Depth: Commenting on Alibaba Cloud's risk circular "America First", the control of foreign-funded enterprises in China must be returned to China, and it is not possible to listen to Foreign countries without listening to China

Text/Yang Chen

Recently, the Cyber Security Administration of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology reported that Alibaba Cloud Computing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Alibaba Cloud) did not report to the telecommunications authorities in a timely manner after discovering the serious security vulnerabilities of the Apache Log4j2 component, and did not effectively support the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology to carry out network security threat and vulnerability management. The circular pointed out that Alibaba Cloud is a cooperative unit of the network security threat information sharing platform of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. After research, Alibaba Cloud is suspended as the above-mentioned cooperative unit for 6 months. After the expiration of the suspension period, according to the rectification of Alibaba Cloud, the above-mentioned cooperative units will be studied and restored.

According to the Regulations on the Management of Security Vulnerabilities in Network Products jointly issued by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Cyberspace Administration of China and the Ministry of Public Security, which came into effect on September 1 this year, network product providers should report vulnerability information to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology within 2 days of discovering the vulnerability, and repair it in a timely manner, and inform the users of the products that may be affected by the repair method. There are reports that Alibaba's stock price opened 5% lower overnight, and has been low since then, closing down 4.2% at $117.81, still at a low level during the year.

According to Sina. This may lead to a lag in China's information security emergency response, resulting in various information society risks, and may also allow information hegemonic countries that know the risks first to use known vulnerabilities to launch cyber attacks against China.

Suspension of cooperation is not a small thing, although some people will worry that in the future, super-large network companies like Alibaba Cloud may "cheat the store" and rely on their own data to control more resources, but the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology still controls the general switch of China's information services, as the industry authority, unless Alibaba Cloud wants to close the door, any "America First" practice that wants to skip the rules of the Chinese game, including security, is simply not feasible. As a large enterprise that has been established for many years, Alibaba Cloud is actually difficult to have "program order errors", the relevant processes have long been determined, and administrators and internal companies will not know the errors caused by unfamiliar processes on the first day.

Whether the advance notification of the United States and the failure to notify the Chinese authorities and domestic operators fully exposes that the establishment of large foreign-funded enterprises in China may have serious position problems on major issues, especially after the occurrence of risks, they may only be responsible to foreign investors and not to China. The occurrence of this incident has in fact sounded another alarm bell for China's "foreign capital risk", and there are serious risks from people in the network operation platform invested by foreign investment, and it is even likely to be controlled by foreign hostile forces. In this way, we will be very passive. We say that in an open environment, we must not lose control over the social economy, wealth and enterprise platform, and we must always understand that foreign capital comes in to share our interests and make money in accordance with the principle of mutual benefit and fairness, not to let foreign capital infiltrate and control our society.

Here, we want to debunk the serious misleading of a long-standing hegemonic era dominated by the capitalist economy, that is, the role of capital is extraordinarily large or even infinitely large – this is a very absurd lie. Capital is only one element in the economic society and the operation of enterprises, and at most it is one of the key elements rather than the only one, but our open economy seems to have once overestimated the role of capital, especially foreign capital, in many fields, or the fallacious lie that represents the hegemony of capital. This is likely to lead to many of China's high-quality social resources, human resources, development results, printed with foreign words "pieces of paper" more than worth the loss of replacement, and later we found that these flowers and green foreign "pieces of paper", for our development does not have so much effect, or the good foundation laid by New China, a stable development environment and the world's unique market, human dividends and other factors have contributed to China's current economic status. It is undeniable that there are indeed some people in the economic field who are "the most bullish capital" and "the omnipotent power of foreign capital", and this view is very harmful and naïve, and it should have been abandoned a long time ago.

In addition to the shortcomings of capital such as monopoly grabbing of social wealth and excessive exploitation of the surplus value of human talents, the more serious ones are probably the development of deep control over our society, and once this trend is formed, our country may face "subversive risks", which we absolutely cannot allow. Earlier this year, foreign garment companies organized groups to interfere in China's internal affairs on the Xinjiang cotton issue, they did not want to return but desperately try to find Trouble for China, and today's Aliyun risk briefing in the United States priority and other issues, we should pay attention to it - not only can not let foreign enterprises be manipulated by foreign countries, we must also effectively supervise and control the foreign enterprises operating in China according to law. Some enterprises that have been controlled by foreign countries, especially large enterprises with the nature of social infrastructure, have regained control, and those enterprises that pose a threat to our society must be resolutely punished and let them pay the price of not daring to endanger and threaten society. For foreign-funded enterprises that do not want to repent and harm our society and harm consumers, we should establish severe punishment mechanisms such as compensation for foreign investors, risk pledges, and deportation of foreign enterprises that violate laws and regulations, so as to balance and correspond with China's opening up mechanism to promote the healthy development of the economy and society.

