Is the US shooting itself in the foot by banning Huawei?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I'd say both assumtions are correct. Europe has long ceased to operate as an independent block, NZ, OZ, UK, countries start banning Huawei even without proof for backdoors. That said, the fixe eyes are installing backdoors anyway, so basically banning China is more of a political statement than a realy try to avoid installed backdoors. The western countries will follow suit on banning Huawei. After all, Canada and MExico even accepted a clause that NAFTA is done for if they agree on free trade with countries like China. I guess you underestimate the dominance the US has in the western hemisphere nowadays.

Canada and Mexico don't really have a choice. Trade with the USA accounts for roughly 66% of their total trade. So the US trade is worth twice as much as the rest of the world combined.
There is no way that Canada and Mexico can escape the fact that they are neighbours with the USA and share a land border.

In comparison, China is a bigger trading partner for Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Japan and most other countries in the world.

---
Looks like the UK Huawei 5G ban was just rescinded after Huawei agreed to additional security steps.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


---
Huawei also just opened a cyber-security centre in Germany like the one in the UK
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
I'd say both assumtions are correct. Europe has long ceased to operate as an independent block, NZ, OZ, UK, countries start banning Huawei even without proof for backdoors. That said, the fixe eyes are installing backdoors anyway, so basically banning China is more of a political statement than a realy try to avoid installed backdoors. The western countries will follow suit on banning Huawei. After all, Canada and MExico even accepted a clause that NAFTA is done for if they agree on free trade with countries like China. I guess you underestimate the dominance the US has in the western hemisphere nowadays.
Let's wait and see.
For one thing, these countries that follow suit of US are not major tech and industry exporters. Their blocking China's industrial export has less to no price to pay. Europe excluding UK on the other hand has a very substantial exports that benefit from access to China's market, blocking China will entail a high cost of loosing market. Western countries today are not the western blocks in the Soviet-US era even though ideology still plays a role, it is not black and white clear cut boundary any more. China is willing to open its market to any western countries who does NOT threat to sanction and bully China. It is up to the individual countries to choose what to do. If the continental Europeans are as obeying to US demand as before, Germany would not have pushed forward the North-stream pipe line from Russia, France and Germany would not have protested and refused to join the second Iraq war etc. etc.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Qualcomm is the competitor for 5G.
It's not just the phones it's the hardware that supports it.

?

In the 5G network space, the equipment main equipment suppliers are Huawei, ZTE, Ericsson, Nokia, with Samsung to an extent.

In the 5G handset chipset space, Qualcomm competes with the Samsung Exynos, Apple, Huawei HiSilicon, Mediatek to name a few companies.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Some suspect that the Huawei arrest was the response to the PRC who have denied return of a family of American citizens a mother and some children who visited the PRC because their Ex Husband and father is wanted by the PRC.

For the record it's not a kangaroo court;
she is in a extradition hearing pending her actual day in court.
" Kangaroo court" is a often misused term. For a court that ignores the laws and standards or has little actual power in the nation or state it is held in. Or intentionally disregards it's duty and obligations to the laws.
There is no indication of either thus far.
  1. Meng Wanzhou's charged "dealing with Iran" was conducted in Hongkong, not in US.
  2. Meng Wanzhou is NOT a US national.
What jurisdiction does the US employ? The two courts ignored the fact that they don't have any jurisdiction to act conducted by a foreign national outside of US and Canadian soil. In doing so they have violated the legal right of the individual and China's sovereign right. That make them perfectly Kangaroo courts. A plain mafia style abduction.

If you don't agree with the above, you SHOULD agree with China acting in the same way as US and Canada. That means, China can charge and arrest if possible any US persons who is involved in selling weapons to Taiwan, an act that breaks Chinese domestic law. And US domestic law of "Taiwan relationship" has no value in the Chinese eyes since US ignored the two points above. Something China has restrained to do, but probably should begin to do.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
  • Meng Wanzhou's charged "dealing with Iran" was conducted in Hongkong, not in US.
  • Meng Wanzhou is NOT a US national.
Except she was alleged to be dealing with US banks.
If that is the case then she violated American law and sanctions. Because of the international nature of business, it is possible. And a warrent was issued for her arrest.

US case against Huawei CFO revealed in Canadian court
By Julia Horowitz and Scott McLean, CNN Business



Updated 10:24 AM ET, Sun December 9, 2018
Vancouver, Canada (CNN Business)The United States is claiming that the chief financial officer of Chinese tech giant Huawei covered up violations of sanctions on Iran, according to Canadian prosecutors.

