgetown.edu/u-s-china-cybersecurity-relations-understanding-chinas-current-environment/, Sept 2014, Last
Accessed 31.05.2015
5
Hauke Johannes Geirow, Cyber Security in China: New Political Leadership Focuses on Boosting National Security, Merics, China Monitor,
Number 20, 9.12.2014, p5
6
Xinhuanet, Xi Jinping leads Internet security group, Xinhua Publications, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-
02/27/c_133148273.htm. 27.02.2014. Last accessed 5.06.2015
7
Freshfields, Bruckhaus Derringer,
http://www.freshfields.com/en/global/Digital/China%E2%80%99s_new_cyber_security/?LangType=2057, Last accessed 6.06.2015

 Domestic encryption technology - any technology that performs encryption functions must first
get Government approval. These approvals are generally only afforded to Chinese vendors.
In addition, the new Multilevel Protection System proposed new counter-terrorism laws that require
a pre-sale assessment audit on the security and controllability of any hardware and software sold in
China8
. Most specifically, it also included limits on the available markets for American technology.
Apple, Cisco Networks, Citrix Systems and McAfee Security Software9
have been removed from the
approved procurement list for Government agencies. Additionally, Microsoft can no longer sell its
windows operating systems to Chinese officials and Kaspersky and Symantec (anti-virus software
providers) no longer have access to Chinese companies deemed as being contained within security
level 310
(mostly finance and infrastructure organisations).
This essay argues that these new laws are protectionist in design and intent. As such they limit
market access for American technology goods and services. Fundamentally, they also enhance –
rather than alleviate - America’s existing concerns about the availability and effectiveness of
intellectual property protection in China. Furthermore, this essay maintains that this new regime
and the proposed new laws represent a major shift in how China perceives its cyber relationship
with the United States working in the future. Essentially, it shows that China is prepared to take on
U.S hegemony in cyberspace.
US-China Perspectives
What is the rationale for China’s new cyber security regime?
This paper contends that China’s revised cyber security regime and its proposed new cyber security
laws are seeking to address some very specific concerns. These are predominantly around the
themes of enhancing state security and increasing China’s level of Informatization.
In June 2013 Edward Snowdon, a former US National Security Agency (NSA) subcontractor, leaked
confidential details about the NSA PRISM Program. This program enabled the NSA to collect data on
domestic and international organisations, directly from the servers of iconic American technology
providers – Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook - amongst others11
. The leaked documents revealed
the extent of the agency's domestic and international surveillance activities. They also revealed that
the U.S Government had targeted weaknesses, in software and hardware products provided by
these companies, for espionage purposes12
.
These disclosures contributed significantly to the worsening cyber relationship between the US and
China. It is suggested that they are a major reason behind China’s enhanced focus on cyber security.
In conjunction with the NSA revelations it can be claimed that the establishment, in 2010, of US
CYBERCOM has also been a key motivator for Chinas revised approach. More directly, it has
encouraged China to seek greater control over cyberspace. CYBERCOM, is America’s central body for
coordinating, planning and conducting military cyberspace operations13
. It has a clear mission to
ensure the United States primacy in cyberspace. The structure of the organisation is such that it can
deliver a full suite of cyber capabilities - defensive and offensive as well as collect global
8
IBID
9
Freshfields, Bruckhaus Derringer,
http://www.freshfields.com/en/knowledge/new_cyber_security_rules_for_banking_procurement/?LangId=2057, Last accessed 6.06.2015
10
Number 20, 9.12.2014, p5
11
PRISM overview slides. IC on the Record. Office of the US Director of National Intelligence – Tumlr Site,
https://nsa.gov1.info/dni/prism.html, Last accessed 6.6.2015
12
Number 20, 9.12.2014, p5
13
Army Cyber, http://www.arcyber.army.mil/org-uscc.html, Last accessed 8 June, 2015

