For this century, the world has three countries: the US, China and others. The question right now is how to rank the powers of these countries. Understanding that in the last ten centuries, China has dominated the world at least in six, and since the US took over in the late 1890s, it has not faced the kind of competition it is facing from China (the Japanese rise was ephemeral in nature, and fizzled like your secondary school Chemistry experiment  which produced an effervescence, gas bubbles forming in a liquid, making every kid excited in the lab).

But it seems that the US vs China has more acts and scenes ahead before the ranking is decided for this century: “The tech supremacy rivalry between the United States and China is likely not going to end any time soon based on Washington’s determination to tighten its grip on semiconductors among others. US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo hinted at potential measures to further curtail China’s access to advanced semiconductor technologies, underscoring the intensifying tech war between the two global powerhouses.

“We cannot allow China to have access for their military advancement to our most sophisticated technology,” she told reporters in Manila on Monday. “So yes, we will do whatever it takes to protect our people including expanding our controls.”’

May they compete in peace, no wars!

For this century, the world has three countries: the US, China and others. The question right now is how to rank the powers of these countries. Understanding that in the last ten centuries, China has dominated the world at least in six, and since the US took over in the late… pic.twitter.com/2UuHYQhRMP

— Ndubuisi Ekekwe (@ndekekwe) March 12, 2024

The tech supremacy rivalry between the United States and China is likely not going to end any time soon based on Washington’s determination to tighten its grip on semiconductors among others.

US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo hinted at potential measures to further curtail China’s access to advanced semiconductor technologies, underscoring the intensifying tech war between the two global powerhouses.

“We cannot allow China to have access for their military advancement to our most sophisticated technology,” she told reporters in Manila on Monday. “So yes, we will do whatever it takes to protect our people including expanding our controls.”

Raimondo’s assertion is an emphasis on the need to prevent China from leveraging sophisticated technologies for military advancements. This sentiment reflects broader concerns within the US administration about Beijing’s technological ambitions and its implications for national security.

The proposed tightening of controls on semiconductor exports to China aligns with the Biden administration’s broader strategy to counter Chinese technological ascendancy. A Bloomberg report suggests that the administration is contemplating fresh sanctions on several Chinese tech firms, including memory chipmaker ChangXin Memory Technologies Inc., as part of a concerted effort to limit China’s access to critical technologies.

This move follows years of strategic maneuvering by the US to stymie China’s technological progress. Washington has employed a multifaceted approach, encompassing export controls, sanctions, and diplomatic efforts, to thwart China’s advancements in key sectors such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and telecommunications.

The semiconductor industry has emerged as a focal point in the tech war, given its strategic significance in powering a wide array of modern technologies, including AI, 5G networks, and advanced weapon systems. The US has wielded its influence to restrict China’s access to semiconductor manufacturing equipment and cutting-edge chip designs, aiming to maintain its technological edge.

Furthermore, the US has actively engaged with allies to build a coalition aimed at countering China’s technological expansion. Efforts to tighten export controls and coordinate sanctions against Chinese tech firms have been bolstered by partnerships with like-minded nations, amplifying the impact of US-led initiatives.

Last year, Japan and the Netherlands, pivotal nations in the development of chip-making equipment, aligned with the US initiative.

However, challenges persist, with China demonstrating resilience and adaptability in navigating US restrictions. Beijing has intensified efforts to achieve technological self-sufficiency, investing heavily in domestic research and development, while also pursuing strategic partnerships and acquisitions abroad to acquire critical technologies.

Moreover, the tech war extends beyond semiconductors, encompassing a broad spectrum of emerging technologies and industries. Issues such as data security, intellectual property theft, and the regulation of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing further complicate the bilateral relationship.

As tensions escalate, the repercussions of the tech war are felt not only by the US and China but also by the global economy. Supply chain disruptions, market volatility, and heightened regulatory scrutiny are reshaping the dynamics of global trade and investment, underscoring the far-reaching implications of the burgeoning rivalry.

