I don't understand the argument. Imagine flipping positions. You're saying that if an American researcher goes to China, gets employed by a Chinese university, and do research funded by China which is then commercialized by Chinese companies, the researcher is actually aiding America in expense of China.
The missing piece is an ethnic and political identity which gives allegiance to the US in that “tables turned” analogy.
Fine, imagine that the researcher is a black American then.
Yes, if a Saudi went to Chinese university, worked in china, sent money home to his family, and then returned to consult for Saudi government or business, that would indeed be beneficial for Saudia Arabia.
It would also be beneficial even if he didn’t do that, but helped others do that.
I don't think I said "Saudi". Why aren't you engaging with the hypothetical as presented?
Yeah you made up a completely irrelevant case. Why are you not engaging the following aspects:
- ethnic identity tying one to country of origin (Chinese people identify as Chinese and see their country of origin as their people, Americans rarely hold the same view)
- asymmetry (America is best for education and business)
- strong national government which pursues its interests
I chose a black American specifically because they are as closely identified with America as any other group. The natives were here before them, but they don't have the same relationship with the state or the abstract national project.
Saudi Arabia is a bizarre choice because it isn't exactly a research powerhouse. America might be ahead, but China is the clear runner up and is catching up thanks to what might as well be an intentional effort to undermine American science.