I'm aware it's just a ploy to damage Meng's reputation and paint her as a criminal.
Is the US shooting itself in the foot by banning Huawei?
- Thread starter AndrewS
- Start date
- Status
I'm aware it's just a ploy to damage Meng's reputation and paint her as a criminal.
Canadian radio interview about Meng's case
from yesterday:
Release Ms. Meng!
Arrest of Huawei Official A Provocation Demanded by US
December 10th, 2018
Featured Guest: CHRISTOPHER BLACK, international criminal lawyer and author.
On SoundCloud:
Audio File:
Description (26 minutes):
The provocative and reckless decision to arrest a Huawei official shows America's desperation, taking any means to prevent the advance of the Chinese tech giant. The US regards itself as above the law--exceptional by decree--and has made Canada do its bidding, whatever the economic consequences for it's very junior partner.
from yesterday:
Release Ms. Meng!
Arrest of Huawei Official A Provocation Demanded by US
December 10th, 2018
Featured Guest: CHRISTOPHER BLACK, international criminal lawyer and author.
On SoundCloud:
Audio File:
Description (26 minutes):
The provocative and reckless decision to arrest a Huawei official shows America's desperation, taking any means to prevent the advance of the Chinese tech giant. The US regards itself as above the law--exceptional by decree--and has made Canada do its bidding, whatever the economic consequences for it's very junior partner.
In my view this is a significant turning point. The fact that they have to invoke national security to ban Huawei and ZTE from their markets shows you that western companies are no longer able to compete on price and technology. As the gap between China's technological and industrial capacity with the west narrows further you can see more of this in the future. Its not only about national security and politics but this is also about protectionism as well. Its a sign of changing times.
@Klon
Found one of the articles.
Because the telecoms networking industry is so small, we're only going to get a few public articles like this one and from British Telecom.
And you're going to have to argue with American Express (the credit card people) when they say China does 50x more mobile payments than the USA.
Found one of the articles.
Because the telecoms networking industry is so small, we're only going to get a few public articles like this one and from British Telecom.
And you're going to have to argue with American Express (the credit card people) when they say China does 50x more mobile payments than the USA.
Completely agree.
But it's not in China's long term interest to have the world retreat into protectionism.
China is already the world's largest trading nation, the world's largest exporter and is set to become the world's largest importer as well.
And this is backed up by the world's largest economy and also R&D Spending once the figures are released. This is in terms of Purchasing Power Parity which best measures actual output.
So it shouldn't matter too much if foreign companies are allowed in, because Chinese companies should be able to succeed on their own efforts anyway.
This will defuse much of the economic tension, particularly with Europe which doesn't have a direct military security issue with China.
And Europe matters, because it's economy and companies are comparable to that of the USA.
Then we also have Japan and Korea, which cannot escape the fact that they are geographical neighbours to China, and which means China is naturally their largest trading partner.
I think that would be enough to preserve a sufficiently liberal trade and investment across the world, irrespective of what the US does.
The world isn't retreating into protectionism, America is. Like a spoiled child who's losing a game, instead of playing harder he picks up his ball and goes home. Let the loser go home with his ball; good riddance to trash. China needs nothing from America, and even if it did America would never provide it.
To the point about China being the world's largest trading nation, right now that fact is being boosted by the nature of FDI into China: American companies set up shop, buy components from Japan and Korea, assemble a widget in China, and then "export" that widget to the US with its entire value counted as Chinese. I don't need to point out how utterly ridiculous that is.
Incidentally, that's why this US trade war would deliver only a glancing blow to China; the people getting hurt are Japanese, Koreans, and Americans. In the future, China will become the world's largest trading nation in a much healthier way: exporting products designed, sourced, and manufactured in China while importing from others in turn using mechanisms other than the USD. We're a long way from there, but the journey of a thousands steps starts with the first one.
Europe is a security client of the United States, it has no independent foreign policy or independent policy of any kind beyond management of the various national post offices. Relying on Europe, no matter how large or rich it is, is foolish.
Europe has no unified foreign policy, despite what the EU might want to make you believe by assigning people to posts with that name. It is as toothless as a UN General Assembly Resolution. The power structure to back the diplomatic aspect simply is not there. But each country in the EU has its own foreign policy and some, like France and the UK, have a decently robust ability to project military power if required. Which they do exercise on occasion. France is typically involved in at least one of their former colonies in Africa every couple of years. Like the French intervention in Mali. The UK does such things less often but it happens. Basically look at the list of EU countries with carriers and then trim that down to the list of countries with nuclear weapons and you get an idea of the overall power projection capabilities of each nation.
Other nations might also participate in a NATO or US led intervention where they get someone else to handle the logistics. Because even if they have the troops and equipment they simply do not have the facilities to project those abroad. They are mainly for self-defense or police actions under NATO or UN Security Council Resolutions.
There have been attempts to minimize those issues by proposals to pool seldom needed resources like large haul transportation together. Or have a rapid response battalion. But you have to remember. The EU is not a federal state. It is basically a trade confederation. It does not collect taxes directly, it does have its own military, it does not even have a unified currency and language across all the countries. Even if the Euro is close to that and most people in the most advanced economies have a reasonable control of the English language.
Last edited:
Agree with the rest but this one. First of all, nobody is to rely on anybody. Cooperation with Europe is not relying on Europe, but rather finding one more (a very big one) partner on more agreeable ground. Secondly, Europe's somewhat following US's fingers was and still is (to a lesser extent) due to fact that it is not a unified nation state and weak military (therefor political) independence. That is going to change for sure. China should encourage and assist it through cooperation. One doesn't gain (make new) friend without doing something, Europe would not want to be friendly to China if China does not help a bit.
