Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
If you want to make China 'bleed' and change, as you say, you (and anyone else who shares that opinion) can contribute to that directly by refusing to buy anything Made in China.
However, I doubt you are willing to do that and probably have a fair few products that are made in China or require Chinese patents.
In the absence (a very long absence) of national security evidence to actually support Trump's claims, together with his very open admittance to seeing Huawei possibly included in a trade deal, the conclusion is clear and countries around the world have taken note.
Maybe it is about protectionism, but companies like Apple have a had time competing fairly against companies like Huawei. That is because companies like Apple spend hundreds of million on research and development and companies like Huawei just steal the technology with the support of the Chinese government. American can't compete fairly against Chinese subsidized labor either.
Pretty much all of Huawei's smart phones are rip offs. Huawei's leader dresses like Steve Jobs on stage. I don't feel any pity for Huawei. Tariff's date back to the Founding of our Country and were designed to level the playing field. Republicans and Democrats alike sold out when dropping Tariffs for Countries like China.
I say this as a person who would never vote for Carrot Head.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
If you want to make China 'bleed' and change, as you say, you (and anyone else who shares that opinion) can contribute to that directly by refusing to buy anything Made in China.
However, I doubt you are willing to do that and probably have a fair few products that are made in China or require Chinese patents.
In the absence (a very long absence) of national security evidence to actually support Trump's claims, together with his very open admittance to seeing Huawei possibly included in a trade deal, the conclusion is clear and countries around the world have taken note.
Maybe it is about protectionism, but companies like Apple have a had time competing fairly against companies like Huawei. That is because companies like Apple spend hundreds of million on research and development and companies like Huawei just steal the technology with the support of the Chinese government. American can't compete fairly against Chinese subsidized labor either.
Pretty much all of Huawei's smart phones are rip offs. Huawei's leader dresses like Steve Jobs on stage.
I don't feel any pity for Huawei.
Tariff's date back to the Founding of our Country and were designed to level the playing field. Republicans and Democrats alike sold out when dropping Tariffs for Countries like China.
I say this as a person who would never vote for Carrot Head.
This is something that China was attempting to obtain from the WTO; status as a market economy;
"Without a WTO ruling in Beijing’s favor, the EU and United States can keep imposing duties on cheap imports from China while disregarding its claim that they are fairly priced.
China had insisted that they treat it as a “market economy”, countering their view that the price of Chinese exports could not be taken at face value due to state interference in the economy."
"But the United States and the EU disagreed. They said Chinese goods — especially commodities such as steel and aluminum — were still heavily underpriced because of subsidies and state-backed oversupply, giving Chinese exporters an unfair advantage.
I will note that there is plenty of evidence that Huawei telecom equipment is also massively underpriced compared to Samsung, Ericsson, and Nokia equipment, indicating support and subsidies from the Chinese Government.
The row had become an explosive issue for the United States, with President Donald Trump threatening to quit the WTO if the organization did not “shape up”.
I'd never vote for Trump either, but it seems that this is one thing that most of the U.S. is in agreement with; China isn't a fair player in the world economy, and worse, is an authoritarian threat that we are going to have to deal with.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Omg, if I could reach thru my screen to put duct tape over that stupid mouth of yours I would!!
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Omg, if I could reach thru my screen to put duct tape over that stupid mouth of yours I would!!
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Omg, if I could reach thru my screen to put duct tape over that stupid mouth of yours I would!!
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Omg, if I could reach thru my screen to put duct tape over that stupid mouth of yours I would!!
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
I suppose your STFU!!! applies to most of the EU, too.
You really need to keep up with current events.
Evidence provided.
See my previous link.
Is it enough?
Next up, radar tracking date at the time of the incident, linking the boat in the video to Iran.
Here'a a high resolution image of the Iranian boat;
I am very much up to date thank you very much.
The evidence is secondary to the point I was making. The point was that U.S claims are now taken as notcredibleuntil the credible evidence is tabled and that still might not be enough if calls for an independent investigation persist.
Can you see that? You are barking up the wrong tree. The fact that more information has been tabled has NOTHING to do with the point being made.