intelligence.14
Unusually and, no doubt of concern for China, is the fact that the Head of CYBERCOM
– Admiral Michael S.Rogers - is also the head of the NSA.15
The establishment of CYBERCOM is a very unilateral action on the part of the United States and one
that would be provocative to the Chinese Government. Its existence supports the realist school of
thought on which this paper is based.
In addition to the above it is acknowledged that the United States has applied its own forms of
protectionism to China and that this has been a source of contention. For example, it has made it
virtually impossible for Huawei, a major Chinese maker of mobiles and network equipment, to sell its
products in the United States. It has done this on the basis that its equipment could have ‘back
doors' to the Chinese Government16
. It is most likely that China’s cyber security laws look to address
this.
This paper advocates that China’s comparatively low level of Informatization and its heavy
dependence on western software17
are similarly compelling factors behind Chinas’ new cyber
regime. As at December 2014 China, had 649,000,000 internet users18
.The highest number in the
world. However, this number still represents an internet penetration of only 47.7%. This figure
ranks China amongst the lowest in term of internet penetration behind countries such as Belarus
(54.2%) and even the Cook Islands (48.4%). It is ranked well behind the U.S.A, which by comparison
has the second highest penetration of internet users at 277,203,319 representing 86.9% of its
population19
.
The 2015 Network Readiness Index confirms the dominance of advanced countries such as the
United States, in the availability and utilisation of information technologies – and hence
Informatization. The network readiness index assesses, amongst other things the extent to which a
country’s market conditions and regulatory framework support innovation and ICT development,
and the extent of information technology infrastructure20
. On this basis, China was ranked 62nd
out
of 143 countries. This contrasts dramatically with the United States which is ranked 7th
out of 143
countries.21
The importance of Informatization to China is further supported by the Peoples
Liberation Army (PLA) which has promoted information technology improvements as essential to its
broader development goals.22
With Informatization as a priority, China is seeking to transform from a manufacturing centre to an
innovation hub. It has stated its intention to become a global innovation leader by 2050,23
placing it
in direct conflict with the United States. China’s cyber security regime and its proposed cyber
security laws are an important element in enabling it to achieve this goal.
14
15
U.S Department of Defence, DOD News, Cybercom Chief: Cyber Threats Blur Roles, Relationships,
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128305, Last accessed 9.06.2015
16
Paul Mozur, New Rules in China Upset Western Technology Companies, New York Times, 28.01.2015
17
John R. Lindsay (Ed), Cortez A. Cooper, China and Cybersecurity: Political, Economic, and Strategic Dimensions, Report, University of
California Institute of Global Conflict and Cooperation, UCSD Publication, April 2012, p2
18
Internet statistics by country, http://www.internetworldstats.com/list2.htm. Last accessed 30.05.15
19
Internet statistics by country, http://www.internetworldstats.com/list2.htm. (These figures measured as at March 2014).Last accessed
30.05.15
20
Soumittra Dutta, Thierry Geiger, Bruno Lanvin, The Global Information Technology Report 2015, Insight Report, World Economic Forum,
Geneva, 2015, pXiii
21
Global Information Technology Report 2015, Network Readiness Index, World Economic Forum and INSEAD, Geneva, 2015, p143
22
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to Congress, Military and Security Developments Involving the Peoples Republic of
China 2015, 7.04.2015, p37
23
Wayne M. Morrison, China-U.S Trade Issues, Congressional Research Service, Washington D.C, 12.03.2015, p31