Let me finish my statement by quoting Mao Zedong's words "团结大多数，争取中间派，孤立反动派", translated to "unite with the majority, try to win the heart of fence-sitters and isolate the reactionaries". Europe may be the majority or at worst the fence-sitter, but Trump is certainly the reactionary. So the right position for China to take is very clear. This applies to SK and Japan as well but to a lesser extent.
Huawei spat comes as China races ahead in 5G
13-Dec-2018
Financial Times - London
A leaked memo, apparently written by a senior National Security Council official, revealed as far back as the start of this year exactly how worried the US is about Huawei.
The rise of the Chinese company to become the world’s biggest supplier of telecoms equipment has given China a huge boost over the US in the race to introduce and develop 5G, the next generation of mobile communications, the memo complained.
“We are losing,” it said. “Whoever leads in technology and market share for 5G deployment will have a tremendous advantage towards [ . . .] commanding the heights of the information domain.”
Eleven months on, those fears have mushroomed into open conflict between Washington and Beijing, with American officials pushing allied countries to ban Huawei from building their 5G networks.
The arrest and planned extradition to the US of Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s chief financial officer and daughter to the company’s founder, has further exacerbated the spat.
Several countries have begun to trial 5G networks, though the full international standards have not yet been agreed. The shift to the new technology carries profound implications, and countries are wary of being left behind.
5G is “by no means simply a ‘faster 4G’”, the US memo said, describing it instead as “a change more like the invention of the Gutenberg Press”. It will bring higher speeds, lower lag times between network and device, and a much larger capacity to transfer data.
Together, these features are expected to underpin self-driving cars, AI and machine-to-machine communications that will transform the way everything from homes to hospitals to factories operate.
Ahead of the current crisis, China was well positioned to dominate the field. Having lagged behind on previous generations of mobile communications, Beijing started planning for 5G early, establishing a working group of mobile operators, equipment makers and handset manufacturers as early as 2013.
As it set up its 4G network, it had an eye on expanding it for 5G, which requires many more base stations. China had almost 2m cell sites in early 2018 which is ten times that of the US, according to Deloitte, the consultancy. There are 5.3 sites for every 10 sq miles in China, compared to 0.4 in the US.
“No country has devoted more effort to preparing the ground,” said a report from the Eurasia Group consultancy last month, which suggested that China will have first-mover advantage in 5G.
That advantage may be amplified if US allies decide to ban Huawei from helping to build their 5G networks.
In the UK, telecoms executives complain that their 5G trials all depend on Huawei equipment and that a ban would push back the arrival of 5G by nine months to a year.
Meanwhile, as the debate rages over whether to use Chinese-made equipment, operators in China are racing ahead.
Commercial 5G operations are slated for next year, and Chinese telecoms companies are spending billions on infrastructure to be able to be the first to have pure 5G “standalone” networks, rather than those layered over 4G, when standards are agreed.
“5G is just a foundation, one of the key technologies. Europe needs to catch up,” said Vincent Peng, head of western Europe for Huawei, adding that there was an investment gap in Europe and a potential shortfall of tech workers.
If China does achieve standalone 5G networks well ahead of the US and elsewhere, Chinese tech firms would have an advantage in developing applications, though the country’s heavy regulation could slow down their lead.
Chinese smartphone makers would also gain an even greater advantage in their home market if China “races ahead”, says Carolina Milanesi, a mobile analyst at Creative Strategies, a Silicon Valley researcher.
“Apple and Samsung, in particular, have a lot at risk in sitting this out and [letting] Huawei, Oppo, Vivo and so on control the very valuable Chinese market,” she said.
Developing 5G business models “may be works in progress for years” said Paul Lee, head of telecoms research at Deloitte.
But he added that China would be ahead in refining applications, especially because of its enormous pool of data. “China has several of the largest bases of digital consumers anywhere in the world,” he said, describing these as “Petri dishes” for 5G development.
Meanwhile, as the woes of Huawei and fellow Chinese equipment company ZTE signal a possible opening in the market, other 5G suppliers have begun co-operating with each other.
In October, Samsung and NEC announced that they would jointly develop 5G base stations. Ericsson announced a tie-up with Fujitsu.
If the US is committed to challenging China’s 5G efforts, it could now go on to ban US suppliers from working with Huawei.
That option would be “nuclear” according to a senior figure within the telecoms sector and could stop development in its tracks.
Mr Lee said: “If Huawei cannot license Android from Google, or Qualcomm’s patents in 4G and 5G radio access technology, it will not be able to build smartphones or 4G/5G stations.”
Mr Peng added that 33 of Huawei’s 92 core suppliers were US companies, showing its vulnerability to any ban.
Taking such action, however, would carry the risk that China would decide to split from international standards and possibly create two separate “and potentially non-interoperable” systems, added the Eurasia Group.
That could leave companies, and countries, having to choose which system to adopt. “There is certainly a risk that we will see a fragmented 5G market,” said Ms Milanesi.
Meanwhile, other countries are hoping that any delay in their 5G rollout will not cost them too heavily.
William Webb, the former head of research at Ofcom and president of the Institution of Engineering & Technology, noted that the UK was slow to launch 4G but caught up quickly.
He also argued that innovation in 5G networks may come from outside the telecoms sector as factories and industries develop their own network technologies.
“China might be building the equivalent of a Concorde. It’s faster but there’s not much point to it,” he said.
- Status