So, the U.S moved quickly on this case but with Huawei the complete opposite is true. Almost a decade of constant accusations and direct petitions from various governments for evidence and the table is bare.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Omg, if I could reach thru my screen to put duct tape over that stupid mouth of yours I would!!
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
I suppose your STFU!!! applies to most of the EU, too.
You really need to keep up with current events.
Evidence provided.
See my previous link.
Is it enough?
Next up, radar tracking date at the time of the incident, linking the boat in the video to Iran.
Here'a a high resolution image of the Iranian boat;
I am very much up to date thank you very much.
The evidence is secondary to the point I was making. The point was that U.S claims are now taken as notcredibleuntil the credible evidence is tabled and that still might not be enough if calls for an independent investigation persist.
Can you see that? You are barking up the wrong tree. The fact that more information has been tabled has NOTHING to do with the point being made.
So, the U.S moved quickly on this case but with Huawei the complete opposite is true. Almost a decade of constant accusations and direct petitions from various governments for evidence and the table is bare.
I am not surprised.
So, here's the rub.
I don't really want the West to purchase telecom hardware from a company that is deeply controlled by the Chinese Government.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Omg, if I could reach thru my screen to put duct tape over that stupid mouth of yours I would!!
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
I suppose your STFU!!! applies to most of the EU, too.
You really need to keep up with current events.
Evidence provided.
See my previous link.
Is it enough?
Next up, radar tracking date at the time of the incident, linking the boat in the video to Iran.
Here'a a high resolution image of the Iranian boat;
I am very much up to date thank you very much.
The evidence is secondary to the point I was making. The point was that U.S claims are now taken as notcredibleuntil the credible evidence is tabled and that still might not be enough if calls for an independent investigation persist.
Can you see that? You are barking up the wrong tree. The fact that more information has been tabled has NOTHING to do with the point being made.
So, the U.S moved quickly on this case but with Huawei the complete opposite is true. Almost a decade of constant accusations and direct petitions from various governments for evidence and the table is bare.
I am not surprised.
So, here's the rub.
I don't really want the West to purchase telecom hardware from a company that is deeply controlled by the Chinese Government.
Yes. A personal opinion. Valid for being just that but not grounds enough for what you have been trying to promote for over a year. And now with a new twist: organ harvesting!
An endless string of claims on Huawei that haven't stood up to scrutiny. As an opinion you have every right to voice it but the fact remains neither you or the U.S government have been able to support your claims. On top of that you still fail to distinguish between Huawei and the Chinese government. Believe me, if your government hasn't been able to prove that connection, I doubt your capacity to do so. As for government control, can you see the irony in this?:
If Huawei is taken off the entity list as a result of the - trade - talks it will blow a hole big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through, into the whole national security argument.
As it is, Trump has stirred things up to the point of doing more harm than good to U.S business interests.
U.S technology firms who serve Huawei will lose billions as a result and what about Google?: billions more?
This may sound far fetched at the moment but I can assure you Google is sitting up, paying attention and very probably regretting the day Trump took office:
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Omg, if I could reach thru my screen to put duct tape over that stupid mouth of yours I would!!
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
I suppose your STFU!!! applies to most of the EU, too.
You really need to keep up with current events.
Evidence provided.
See my previous link.
Is it enough?
Next up, radar tracking date at the time of the incident, linking the boat in the video to Iran.
Here'a a high resolution image of the Iranian boat;
I am very much up to date thank you very much.
The evidence is secondary to the point I was making. The point was that U.S claims are now taken as notcredibleuntil the credible evidence is tabled and that still might not be enough if calls for an independent investigation persist.
Can you see that? You are barking up the wrong tree. The fact that more information has been tabled has NOTHING to do with the point being made.
So, the U.S moved quickly on this case but with Huawei the complete opposite is true. Almost a decade of constant accusations and direct petitions from various governments for evidence and the table is bare.
I am not surprised.
So, here's the rub.
I don't really want the West to purchase telecom hardware from a company that is deeply controlled by the Chinese Government.
Yes. A personal opinion. Valid for being just that but not grounds enough for what you have been trying to promote for over a year. And now with a new twist: organ harvesting!
