So can we all finally agree, that Huawei stating it has no ties to the Chinese government, was a lie after all?
This false claim by Huawei, is one of the most important reasons why Huawei isn‘t already banned here in Germany.[1]
And while we are at it, we should also ban US companies from providing critical infrastructure like this in Germany (and Europe). After Snowden, its clear that hardware from US vendors like Cisco should be seen as potentially compromised.[2]
I attended a talk by a successful Chinese entrepreneur who sold his company after only three years. We asked him why he sold it so early. He said there is no pure businesses (especially when you become big) in China . There are only “political businesses”. Everyone has to work with the government and plays dirty in order to survive. So he wanted out.
To be honest, as a Chinese, I don’t believe the claim that Huawei has no government ties. But I don’t think it’s what Huawei wants.
China’s ability to fire the CEO of Cathay Pacific shows how irrelevant it is to ask who technically owns Huawei. What matters is whether the state has effective control, not legal control, and we know the answer to that for any company in or even near China.
It depends how you define government tie. If it is about corruption, yes and maybe. Government are the biggest buyer in many cases, they have development funds to sponsor companies. Sometimes, having a good relationship with some officials may give you business or whatever. Companies in China won't be independent. They will be asked to help local economy. The government needs them to help reducing poverty for example, even big companies like Huawei they will need to send people to rural areas to help poor area to develop. They cannot just give money, they actually have to find solution for a village to develop. Having a good relationship with the government is essential for all big businesses around the world. Government is the biggest customer for Huawei after all.
Based on news reports in other countries it's a pretty consistent stance for Chinese diplomats to make the claim that if Huawei is allowed to compete in a free market manner it will be beneficial to trade relationship or if Huawei is banned for security reason it will damage trade relationship with China. The article did provide a background for such security concern from Danish defense ministry.
It's still entirely in the realm of possibility that the Chinese diplomat in question asked for unfair non-market advantage, but I find it quite unnecessary because Huawei's technology is already competitive on its own, why spend political capital for such minute economic gains? A more probable story, as has already happened in many other countries, is that local ISP chooses Huawei based on price and competitiveness and is blocked by government on security grounds, then Chinese diplomats step in to remove that block based on other stick and carrots.
For China Huawei’s trade with any country is meaningless from an economic standpoint. It’s in no way worth the kind of political capital their spending on it’s defense.
They either care for intelligence gathering or political reasons. Politically it could be anything from ideology to corruption and backroom politics. But, again the economic angle is hardly worth the effort when their risking a major backlash.
It sends a signal that the Chinese government will defend businesses based on China, which is valuable in itself. It could inspire more Chinese people to setup businesses in China and not migrate to the west, it could encourage businesses in other countries to compete with Chinese businesses on merit and not with threats by their governments etc.
> And while we are at it, we should also ban US companies from providing critical infrastructure like this in Germany (and Europe). After Snowden, its clear that hardware from US vendors like Cisco should be seen as potentially compromised.[2]
Genuine question - What are the big European network infra equipment makers? You only ever hear of US and Chinese companies like Cisco and Huawei operating in this space.
Others mention Alcatel, Ericsson, Nokia. How much of their equipment is made in China? How hard would it be to compromise the manufacturing process or loading of firmware to include backdoors?
Ericsson, they had or still has the best stuff. But just like any big companies, management likes to kill the company for their own good. Early 2010s when Huawei becomes a threat to their business ( that was before Huawei was even known by general public ), stocks and earning were down, they finally woke up.
But today they are still much more expensive than Huawei, AND their bet on Intel 10nm Custom Foundry didn't help.
I don’t know of any US company making LTE or 5g hardware. I think it is mostly European. Much of the the networking hardware is US but much of all networking is Broadcom based now.
I don't agree with you that US vendors should be seen as potentially compromised. But I strongly support that European vendors should be used in Europe. It would be a disaster if Cisco is the only choice. We need at least a healthy rival.
Ha.
Prism anyone?
C’mon. Have you ever wondered why the only Chinese smartphone vendors who are allowed to sell phones in the US are the ones who agree to implement Qualcomm chipsets?