Why is access to China’s technology market important to the United States?
China is a substantial market for American Technology products and services, particularly the high
end technology sector. The export sales of Information and Communication Products to China were
worth $3.9 billion in period June to December 201224
alone. In the United States in 2011 the
technology sector contributed $630 million to the U.S economy or 4.3% of GDP Growth.25
The total estimated worldwide spend on information technology (IT) in 2015 is forecasted to be
$3.8348 trillion USD.26
According to industry consultancy IDC, China will contribute more than 10
percent of the global spending on IT by 201827
and will account for 43% of worldwide tech sector
growth. In 2015 it is forecasted to spend $465 billion on information and communications
technology28
. Considered in combination with China’s growing economy and its population of
1.37billion, its information and technology sector represents a potentially enormous market. One
simply too big to ignore or have very limited access to.
US economic growth is dependent on innovation. Indeed, the United States is regarded as having the
best national innovation system in the world29.
. As a result, American technology companies lead the
way in the provision of cyber technologies and services. The growth of America’s technology has
been enabled through the development of, and investment in, intellectual property. With this in
mind, the most recent estimates suggest that U.S businesses in China lose $48.2 billion in sales,
royalties and licence fees a year because of IPR violations30
. The total cost to the US economy has
been projected to be up to $240 billion per year31
. IPR protection must treated by China as a serious
issue connected with America’s national economic interest. If this does not occur, America will
struggle to compete with China as an economic rival. This situation will be further exacerbated by
the proposed cyber security laws which threaten American investment in technological innovation
and therefore American competitive advantage. The risks of this are further detailed below.
This essay puts forward that China’s new laws demonstrate a deficient understanding of the
importance to the U.S economy of unfettered market access coupled with an effective intellectual
property rights regime. The importance of China as a marketplace for American technology
products and services cannot be understated.
What are the risks for the United States under China’s new cyber security regime?
China’s cyber security regime creates incentives for Chinese companies to develop their own
intellectual property and hence create an indigenous cyber capability that will compete directly with
America. Guidelines issued by the Chinese Government have stated that by 2020, the progress of
science and technology will contribute at least 60 percent to the country's development. These same
guidelines have similarly articulated that the country's reliance on foreign technology will decline to
30 percent and below.32
It is argued that there is real danger inherent in this as, historically, Chinese companies have been
unable to create pioneering technologies. This situation has encouraged them to acquire foreign
24
USCC, The U.S Balance of Trade With China, U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 08.02.2013, p3
25
Robert D.Atkinson and Luke A.Stewart, The Economic Benefits of Information and Communication’s Technology, ITIF Publication.
http://www2.itif.org/2013-tech-economy-memo.pdf?_ga=1.230403420.1543201525.1433745441,pp3-4 Last accessed 8.06.2015
26
Worldwide information technology spending forecast from 2010 -2015 (in USD $B) http://www.statista.com/statistics/203935/overall-
it-spending-worldwide/. Last accessed 20.05.2015
27
http://www.cio.com.au/article/569445/china-defends-cybersecurity-demands-amid-complaints-from-u/. Last accessed 01.06.2015.
28
29
Ashley Tellis, Balancing Without Containment, Washington Quarterly, Fall 2103, p120
30
IP Commission Report, The Report Of The Commission On The Theft Of American Intellectual Property, National Bureau of Asian
Research, May 2013, p25
31
32
China Government, China issues S&T development guidelines, Thursday, February 09, 2006. http://www.gov.cn/english/2006-
02/09/content_183426.htm. Last accessed June 3 2015.

technology and then modify it33
. Support for this argument comes from a report released by the U.S
Commission on Intellectual Property. This report states that “national industrial policy goals in China
actually encourage IP theft”. It also remarks that the patent system encourages Chinese entities to
copy IPR and file foreign patents as if these patents were their own”34
. This gives weight to the claim
that the new cyber security approach will encourage continued coertion of intellectual property
from American technology providers.
An AmCham China survey found that 40% of respondents believed that China’s indigenous
innovation policies would hurt their businesses. Twenty Six (26%) said their businesses were already
being hurt by such policies.35
This situation is exacerbated as few of the conditions for protecting
IPRs are met within China as it lacks an institutional system that effectively protects IPR36
.
The pre-sales assessment audit requirements proposed under China’s counter intelligence laws
require international vendors trying to sell their technology to Government ministries to undergo
complex certification procedures. Those wishing to sell to the Chinese banking sector will also be
required to adapt their software to enable surveillance ports to meet the CBRC Notice 317
requirements.37
These requests add significant expense to market entry and may be prohibitive for
smaller technology providers, therefore exempting them from the market. On this basis the
proposed laws represent an impediment to market entry for American businesses into China’s high
growth technology market. Furthermore, China’s new cyber security regime has restricted market
access for U.S technology providers.
In addition to the above, it is contended that the proposed cyber security laws validate China’s
concept of state intervention and control of cyberspace. China’s internet governance approach was
best described by Lu Wei - China’s Director of the State Internet Information Office –- when he
stated that “Cyber sovereignty must rule (the) global internet” 38
. Specifically, China perceives efforts
of internet control and management as essential to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the
party and the state39
. This is reflected in a general concern by the CCP about unfettered access to
the internet leading to “...political destabilisation, and terror that can cause panic, lead to social
crisis and turmoil, and overthrow the regime.”40
.
By contrast, the U.S focuses on freedom of expression on the internet and supports a multi-
stakeholder governance model41
. Internet freedom is considered by America to be fundamental to
democracy and to the concepts on which the internet was developed. The U.S Department of State
asserts that “Internet Freedom is a priority for the United States, and has been for many years”42
. In
contrast with China, America declares the internet to be an open platform “free from any undue
interference or censorship”43
. The contrasting approaches to internet governance represent a
serious point of contention and challenge America’s assertions about the way the internet should be
managed.
33
34
IP Commission Report, The Report Of The Commission On The Theft Of American Intellectual Property, National Bureau of Asian
Research, May 2013, p17
35
36
Gary Clyde bauer, Yee Wong, Ketki Sheth, US-China Trade Disputes: Rising Tide, Rising Stakes, Policy Analysis in International Economics,
No 78, August 2006, p40
37
Number 20, 9.12.2014, p3
38
Franz-Stefan Gady, China and Internet Sovereignty Revisited, China-US Focus, East West Institute, http://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-
security/china-and-internet-sovereignty-revisited/. Last visited 7 June, 2015
39
40
IBID, p8
41
Nigel Inkster, Global Politics and Strategy – Conflict Foretold: America and China, IISS, Vol 55, Edition 5, London, 01.10.2013, p15
42
U.S Department of State, Internet Freedom, http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cip/netfreedom/index.htm. Last accessed 7.06.2015
43
IBID. Last accessed 8.06.2015

