<story><title>US to ban transactions with ByteDance and WeChat in 45 days</title><url>https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/US-China-tensions/Trump-to-ban-transactions-with-ByteDance-and-Tencent-in-45-days</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>tonfa</author><text>&amp;gt; Maybe the 36,000 US troops in Germany?&lt;p&gt;Do german people really care about those? (besides the obvious economic benefits in the towns where those troops are stationed due to local spending)&lt;p&gt;I always thought it benefited the US more than germany (easier access to eastern europe and middle east).</text></item><item><author>pjc50</author><text>Maybe the 36,000 US troops in Germany?&lt;p&gt;EU countries don&amp;#x27;t get to have &amp;quot;national security&amp;quot; that conflicts with the US to more than a trivial extent, like the Airbus&amp;#x2F;Boeing conflict. That&amp;#x27;s been a tradeoff that was accepted since the end of WW2. The US now complains about Europe not having strong militaries, having forgotten that for decades it was policy to discourage Europe from having strong militaries in case that started another war.&lt;p&gt;The US and China only get to play the national security card like this because of a high degree of conventional military and economic power.</text></item><item><author>puranjay</author><text>What&amp;#x27;s stopping Volkswagen from lobbying Germany to ban Teslas because all the cameras in it pose a &amp;quot;national security risk&amp;quot;?&lt;p&gt;This is, by all account, a shortsighted move</text></item><item><author>tannhaeuser</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t get it. It&amp;#x27;s US companies standing to loose their stronghold (near monopoly) on social, advertisement, and other forms of monetizing the web if the US creates a precedent for &amp;quot;national security&amp;quot; in this way, as in &amp;quot;we&amp;#x27;re welcoming social networks and free speech as long as it benefits the US and can be searched without warrant.&amp;quot; Quite predictably, governments all over the world will be pressurized to question why they should give US companies (bred by teethless US antitrust) a free pass to destroy their publishing industry. Publishers themselves will put this onto the agenda in their own best interest. The French are already on the fence to create new digital tax legislation after EU&amp;#x2F;US negotiation have been aborted by the US side. Maybe hurting Google, Facebook, Twitter &amp;amp; co is seen as desired collateral damage?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pjc50</author><text>My point was that any consideration of the US as a &amp;quot;national security threat&amp;quot; to Germany should take into account the physical national security and ask what national security actually &lt;i&gt;means&lt;/i&gt; when there are troops from the other country stationed in yours (along with their associated CIA listening posts etc). It makes it very hard to suddenly treat the US as a hostile power. &amp;quot;The cars have to go but the troops can stay&amp;quot; is obviously nonsense.</text></comment>
<story><title>US to ban transactions with ByteDance and WeChat in 45 days</title><url>https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/US-China-tensions/Trump-to-ban-transactions-with-ByteDance-and-Tencent-in-45-days</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>tonfa</author><text>&amp;gt; Maybe the 36,000 US troops in Germany?&lt;p&gt;Do german people really care about those? (besides the obvious economic benefits in the towns where those troops are stationed due to local spending)&lt;p&gt;I always thought it benefited the US more than germany (easier access to eastern europe and middle east).</text></item><item><author>pjc50</author><text>Maybe the 36,000 US troops in Germany?&lt;p&gt;EU countries don&amp;#x27;t get to have &amp;quot;national security&amp;quot; that conflicts with the US to more than a trivial extent, like the Airbus&amp;#x2F;Boeing conflict. That&amp;#x27;s been a tradeoff that was accepted since the end of WW2. The US now complains about Europe not having strong militaries, having forgotten that for decades it was policy to discourage Europe from having strong militaries in case that started another war.&lt;p&gt;The US and China only get to play the national security card like this because of a high degree of conventional military and economic power.</text></item><item><author>puranjay</author><text>What&amp;#x27;s stopping Volkswagen from lobbying Germany to ban Teslas because all the cameras in it pose a &amp;quot;national security risk&amp;quot;?&lt;p&gt;This is, by all account, a shortsighted move</text></item><item><author>tannhaeuser</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t get it. It&amp;#x27;s US companies standing to loose their stronghold (near monopoly) on social, advertisement, and other forms of monetizing the web if the US creates a precedent for &amp;quot;national security&amp;quot; in this way, as in &amp;quot;we&amp;#x27;re welcoming social networks and free speech as long as it benefits the US and can be searched without warrant.&amp;quot; Quite predictably, governments all over the world will be pressurized to question why they should give US companies (bred by teethless US antitrust) a free pass to destroy their publishing industry. Publishers themselves will put this onto the agenda in their own best interest. The French are already on the fence to create new digital tax legislation after EU&amp;#x2F;US negotiation have been aborted by the US side. Maybe hurting Google, Facebook, Twitter &amp;amp; co is seen as desired collateral damage?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>orbifold</author><text>I think GP meant to imply that parts of the EU are effectively still US client states and not totally void of US influence on their politics. It&amp;#x27;s pretty common for top politicians in Germany to be part of some transatlantic organisation set up by the US (&amp;quot;Atlantikbrücke&amp;quot;, ...). Same goes for journalists in leading news papers, which will result in more favourable US press coverage.</text></comment>