Sure but the comment looks like it was more about enterprise networking. Both Europe and the US have good companies to choose from and we’ll be worse off if they mutually block each other out. We’re better off if European and US companies request the option to audit the code.
I agree Cisco specifically is suspect but surely there are better solutions than blackballing all American companies. I say this because Europe can force US companies to release their code to them as Microsoft does and we’d all be better for it.
"And while we are at it, we should also ban US companies from providing critical infrastructure like this in Germany (and Europe). After Snowden, its clear that hardware from US vendors like Cisco should be seen as potentially compromised"
The relationship between the US and Europe for many reasons is different, most specifically, the US will not use 'Cisco spying' to steal German companies IP, or to otherwise screw up Germany.'
In the bigger picture, the US provides the first and last line of defence to Europe. Putin is actively trying to 'pull a Crimea' in the Baltic states and only US led activities are keeping them out. That's the top of the iceberg.
Also the 'Cisco spying' that is done by the US, mostly in the Middle East etc. actually has a lot of security value for Europe.
Of course, Europe is way behind on many tech fronts and would be hurt badly by being cut off by America (you don't think there will be repercussions?) though Europe doesn't need anything made in China ... they need China as a customer for stuff.
There are 100 consumer related issues to be addressed between US/EU before the possibility of Cisco spying comes into question.
Yes because China and US have the same value system. Both countries are interchangeable even though one has extensive history of practicing free speech while the other locks their citizens up for speaking up.
Just as a point of logic: even if we are 100% sure that there is no funny business going on with ownership of Huawei (which we don't know), we should just assume the govt interferes because the incentives to do so are strong and the mechanisms do so already exist (presumably, Huawei has a "red machine").
Believing the Chinese govt don't interfere is attributing some fairly superhuman levels of self-control to the govt...even in a system with controls over govt, that would be unlikely...in a system with no controls, it is a little ludicrous.
How these phone systems work is that Huawei has access to them to send updates and can remote in. Same with American or European telecom manufactures. In case of a war or conflict the Chinese government can order Huawei to shut down systems they have installed in foreign countries anytime. So while it might be an economic objective to sell more Huawei systems there is a security angle to that for every Huawei phone system running that it can be shut down remotely or sent a bad update that shuts it down. Which would be magic if a country aligns with the United States against China in some sort of conflict even if that country never goes into battle it will still be punished by China in a way that will take millions of dollars and probably months to recover from.
So what you are saying is that components of the 5G network have their management interfaces connected to the internet and some kind of auto-update on that downloads updates from Chinese servers?
Pretty much, I can't find the reference article now but this article below is good for just about anything that is going to be remotely managed by China:
A peek inside the cutthroat world of politics, only brought to you by an accidental recording of a private conversation.
I feel this information really shouldn't be hidden from the public as it's the public that is supposed to a part of a democratic system. How can we elect our officials and voice our opinions, if we are not informed of hostilities from foreign governments?
Do you think China would have even said that if they knew that each conversation is public record.
Diplomacy wouldn't really work if you couldn't be candid. And if you knew everything you said in diplomatic conversations would be public, you'd be less candid. Or you'd only work with those, who would provide you with secrecy.
For the record, we don't know whether the Faroese government let itself submit to the pressure, or whether they are now actively pursuing other avenues. But I would imagine with the leak, that it's not the former any more. The question is whether it would have been had it not been for the leak.
Do you think everything the US diplomats and presidents said can be open to the public? When US is negotiating with other countries for "the greatness of America", Trump only says pleasant words which is completely legal in both countries?
"The Faroese government had asked the court to put an injunction in place on the basis that publication of this information might damage the relationship between the Danish Commonwealth and China. On Monday this week the government then submitted a request to have the injunction remain in force."
"Berlingske has learnt that Ambassador Feng Tie made it clear in two meetings on 11 November - first with the Faroese foreign minister, Jenis av Rana, and later the same day with the Faroese finance minister, Jørgen Niclasen, and the islands' lagmand, or prime minister, Bárður Nielsen – that if the Faroese telecoms operator Føroya Tele agreed to let Huawei build the 5G network, all doors would be open to a free trade agreement between China and the Faroese Islands.