The proposed new laws also signal a move away from American unilateralism in the soft power
space. America’s soft power has relied on the development of iconic information technology -
something that China’s new cyber security regime works actively against. The removal of
information technology providers such as Apple, Google and Microsoft from government approved
procurement list is evidence of this. As iconic organisations they have enabled America to project
power to the international community.
The United States has been able to effectively utilise its soft power to enhance its ideological and
cultural appeal. A key enabler has been the use of cyberspace, particular the internet, as a tool
through which the U.S can both frame and influence issues. Joseph Nye Jr identified the growth of
cyberspace – and especially the internet - as indicators of the “growing importance of soft power in
the mix of power resources and a strong advantage to the United States.”
44
As demonstrated by its
membership of the Open Internet Alliance45
, America has used the internet to promote democracy,
human rights, openness and freedom of expression. This is challenged by China’s new cyber security
regime.
How has the United States responded to China’s new cyber security regime and proposed cyber
security laws?
Since the announcements of China’s new cyber security regime and proposed cyber security laws,
the United States has responded with a number of protests. These protests have involved multi-
stakeholders, which is consistent with America’s view of how the internet should be governed. The
involvement of President Obama in flagging America’s concerns has also highlighted the seriousness
with which the United States has viewed the proposed laws.
In November 2014 President Obama travelled to China to attend the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation Summit. He used this visit to meet with President Xi Jinping to discuss the future of
information technology trade between the two countries46
. The President raised his alarm about the
proposed counter terrorism law directly with Chinese President Xi in March 2015.47
In April this year,
he again expressed his concern that “Chinas tightening grip on information safety will harm the
interest of US technology vendors that dominate the high end IT market in China.”48.
In January 2015, the US Chamber of Commerce issued a letter of protest, calling for urgent
discussion and dialogue
49
. In February 2015 US Trade Representative Michael Froman raised
America’s disquiet with regards to China’s proposed banking regulations.50
In April 2015, US
Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, flagged her concerns during a visit to Beijing. She said that
China must address cybersecurity threats “without creating barriers to trade or investment.”51
America had previously indicated its concerns over China’s inconsistent and ineffective intellectual
property protection. Most pertinent to this analysis is the meeting President Obama held with
President Xi Jinping in June 2013. At this meeting President Obama particularly raised cybersecurity
and intellectual property theft. Specifically, he stated that if these issues were not addressed “…this
was going to be an inhibitor to the relationship really reaching its full potential.”
52
44
Joseph S Nye Jr, The Information Revolution and American Soft Power, Asia Pacific Review, Vol 9, No.1, 2002, p70
45
Freedom Online Coalition,Members https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/about/members/. Last Accessed 7.06.2015
46
47
Jess Mason, Exclusive;Obama sharply criticize China’s plans for new technology rules, Reuters, 3.03.15,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/03/us-usa-obama-china-idUSKBN0LY2H520150303, Last accessed 9.06.2015
48
Gao Yuan and Chen Weihua, China refutes US concern over security, China Daily, 3.04.2015 http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2015-
03/04/content_19714323.htm, Last accessed 8 June, 2015
49
50
51
Michael Martina, Cyber threats must be addressed without trade barriers: U.S. commerce secretary, Reuters, 10.04, 2015,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/14/us-usa-china-cybersecurity-idUSKBN0N50NE20150414. Last accessed 05.05.2014
52