For foreign-funded enterprises to operate in China, they must first be responsible to China's main government departments and society in accordance with the law, and this issue cannot be discounted. Here we must also fully realize that in the actual market operation, although foreign countries have invested in some enterprises with foreign capital background in China, under the premise of fair and just scientific assessment of enterprise resources, in accordance with the spirit of the joint-stock system and commercial contracts, the role of foreign investment is only to spend a certain amount of enterprise start-up funds, and the start-up enterprises and other resources to maintain the future operation of enterprises cannot be ignored. It cannot be said that the proportion of foreign start-up funds or financing scale is large, it must be decided. If so, it would be unfair, and this determination of corporate equity control is not divorced from the colonial overtones and the economic model of financial giants robbing the world, and we cannot let it go unchecked. We say that even if there is more foreign investment, unilaterally identifying more "green paper" is one or more grades higher than the team and the business philosophy, which is a typical robber economic logic in the era of foreign oligarchy capital economic dominance and single-level hegemony, a very one-sided, unfair and unscientific economic theory, of course, it is also a fallacy. This era should pass and be replaced by a more fair, just and scientific understanding of corporate responsibilities and rights. Here we would like to say that if there is no Chinese team and business ideas, no large number of Chinese employees with a high level of skill and knowledge, no unique return to the Chinese market in the world, and the Chinese infrastructure that has thrown out a few streets of Infrastructure in the United States, as well as the strong endogenous driving force for China's development, those "pieces of paper" called dollars or yen in the hands of foreign capitalists are just pieces of paper, which cannot be transformed into social wealth at all, and it is impossible to let foreigners who invest in "pieces of paper" get more "pieces of paper". Therefore, we should practice and establish a more fair, just, and scientific economic principle in economic practice, especially in the process of foreign economy, so as to replace the set of rules of the game of the decadent hegemony of capital that has suffered greatly from the whole world. That is to say, it is unfair and unreasonable to one-sidedly exaggerate the role and status of capital investment in the operation of enterprises, while ignoring the capital hegemonic fallacies and fallacies that occupy the role and position of other people's social resources, infrastructure, and the market and human resources of the host country in the operation and development of enterprises, which are neither unfair nor unreasonable, and are by no means righteous, let alone unscientific. In the future, whether our reform can be successful or not, we must not only reform our own shortcomings to maintain our own advantages, but also eliminate the paralysis tumors from abroad, and introduce things that are really beneficial to our development. Foreign capital, well used and scientifically assessed its due role in the development of enterprises, foreign capital is beneficial, otherwise harmful.

It should be said here that since foreign capital is inherently seriously exploitative and predatory, especially because it will be entangled with countries and people with extremely aggressive and colonial imperialist hegemonic thinking and values, foreign capital is particularly dangerous, and once its danger is transformed into harm, it is far from being able to make up for the little benefits brought to our society by foreign capital. Therefore, we must not allow foreign capital to grow barbarically in China without control, and we must forever and fundamentally curb the barbaric danger of foreign capital, without giving it the slightest chance to reveal its demonic beast nature, or introduce it into a "cage in a zoo" and saw off its "fangs", so that it can be both for people to see and harmless to people. China's government, industry, academia, research and application, as well as all sectors of society, have the responsibility to do a good job in this regard.

We can see that in this incident, when Alibaba Cloud did not notify China of the serious problems of system vulnerabilities but reported to the United States, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology actively learned from other channels to block the vulnerabilities on the one hand, and on the other hand, suspended cooperation with Alibaba Cloud, reacted very decisively, and reduced the probability of security risks caused by "low-level errors" in Alibaba Cloud. Next, Alibaba Cloud may pay more for this. Enterprises operating in China, regardless of the country from which the investors come from, must abide by China's laws and regulations and establish the ideological concept of truly serving Chinese society in order to go far. On the contrary, if they have a ghost fetus, see profit and forget righteousness, or go through foreign countries, how far can such a company go in China?

To put it bluntly, China's current open economy is different from the colonial opening up carried out by old China: Foreign bosses and domestic compradors in old China can control Chinese society, while the open economy we are engaged in now absolutely cannot allow such things to happen; on the contrary, we must resolutely implement counter-control over foreign capital and enterprises that may grow barbarically, form monopolies, or even control Chinese society, and foreign compradors can obtain profit rights through the establishment of Chinese society in accordance with laws and regulations. But control of these enterprises, especially key businesses, must belong to our country, to the benefit of our people.