An endless string of claims on Huawei that haven't stood up to scrutiny. As an opinion you have every right to voice it but the fact remains neither you or the U.S government have been able to support your claims. On top of that you still fail to distinguish between Huawei and the Chinese government. Believe me, if your government hasn't been able to prove that connection, I doubt your capacity to do so. As for government control, can you see the irony in this?:
If Huawei is taken off the entity list as a result of the - trade - talks it will blow a hole big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through, into the whole national security argument.
As it is, Trump has stirred things up to the point of doing more harm than good to U.S business interests.
U.S technology firms who serve Huawei will lose billions as a result and what about Google?: billions more?
This may sound far fetched at the moment but I can assure you Google is sitting up, paying attention and very probably regretting the day Trump took office:
You have been unable or unwilling to understand that Huawei is under Chinese Government ownership, ie, a State Owned Enterprise, (SOE), excepting Ren's one percent share. Huawei has had plenty of opportunities to prove otherwise, but have not.
• The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company.
• We know nothing about the internal governance procedures of the trade union committee. We do not know who the committee members or other trade union leaders are, or how they are selected.
• Trade union members have no right to assets held by a trade union.
• What have been called “employee shares” in “Huawei” are in fact at most contractual interests in a profit-sharing scheme.
• Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned.
• Regardless of who, in a practical sense, owns and controls Huawei, it is clear that the employees do not."
This report, released by Professor Christopher Balding and Professor Donald Clarke, was based on unreliable sources and speculations, without an understanding of all the facts. They have not verified the information in the report with Huawei, and their conclusions are completely unsubstantiated. Huawei is a private company wholly owned by its employees. No government agency or outside organization holds shares in Huawei or has any control over Huawei.
Through the Union of Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd, Huawei implements an Employee Shareholding Scheme that complies with applicable laws and regulations. The Representatives’ Commission is the organization through which the Union fulfills shareholder responsibilities and exercises shareholder rights. As Huawei’s highest decision-making body, the Representatives’ Commission elects members of the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board.
In addition, the Commission makes decisions on important company matters, like capital increases, issuance of new shares, and profit distribution. Members of the Representatives’ Commission are elected by shareholding employees that have the right to vote. Daily operations of the Representatives’ Commission, Board of Directors, and Supervisory Board, including the selection of their members, comply with Huawei’s Articles of Governance.
They do not report to any government agency or political party, nor are they required to do so. We welcome experts and researchers who have an interest in this topic to visit Huawei’s exhibition hall of shares and exchange their thoughts and ideas.
(Professor Balding's)
"My response:
Like some of the other critical responses, the Huawei statement fails to identify any facts we got wrong. It does not identify any of the sources it believes are unreliable or wrong, or from which we drew the wrong conclusions. It complains that we did not verify the information with Huawei, but it doesn’t identify any specific thing we got wrong as a result. If Huawei is unwilling to tell me, it is not for me to guess which sources Huawei finds unreliable and then to defend their reliability, but I wonder whether they include State Administration of Industry and Commerce records, compiled with information supplied by Huawei, within that anathema. The only way to respond to this kind of critique is just to point back to our paper and say, “Tell me where you see a problem.” But that is precisely what the critics seem unwilling to do.
There being no specific criticisms to respond to, here is a response at a more abstract level.
Given that Huawei does not dispute any of the underlying facts, it seems that the only dispute is one about words: do the undisputed underlying facts about Huawei’s share ownership structure and virtual share system constitute something that can reasonably be called “employee ownership”? We don’t control the English language, and if Huawei wants to call it that they can. We don’t feel the system amounts to something we would call “employee ownership,” and we say so. But the main point of the paper is just to set forth the underlying facts. We include in the paper Huawei’s description of its Representatives’ Committee and what it does. We see our contribution as laying out in English the underlying facts, with citations to sources that allow anyone to retrace our steps and judge for themselves the reliability and appropriateness of the sources. Our bottom-line conclusion about what it all means is just our opinion. If readers disagree with our conception of what employee ownership means and prefer Huawei’s, that’s their opinion. As long as everyone understands what the structure is, what label one puts on it is not ultimately that important.
Some people have raised the issue of the purported share register at Huawei’s headquarters in Shenzhen. We don’t deny that there are paper books with records of something. Nor do we claim that the records are simply made up from nothing. But the question is, records of what? A name with some numbers beside it is not proof that the named person is an actual shareholder, especially given the fact that corporate records show who the actual shareholders are. Very possibly the paper books record the holdings of virtual shares under Huawei’s profit-sharing scheme.