As has been discussed in this paper, US economic growth and its position as the leading
technological innovator are all enabled by cyberspace. China’s build-up of its own IT industry has the
capacity to cause a major shift in existing global structures in the coming years. Particularly as they
pertain to the United States. In this regard, America’s responses to China’s cyber security regime
have been both measured and appropriate and are therefore completely valid.
What conclusions can be drawn?
Cyberspace, and its counterpoint cyber security, is inherently anarchic. There is no governing body
and no formal rules. Working within this context every state must stand alone and build up its cyber
strength and defences. China, as a rising power, is doing exactly this. China has taken a position of
“seizing information superiority and taking away the enemies capability of acquiring information”.53
It is using cyberspace and specifically its cyber security laws to ‘delegitimise’ American power and
authority in cyberspace. It is proclaiming its territorial integrity. America as the leading innovator is
right to challenge and highlight its concerns.
Cyber space is the next battle space. It challenges many of the current notions of how security could
or should be managed. The interconnectedness of cyberspace means that its operation requires
ongoing and productive interactions between nations. With this in mind this paper advocates that it
is therefore necessary for the U.S. and China to find a way to cooperate in the development of
cyberspace and to effectively negotiate how it may be secured and managed.
However, it is also recommended that for the United States to progress its bilateral relationship and
develop its policy approaches with China, it should consider China’s concerns about U.S hegemony in
cyberspace. Specifically, it should acknowledge the following:
 Chinas desire to further develop its information economy,
 China’s progression as leading power,
 China’s concerns about its national security.
Only when this is done are the pressures in the cyber security relationship likely to dissipate.
53
David C.Gompert and Phillip C.Saunders. The Paradox of Power: Sino American Strategic Restraint in an Age of Vulnerability, National
Defence University Press, Washington D.C, 2011, P62

Bibliography
 Paul Mozur and Jane Perlez, China Halts New Policy on Tech for Banks, NY Times, 16.04.2015
 Chris Demchak, Peter Dombrowski, The Global Politics of Science and Technology – Vol 1, Rise of a
Cybered Westphalian Age: The Coming of Decades , Springer, Heidelberg, 2014
 Soumittra Dutta, Thierry Geiger, Bruno Lanvin, The Global Information Technology Report 2015, Insight
Report, World Economic Forum, Geneva, 2015
 Global Information Technology Report 2015, Network Readiness Index, World Economic Forum and
INSEAD, Geneva, 2015
 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to Congress, Military and Security Developments
Involving the Peoples Republic of China 2015, 7.04.2015
 David C.Gompert and Phillip C.Saunders. The Paradox of Power: Sino American Strategic Restraint in an
Age of Vulnerability, National Defence University Press, Washington D.C, 2011
 Hauke Johannes Geirow, Cyber Security in China: New Political Leadership Focuses on Boosting National
Security, Merics, China Monitor, Number 20, 9.12.2014
 Nigel Inkster, Global Politics and Strategy – Conflict Foretold: America and China, IISS, Vol 55, Edition 5,
London, 01.10.2013
 Peter K. Yu, An Action Plan to Reinvent U.S-China Intellectual Property Policy, Commentaries on Law &
Public Policy, Dumont Institute for Public Policy Research, Miami Florida, 2004
 Gary Clyde bauer, Yee Wong, Ketki Sheth, US-China Trade Disputes: Rising Tide, Rising Stakes, Policy
Analysis in International Economics, No 78, August 2006, p40
 John R. Lindsay (Ed), Cortez A. Cooper, China and Cybersecurity: Political, Economic, and Strategic
Dimensions, Report, University of California Institute of Global Conflict and Cooperation, UCSD
Publication, April 2012
 IP Commission Report, The Report Of The Commission On The Theft Of American Intellectual Property,
National Bureau of Asian Research, May 2013
 Mandiant, APT 1 Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units, Intel report, 18.02.2013
 IP Commission Report, The Report Of The Commission On The Theft Of American Intellectual Property,
National Bureau of Asian Research, May 2013
 Ashley Tellis, Balancing Without Containment, Washington Quarterly, Fall 2103
 Wayne M. Morrison, China-U.S Trade Issues, Congressional Research Service, Washington D.C, 12.03.2015
 USCC, The U.S Balance of Trade With China, U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission,
08.02.2013
 Joseph S Nye Jr, The Information Revolution and American Soft Power, Asia Pacific Review, Vol 9, No.1,
2002
 Paul Mozur, New Rules in China Upset Western Technology Companies, New York Times, 28.01.2015
 Wayne M. Morrison, China-U.S Trade Issues, Congressional Research Service, Washington D.C, 12.03.2015
 Jess Mason, Exclusive: Obama sharply criticize China’s plans for new technology rules, Reuters, 3.03.15,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/03/us-usa-obama-china-idUSKBN0LY2H520150303,
 Jing De Jong-Chen, US-China Cybersecurity Relations: Understanding China’s Current Environment,
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Sept 2014
 http://journal.georgetown.edu/u-s-china-cybersecurity-relations-understanding-chinas-current-
environment/,
 Xinhuanet, Xi Jinping leads Internet security group, Xinhua Publications,
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-02/27/c_133148273.htm. 27.02.2014.
 Brittany Felder, China continuing to review draft counter terrorism law, Jurist, University of Pittsburgh
Law School, 16.03.2015,
 http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/03/china-continuing-to-review-draft-counter-terrorism-law.php
 U.S Department of Defence, DOD News, Cybercom Chief: Cyber Threats Blur Roles, Relationships,
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128305
 China Government, China issues S&T development guidelines, Thursday, February 09, 2006.
http://www.gov.cn/english/2006-02/09/content_183426.htm.

