The Recidivist Empire: An Example

Recidivistic behavior is the continual repetition of the same or very similar crime after having been found guilty of it on one or more occasions. Such is one of the many anti-social, etc., criminal behaviors exercised by the Outlaw US Empire against most of the world’s nations—even it’s supposed allies. The most recent example of that behavior is explained by the following Global Times editorial, which notes that China isn’t the only victim of the Empire’s criminal behavior, which we might call low-level because it doesn’t involve murder or abetting Genocide. Most readers are aware of the Empire’s very sharp technological decline versus other nations and the fact that most legacy R&D operations no longer exist as well as the reversal of the Brain Drain—the immigrants that once staffed those R&D establishments no longer come to the Empire in the numbers they once did because of US Imperialism. The tale the editorial tells is short yet clearly explains why the Pentagon is guilty yet again:

Chinese commercial drone maker DJI said Saturday it has sued the US Department of Defense (DoD) for designating it as a military company and adding it to a blacklist. This development has attracted widespread attention. DJI described the DoD's designation as "erroneous" and noted it has caused significant financial losses for the company. For a long time, the US has unfairly suppressed Chinese enterprises under the guise of an overstretched concept of security, with the Pentagon playing an infamous role in "blacklisting" Chinese companies and providing "poor evidence." DJI's lawsuit against the Pentagon also serves as a public condemnation of US hegemony.

Media reports indicate that after the DoD blacklisted DJI, claiming it has "links" to the Chinese military, it refused to communicate with DJI or provide reasons for the accusations, ultimately offering only a copy of an internal report that fails to substantiate its designation as a "military company." Such actions, based on speculation and prejudice, seriously damage DJI's commercial reputation and market opportunities. As a company focused on the research and manufacturing of civilian drones, DJI's products are widely used in agriculture, infrastructure, public safety and other fields, contributing positively to the development of people's livelihoods globally. The Pentagon's unfounded association of DJI with the military is not only an unfair treatment of the company but also stigmatizes Chinese enterprise.

It should be pointed out that the Pentagon's actions are not a case of "collateral damage," but rather a pattern of behavior by a "recidivist." Due to the often arbitrary process of determining whether a company is "military-related," the Pentagon has faced lawsuits from Chinese companies before. In 2021, Chinese smartphone manufacturer Xiaomi successfully forced the Pentagon to remove it from a US "military-ties list" through litigation. In May of this year, Hesai Technology, a global leader in lidar solutions, also sued the Pentagon for a similar reason. Absurdly, after the Pentagon "removed" Hesai from the blacklist, recent reports have suggested that it may be "re-added" to the list. This back-and-forth process exposes the arbitrariness of the US side in labeling Chinese enterprises as so-called "threats to national security."

However, arguing that the Pentagon's practice of blacklisting Chinese companies is "illogical" is not entirely correct. Looking back at the experiences of Japanese companies like Toshiba and Hitachi, the French company Alstom, and today's Huawei and DJI, one could argue that their experiences serve as historical markers of American hegemony. In these cases, Washington's tactics have remained largely unchanged for decades: When a company produces high-quality products and gains a significant market share, Washington becomes envious and spares no effort to use government power to stigmatize and "liquidate" it. 

Without evidence, it endlessly demands that the company prove its innocence, seeking to exhaust or acquire the company from all directions. What is being done to Chinese companies today is not novel; any outstanding company from any country could become a US government's similar target.

At the same time, the American public is also one of the direct victims of this hegemonic logic. Take drones as an example. Despite the various obstacles unilaterally set by the US for DJI, its products are still widely used by federal government agencies, enterprises, and enthusiasts in the US. Even The New York Times acknowledges that "A Chinese Firm Is America's Favorite Drone Maker. Except in Washington." As soon as the news of the US ban on DJI emerged, it sparked widespread opposition, as emergency rescue operations, agricultural spraying, and other tasks heavily rely on DJI products. Blocking DJI is tantamount to a "rapid regression" in these fields and does not contribute to the technological advancement of consumer drones in the US. Clearly, the negative impact of the US crackdown on DJI in its domestic market has already become apparent.

The Pentagon's blacklisting can be applied and removed repeatedly, but Chinese companies have never relinquished their right to litigation, as the struggle against American hegemony is a long-term endeavor. 

DJI's lawsuit against the Pentagon aims to bring the truth to light and hold Washington's hegemonic logic accountable in the international community. The US sanctions will not only strike a blow to DJI and affect China-US economic and trade cooperation, but they will also disrupt global supply chains, hindering technological cooperation and progress worldwide. Therefore, the significance of DJI pursuing this lawsuit is not only to protect its own reputation and development rights, but also to defend the rules of fair competition in the market as well as the principles of fairness and justice in the international order. 

The international community is watching closely, and when the rules and facts are clearly laid out, what choice will the US make between adhering to the rules and engaging in political trickery? [My Emphasis]

IMO, the answer to the closing question is already known based on previous experience: the Outlaw US Empire will do what it always does: Lie, which is its favorite form of “political trickery.” And it lies about its lies. China would like to continue selling goods to the Empire, and the Empire has little choice but to buy since it offshored most of its manufacturing to China and elsewhere. As previously written, Chinese components are ubiquitous and very few items manufactured in the world don’t include Chinese parts. And now that Russia has opened one of the largest wood products factories on the planet, most cardboard boxes containing Chinese products will be Russian and further challenge the illegal sanctions regime.

China has long accused the Outlaw US Empire of building a trade wall around itself via tariffs and illegal sanctions. Yes, the Empire has a large market of close to 350 million people that’s worth many billions in revenues to exporters. But doing business with the Empire is becoming more difficult annually because of the Empire’s failing political-economy which the federal government continues to destroy due to policies written by the FIRE sector that controls the government. Given the destructive nature of the Empire in its ambition to rule the world, it makes sense to cease trading with the Empire to force it to cease its destructive nature. The Empire as was proven during Covid is extremely geoeconomically dependent on the entire global supply chain for components of all types including crucial parts for its weapon systems; so, a global trade embargo could be very effective. It would be giving the Empire a taste of its own medicine, and it’s quite clear it needs a very big dose applied over an extended period of time.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!