He also stated that China would not enter into such a trade agreement if Huawei did not get the contract. According to Berlingske's information, the Chinese ambassador is said to have been »very forceful« in his statements to the Faroese top officials."
So is there currently a Free Trade Agreement between China and the Faroes?
There is not currently a Free Trade Agreement between China and the Faroese Islands. But the Faroese Islands and Greenland have been hoping for a free trade agreement with China each, outside of one Denmark proper may have with China through the EU. (Note: Neither Greenland nor the Faroese Islands are part of the EU.)
Although it is possible, that the Faroese and the Greenlandic may consider the value of the Kingdom of Denmark that they are part of more valuable in face of being pressured. China pressuring the Faroese, the US considering purchasing Greenland. Both partly the result of a Kingdom of Denmark being run on autopilot by successive Danish governments. I'd imagine both getting extra attention in Copenhagen the coming decade.
Someone may be able to correct me on this, or fill in the details, but part of China's larger Belt and Road Initiative, which is presented as investments into smaller countries, is to ensure non-aligned countries (in a manner of speaking) are beholden to China.
China builds you a new airport, and suddenly you are indebted to them for decades.
As for the Faroese Islands, and in particular Greenland, they don't care so much about their economies. What they care about is their proximity to the Arctic ocean, and its potential riches. Having a foot in the door, would be a huge boon for China. Indeed, the notion of China building oil rigs and mines in Greenland has been a subject debated a lot in Denmark.
Pressuring the Faroese may be a good way to make Greenland follow suit. But there I am merely speculating. Besides, the Faroese are the ones making overtures to China, so China can counter with demands like this at no expense to themselves.
> part of China's larger Belt and Road Initiative, which is presented as investments into smaller countries, is to ensure non-aligned countries (in a manner of speaking) are beholden to China.
Not really. The most prominent case where that happened is a shiny new port they built in Sri Lanka, but which turned out to be impossible to run profitably, so the Sri Lankan government handed them the port for a 99-year lease instead of paying their debt. Now China has a port in Sri Lanka they can't run profitably either.
What the BRI is is a great opportunity for Chinese officials to earn kickbacks from Chinese companies for helping them land government contracts abroad. I assume that's what happened here: someone working for Huawei really wanted to close this deal and receive a fat bonus, so they offered the ambassador a cut for intervening on his behalf.
While this is true from an economic perspective many argue that the true value of the Sri Lankan deep water port is that it allows the Chinese military (officially this is for hunting pirates) a foothold in the Indian ocean, similar to how the US can project its power far outside its border through the use of military bases around the world. Hence it isn't a major concern how profitable the port is, or so the thinking goes.
Building and leasing an oversized commercial port is a kind of expensive plan if all they wanted was a naval base. Last I heard, the Sri Lankan government expressly forbade China from using the port for military purposes and instead moved their own base there: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sri-lanka-china-port/sri-...
So whether the primary aim was economic or military doesn't matter much, since the outcome was an expensive failure either way.
Once again 100% validation that 5G and Huawei are part of the CCP's imperial designs.
We can't blame China for playing hardball, but this is proof-positive that the government is acting in concert with Huawei and that is enough to put major tariffs, bans or at least heavy scrutiny.
You don't really NEED food. You could choose to eat or you could choose to die. It's up to you. Take it or leave it.
No point in playing with semantics. Fear is subjective. It is caused by ignorance of whether you might lose a wanted thing, or obtain an unwanted thing.
By your logic, we can completely rid the dictionary of the word 'threat'. Name any 'threat' today, I can convert it into an 'offer'.
Please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait to HN. We've already told you at least three times that we don't want to have to ban you again, but if you keep breaking the guidelines we will.
As I've explained to you before, using HN primarily (indeed exclusively) for nationalistic political arguments to HN is an abuse of the site and we ban accounts that do it. This is a place for intellectual curiosity, not pre-existing agendas.
My recent sporadic comments history contains comments in weightlifting, cyber-truck, climate etc and other Chinese topics - which is a broad subject. I write more about those subjects because I'm more well versed in them. IMO, pointing typical poor reporting on Chinese subjects or disambiguate Chinese stories in geopolitical terms should not be an indicator of entrenched nationalism. Regardless, I've removed the original comment and will be steering away from Huawei related posts.