 George Chen, Steve Dickinson, David Schlesinger, Xiao Qiang, Roger Creemers, David Wertime, China’s
Great Firewall is Rising, Foreign Policy, 3.02.2015
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/03/china-great-firewall-is-rising-censorship-internet/,
 Franz-Stefan Gady, China and Internet Sovereignty Revisited, China-US Focus, East West Institute,
http://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/china-and-internet-sovereignty-revisited/
 U.S Department of State, Internet Freedom,
 http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cip/netfreedom/index.htm.
 Michael Martina, Cyber threats must be addressed without trade barriers: U.S. commerce secretary,
Reuters, 10.04, 2015
 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/14/us-usa-china-cybersecurity-idUSKBN0N50NE20150414.
 Robert D.Atkinson and Luke A.Stewart, The Economic Benefits of Information and Communication’s
Technology, ITIF Publication
 http://www2.itif.org/2013-tech-economy-memo.pdf?_ga=1.230403420.1543201525.1433745441
 Gao Yuan and Chen Weihua, China refutes US concern over security, China Daily, 3.04.2015
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2015-03/04/content_19714323.htm,
 US Department of Defence, DOD News, Cybercom Chief: Cyber Threats Blur Roles, Relationships
 http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128305,
 http://www.cio.com.au/article/569445/china-defends-cybersecurity-demands-amid-complaints-from-
u/.
 Worldwide information technology spending forecast from 2010 -2015, Statista,
http://www.statista.com/statistics/203935/overall-it-spending-worldwide/.
 Freedom Online Coalition, Members
 https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/about/members/.
 PRISM overview slides. IC on the Record. Office of the US Director of National Intelligence – Tumlr Site,
https://nsa.gov1.info/dni/prism.html
 Internet statistics by country,
http://www.internetworldstats.com/list2.htm.
 Army Cyber,
http://www.arcyber.army.mil/org-uscc.html,
Reference Books
 John G Ikenberry, The Rise of China and the Future of the West – Can the Liberal Systems Survive? Foreign
Affairs, January/February 2008.
 Greg Austin, Cyber Policy in China, Policy Press, Cambridge, 2014.
Endnotes
i
Information on the details of China’s Internet Policy guidelines and proposed new cybersecurity regulations
has been sourced from material publicly provided by London based, international law firm, Freshfields,
Bruckhaus Derringer.
http://www.freshfields.com/en/knowledge/new_cyber_security_rules_for_banking_procurement/?LangId=20
57

Major Essay_ US-China Relations_FINAL

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Major Essay_ US-China Relations_FINAL

Major Essay_ US-China Relations_FINAL