Meng Wanzhou, who was arrested in Vancouver and faces extradition to the United States, is believed to have helped Huawei circumvent US sanctions by telling financial institutions that a Huawei subsidiary was a separate company, prosecutors said at a hearing Friday to determine whether Meng should be released on bail.
Her lawyer said that she has ties to Canada and is not a flight risk. The judge, after hearing arguments from Meng's lawyer and prosecutors, did not rule on bail. The hearing will resume Monday at 1 p.m. ET.
Previously, details surrounding why Meng, 46, had been detained were limited due to a press ban. A judge had accepted Meng's request to bar both police and prosecutors from releasing information about the case prior to the hearing. The ban was lifted on Friday.
A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22, it was revealed at the hearing Friday. She was arrested on December 1.
Earlier this week, Huawei said Meng was detained by Canadian authorities on behalf of the United States when she was transferring flights in Canada.
In a statement after Friday's hearing in Canada, Huawei said: "We will continue to follow the bail hearing on Monday. We have every confidence that the Canadian and US legal systems will reach the right conclusion."
The company has said it was "not aware of any wrongdoing by Ms. Meng" and that it "complies with all applicable laws and regulations where it operates."
On Saturday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry summoned the Canadian ambassador to China to address Meng's detention, saying her arrest "severely violated the Chinese citizen's legal and legitimate rights and interests, it is lawless, reasonless and ruthless, and it is extremely vicious."
In addition to her role as CFO, Meng serves as deputy chairwoman of Huawei's board. She's the daughter of Huawei's founder, Ren Zhengfei.
Meng's attorney said she would not breach a court order because doing so would embarrass her personally, and would also humiliate her father, Huawei and China itself. He added that the case against Meng had not been fully laid out, even though the US had signed off on her arrest warrant months ago.
"This isn't some last minute thing," he said.
Meng did everything she could to be transparent with Huawei's banking partners, and the company always worked to ensure its compliance with sanctions law, her lawyer continued.
Huawei is one of the world's biggest makers of smartphones and networking equipment and one of China's best-known companies. It is central to the country's ambitions to become a tech superpower.
But concerns that Huawei devices pose national security risks have hurt its ability to grow abroad.
The company has been repeatedly singled out by officials in the United States. US intelligence agencies have said American citizens shouldn't use Huawei phones, and US government agencies are banned from buying the company's equipment.
Huawei is a "bad actor," White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told CNN on Friday.

Navarro admitted that is was "unusual" that Meng's arrest came just as US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping reached a trade truce in Argentina, but said the government's actions are "legitimate."
"Let's look at what the indictment says and let the [Justice Department] do its thing," he said.
CNN's Alberto Moya contributed to this report.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
?

In the 5G network space, the equipment main equipment suppliers are Huawei, ZTE, Ericsson, Nokia, with Samsung to an extent.
Correction. Making equipment does not exactly tell the leadership. Patents ownership does. Any equipment makers pay high royalties to Patent owners. Royalties is the cash cow, without it makers are only earning the "blood and sweat" money, cheap labours. Chinese companies Huawei included were that cheap labours back in the 3G and partially 4G times. 5G has changed the landscape, but Qualcomm was (is?) still the leader in terms of patents as of early 2017 with 15%, followed by Nokia at 11%, Chinese companies at 10%, Ericsson by 8%. The figures may have changed today, but you get the picture.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Except she was alleged to be dealing with US banks.
If that is the case then she violated American law and sanctions. Because of the international nature of business, it is possible. And a warrent was issued for her arrest.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
None of these arguments answer the question "what jurisdiction do US and Canada have over her". Domestic law does not have jurisdiction outside the sovereign territory or over foreign nationals. She could NOT violate American domestic law because she is not a US citizen. Possible or "I do what ever I see fit"? US domestic law has no meaning over international business.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
None of these arguments answer the question "what jurisdiction do US and Canada have over her". Domestic law does not have jurisdiction outside the sovereign territory or over foreign nationals. She could NOT violate American domestic law because she is not a US citizen. Possible or "I do what ever I see fit"? US domestic law has no meaning over international business.
And that's why when she was arrested she was arrested in Canada not China.
If she violated the laws of the U.S. and a warrant was issued for her in the U.S. then she can be arrested if she lands in the U.S. or a nation with Extradition treaty. US business law is valid in relation to US business. IE if you do business with an American firm that firm has to obay US law. If you do business with an American firm you have to agree to the understanding that you are abiding by the same as long as you are doing business with an American company.
Had she not been in Canada she would likely have not been arrested and the warrent would have been unserved.
You can violate the laws of a mother nation even if you never have been there. That's how drug lords get put on trial in many cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top