No agenda here, but I saw this exchange as a chance to mess with the Hackernews API, "what is the percentage breakdown of dirtyid comment subjects?" (Just based on simplistic keyword search)
I'm not asking you to stop, just diversify, and to use the site more in the spirit of intellectual curiosity and less in the spirit of battle. Those two things don't go together at all. Your comments on weightlifting and other topics are pretty hard to find amid the others; I looked and missed them.
I don't think it's fair for other users to accuse you of being a shill, astroturfer, spy, foreign agent, or other internet inanities, and have frequently asked them not to do so—and of course the HN guidelines make this quite clear also.
Dirtyid posts many comments disagreeing with various criticisms of Chinese government actions, but that doesn't mean they're the official CPC line. The difference is that dirtyid usually agrees on the facts but interprets them differently, whereas the CPC line on many topics is that there's no such topic and you definitely shouldn't try discussing it.
If you my analysis are official CPC line then you are clearly not educated on the subject or took time to read my posts. A Chinese sockpuppet would not post articles about Chinese AI robot police, sharp eyes rural surveillance etc. Not conforming to MSM narrative about China and having a nuanced understanding of Chinese policies is not the same thing as pro-CPC.
Yes, sockpuppets are a form of deception, and you can't accuse another person of that here without evidence. Please re-read the guidelines and stop this now.
Had you said single-purpose account you'd have been closer to the point. We've asked dirtyid not to do that.
Actually I didn't read enough of it to realize it was a joke. That doesn't break the site guidelines as badly as going on some Mussolini rant would have, so I'm sorry I nailed you for the wrong speed bracket.
I agree that the headline is sensationalized; something like "Chinese ambassador conditions trade agreement on Huawei contract" would be more descriptive.
That doesn't mean this kind of influence is acceptable; rigging the contractor selection process for a government project is classic corruption. If that's part of the job description of diplomats then I don't think it should be.
It's more classic quid-pro-quo than corruption, which the impeachment hearings should reveal, is completely normal diplomatic behavior, and only problematic when wield for personal again at the expense of national interest. Which pushing Huawei or Boeing is not, which is why this headline reads as wildly sensationalized.
It is corruption if the Faroese politicians rig the process to favor a particular company as part of a quid-pro-quo.
It would've been less problematic if there had been plans to exclude Huawei altogether and the Chinese embassador communicated that a trade agreement would require Chinese companies to be treated no different than domestic companies. But requiring Huawei to be chosen even if they wouldn't be considered the most suitable candidate otherwise goes too far in my opinion.
It's a fact that (a) Chinese government is dictatorial and lacks any sort of independent oversight via judiciary or media, (b) Chinese governments are heavily intertwined with companies and (c) China has a recent history of unprecedented surveillance.
Better time than any to start building the means to operate on compromised equipment. Hopefully the NSA is on board this time around rather than pushing cringeworthy-level compromised Cisco products on the world.
It's also a potential weapon. Imagine the havoc you can create by shutting down another nation's critical network infrastructure, especially one that is supposed to power the next generation of technology platforms and fleets of internet-connected devices.
But what will playing that card have as a consequence? Any technology having the slightest tie to China would be banned. That's very short of economical suicide. That one could only be pulled in an all out war. It's not a credible threat. I'd go with surveillance which is already good enough to get Huawei banned. But that's true of Cisco either...
What tends to happen in authoritarian countries is that obvious concerns do not get raised, which is why they tend to make occasional disastrous decisions for their long term stability (e.g. “it probably wont be a good idea to imprison all the Muslims, we might make our trading partners mad”)
Limited evidence in support of that: The Polish government recently arrested a Polish government employee and a high-ranking Huawei employee on charges of espionage.
This false claim by Huawei, is one of the most important reasons why Huawei isn‘t already banned here in Germany.[1]
And while we are at it, we should also ban US companies from providing critical infrastructure like this in Germany (and Europe). After Snowden, its clear that hardware from US vendors like Cisco should be seen as potentially compromised.[2]
1) https://www.businessinsider.de/trumps-huawei-verbot-ist-rein... 2) https://www.infoworld.com/article/2608141/snowden--the-nsa-p...