A recent report has raised serious allegations against Alibaba, claiming the company has provided technological support for Chinese military operations targeting the United States. According to a memo from the White House, as reported by the Financial Times on November 14, Alibaba allegedly facilitated access to sensitive customer data, including IP addresses, WiFi information, and payment records, as well as various AI-related services. Although the White House has not commented on the memo, the situation has sparked calls for the delisting of Alibaba and other Chinese firms from U.S. stock exchanges.
The Chinese embassy in Washington quickly denied the accuracy of the White House memo, accusing the U.S. of a “complete distortion of facts” and asserting that China upholds privacy protections. In a stronger rebuttal, Alibaba stated, “The assertions and innuendoes in the article are completely false,” emphasizing skepticism about the anonymous source of the leak.
Analysts are cautious about the claims made by both sides. The reality of privacy protections in China is complex. The country operates under a total surveillance regime, managed by the Chinese Communist Party. This structure suggests that businesses, while appearing independent, are ultimately integrated into state control. As Xi Jinping advocates for military-civil fusion, it becomes apparent that companies like Alibaba may be compelled to cooperate with military objectives.
Richard Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, noted that current practices in China have surpassed those of the former Soviet Union in terms of integrating civilian and military economies. He emphasized that all Chinese entities, whether state-owned or private, are complicit in supporting the military. This poses a significant challenge for free-market societies, which may not fully grasp the implications of engaging with a totalitarian regime.
Alan Tonelson, a trade and geopolitics analyst, pointed to historical warnings against integrating market economies with state-directed ones. He referenced Wendell Willkie, a 1940 Republican presidential candidate, who cautioned that such integration distorts trade flows, undermines free-market enterprises, and breeds economic imbalance. Tonelson argued that the United States has overlooked these warnings in its pursuit of normal trade relations with China, including its entry into the World Trade Organization.
The ongoing trade practices of China have raised alarms. Allegations of predatory actions have contributed to significant economic imbalances and have weakened support for free trade globally. The resources acquired through these practices have empowered the most aggressive factions within the Chinese political system, potentially compromising national security.
While the truth behind the White House’s claims about Alibaba remains largely inaccessible, the broader implications of doing business with Chinese firms warrant serious consideration. The Chinese Communist Party has openly identified the United States as an enemy, engaging in what it terms a “people’s war,” which the military describes as “total war.” Even if the specifics of military cooperation are unclear, the fundamental issue lies in Alibaba’s role within a system that is perceived as adversarial to the free world.
In light of these developments, the call to delist Alibaba and other Chinese companies from American stock exchanges is gaining traction. Advocates argue that supporting any part of a system that is perceived as threatening to the United States is both strategically and morally untenable. The case for delisting is not just about a single company; it reflects a broader concern about safeguarding national interests in an increasingly complex global landscape.
As this situation continues to evolve, the implications for U.S.-China relations and the global economy remain significant. Gordon G. Chang, the author of Plan Red: China’s Project to Destroy America, is vocal about the need for decisive action against companies that operate within a framework seen as hostile to American values and security interests. His insights underscore the urgent need for a reassessment of how American businesses engage with Chinese entities.