In this complex geopolitical landscape, the trajectory of US-China relations will be shaped by a delicate balancing act between competition and cooperation, as both nations seek to safeguard their interests while navigating the intricate web of interconnectedness in the digital age. As the tech war continues to unfold, the stakes remain high, with profound implications for the future of global technological innovation and strategic stability.

Since last week, BBC Newshour has been relentless on covering the kidnapping of school kids in Nigeria. Now this: “Bandits have demanded an exorbitant ransom of N40 trillion, along with vehicles and motorcycles, for the release of the abducted 16 residents of the Gonin Gora area of the Kaduna metropolis…demanded an unprecedented ransom of N40 trillion, along with 11 Hilux vans and 150 motorcycles, for the release”.That is more than Nigeria’s annual budget!

My special wishes to the citizens and their families, and hope all abducted make it back to their families. When you read things like this, you would wish Nigeria had a constitutional framework to force politicians to debate, at least for the presidency and governorship jobs.

Yes, debates do not solve problems. Yet, you must understand that debate forces you to look for knowledgeable people so that you can prepare for it. And by the time you are forced to prepare, you would become knowledgeable on issues. That process will prepare anyone for a better leadership outcome.

I write this because I was my secondary school’s Library Prefect and the leader of the School’s Debating Society. It was my job to organize debates across classes, and prepare for external competitions. To do that, I had to actually prepare for all topics the junior students would be debating on.

Do not tell me in 2027 that Nigerians do not deserve for their leaders to debate on national issues. On that,  I am calling for a Constitutional amendment to make that a requirement for the main offices in the land – presidency and governorship. Hopefully, through those debates, I can get a picture of how the key  politicians plan to tackle national challenges like insecurity! As I write, I have no clue what they plan to do, conceding that the plans could be “classified”.

Bandits demand N40tn, 11 Hilux vans, 150 motorcycles for the release of 16 abducted Kaduna residents

If you as a National Youth Service Corp (Nysc) candidate pays a person whom they refers as “plug” to get you posted or redeployed to a choice state and the plug fails & you get posted to different location, you cannot go to court to enforce the contract or request for the refund of your money even if you entered into a contract with the plug to that effect. 

If you as a hookup girl or a prostitute enter into an agreement with your “customer” for the customer to pay (either in cash or in-kind) after the sex and the customer refuses to pay after the sex, you cannot go to court to enforce the contract against the customer. (Although there are exceptional instances when a prostitute can drag her customer to court to recover her service money) . 

The same goes for two “Yahoo boys” who enter into an agreement to “package work” & share the money amongst themselves. One of the Yahoo boys cannot go to court to enforce the contract if the other Yahoo boy decides to hold back all the proceeds from the work. 

The same goes when you as a job seeker pays a “plug” to get you a government job and the job doesn’t come through. You cannot go to court to enforce the contract or seek a refund of your money. 

The most common ones amongst politicians which is during political election you will hear that a political aspirant have approached a deep pocket businessman or an influential person and seek for the businessman to sponsor his campaign/ election or to endorse him, in exchange for some juicy government contract or for some political appointment when the aspirant gets elected.

In fact, it is rumored that some sitting governors enter into contracts with aspiring governors to sponsor their gubernatorial ambitions in exchange that the candidate once elected as governor will be paying the past governor some amount of money from the state treasury.

Most often than not, it is when the aspirant after getting elected fails to honor this contract that the public always get to hear or know that there was a contract of such to that effect but no matter how many lawyer that drafted such contract or no matter who witnessed  contract of this sort, it can never be enforced in the court of law if the candidate after he gets elected decides to renege on the agreement and fails to award the sponsor the contract or give him some political appointment as agreed. 

Same goes when two persons agree to carry out an armed robbery and to split the proceeds of the robbery amongst themselves and since there is no honour amongst thieves, one of the robbers decides to disappear with all the money made from the robbery. It will be absurd for the other rubber to go to court to enforce the contract of splitting the proceeds of the robbery amongst themselves. 

This is because contracts of these natures are illegal and therefore void ab initio, hence cannot be enforced in court. Contracts involving illegal activities (like the examples above) are considered void contracts and therefore cannot be enforced in the court of law because the court of law can never lend itself to enforce illegality.