The Economist’s debate over whether cyber-espionage is the biggest threat to relations between America and China wrapped up this past Wednesday. I’ve been quoting passages over the course of the debate, but it would be worthwhile to go back and take a look through the whole thing. Unfortunately, as explained by Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran, the motion failed:
After two weeks of hard-fought battle, this debate now comes to a close. The side against the motion, which early on surged to two-thirds of the vote, has managed to capture the flag with much the same share of the final vote. Duncan Clark fought brilliantly, with able support from Adam Segal, and managed to land quite a few powerful blows in support of the motion. However, in the end it was the indomitable Minxin Pei, with help from Orville Schell, who carried the day. Hats off to the winners.
Like clockwork, 66% voted against the motion, 33% voted for. Which either means that 3 people (including myself) found it worth their time to actually vote in this asinine poll, or we witnessed some NBA All-Star Game-esque ballot stuffing by Chinese readers of the Economist. Don’t forget, at least one angsty Chinese hacker reads The Economist, even if his boss did rebuke him “for reading too much foreign press.”
Leave a Reply