Responding to China’s Information Warfare

The thrust of Zack Cooper and Aine Tyrell’s piece at RealClearWorld on the subject above is that they don’t think much of reciprocity:

It is tempting to assert that American policymakers should reset the U.S.-China relationship on reciprocal terms. Ironically, when the U.S. ambassador to China suggested this in an op-ed last month, it was rejected by People’s Daily. Meanwhile, China’s ambassador to the United States publishes frequently in top American newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post. Of course, neither newspaper is available in China, nor are Twitter, Facebook, Google, or dozens of other American media and social media companies.

Here’s what they would prefer:

The United States must not attempt to mirror China’s information controls. As Laura Rosenberger and Lindsey Gorman have written, “the paradox for liberal democracies in this environment is that in quashing adversarial information efforts outright, they diminish the values of openness and inclusion for which they stand.” Reciprocity may be tempting, but as the saying goes, “never wrestle with a pig in the mud; you’ll both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” The best strategy for democracies is to adhere to an approach rooted in core democratic principles like openness and transparency.

The reality is that espousing democratic values on the international stage is only effective if the United States leads by example at home. How can we possibly hope to encourage open and truthful communication abroad if we do not practice what we preach? Countries are looking to the United States to model the best practices of liberal democracies, not copy the worst practices of the Communist Party. With the U.S. presidential election fast approaching, U.S. leaders should remember that sticking to key principles is the best competitive strategy. To prevail in the competition with China, the United States must live up to our standards, not Beijing’s.

I think they’re whistling past a graveyard. The problem with reciprocity in our dealings with China, particularly Chinese information warfare, is how grossly we underestimate the scale of the conflict. Ignore the theft of intellectual or military secrets. On any given day an enormous proportion of total Internet traffic consists of Chinese attempts at hacking, direct or indirect, undoubtedly state-sponsored, likely upwards of 30% of all traffic. The cost of that in equipment, electrical power, security software, and human labor is enormous.

Let’s put it this way. Given the scale of China’s cyber-offensive, of what would genuine reciprocity consist? Anything less is not reciprocity at all.