While I’m gratified that so many people have found the paper interesting and useful, I’m also surprised. I want to stress that we don’t say anything new in the paper. We don’t discover new facts, and we don’t offer new interpretations. There’s nothing we say that hasn’t been said many times before in the Chinese media, and we cite a number of such reports, in addition to court cases in which the courts talk about Huawei-issued documents they have seen that discuss “virtual shares”. Huawei’s quarrel is apparently not just with us, but with the Chinese media, State Administration of Industry and Commerce records (themselves derived, to the best of my knowledge, from information submitted by the Huawei entities), and the court system.
Finally, I wonder if any of the earlier Chinese media reports making the identical points elicited a similar angry official statement from Huawei in response. If not, why not? Does Huawei object only to an English-language report?"
It is up to Huawei to provide transparency to prove they aren't in fact owned by the Chinese Government.
"BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States has called on China to curb the development of its state-owned enterprises (SOEs), a demand that China sees as an “invasion” on its economic sovereignty, Chinese state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday.
Trade tensions between Washington and Beijing escalated sharply earlier this month after the Trump administration accused China of having “reneged” on its previous promises to make structural changes to its economic practices.
Washington later slapped additional tariffs of up to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods, prompting Beijing to retaliate."
All in all, it is quite easy to see how Huawei has come to be the "pressure point" for the U.S. in both National Security, and trade. The WTO actually requires China to play by the rules; they haven't.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Omg, if I could reach thru my screen to put duct tape over that stupid mouth of yours I would!!
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
I suppose your STFU!!! applies to most of the EU, too.
You really need to keep up with current events.
Evidence provided.
See my previous link.
Is it enough?
Next up, radar tracking date at the time of the incident, linking the boat in the video to Iran.
Here'a a high resolution image of the Iranian boat;
I am very much up to date thank you very much.
The evidence is secondary to the point I was making. The point was that U.S claims are now taken as notcredibleuntil the credible evidence is tabled and that still might not be enough if calls for an independent investigation persist.
Can you see that? You are barking up the wrong tree. The fact that more information has been tabled has NOTHING to do with the point being made.
So, the U.S moved quickly on this case but with Huawei the complete opposite is true. Almost a decade of constant accusations and direct petitions from various governments for evidence and the table is bare.
I am not surprised.
So, here's the rub.
I don't really want the West to purchase telecom hardware from a company that is deeply controlled by the Chinese Government.
Yes. A personal opinion. Valid for being just that but not grounds enough for what you have been trying to promote for over a year. And now with a new twist: organ harvesting!
An endless string of claims on Huawei that haven't stood up to scrutiny. As an opinion you have every right to voice it but the fact remains neither you or the U.S government have been able to support your claims. On top of that you still fail to distinguish between Huawei and the Chinese government. Believe me, if your government hasn't been able to prove that connection, I doubt your capacity to do so. As for government control, can you see the irony in this?:
If Huawei is taken off the entity list as a result of the - trade - talks it will blow a hole big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through, into the whole national security argument.
As it is, Trump has stirred things up to the point of doing more harm than good to U.S business interests.
U.S technology firms who serve Huawei will lose billions as a result and what about Google?: billions more?
This may sound far fetched at the moment but I can assure you Google is sitting up, paying attention and very probably regretting the day Trump took office:
You have been unable or unwilling to understand that Huawei is under Chinese Government ownership, ie, a State Owned Enterprise, (SOE), excepting Ren's one percent share. Huawei has had plenty of opportunities to prove otherwise, but have not.
• The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company.
• We know nothing about the internal governance procedures of the trade union committee. We do not know who the committee members or other trade union leaders are, or how they are selected.
• Trade union members have no right to assets held by a trade union.
• What have been called “employee shares” in “Huawei” are in fact at most contractual interests in a profit-sharing scheme.
• Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned.
• Regardless of who, in a practical sense, owns and controls Huawei, it is clear that the employees do not."
This report, released by Professor Christopher Balding and Professor Donald Clarke, was based on unreliable sources and speculations, without an understanding of all the facts. They have not verified the information in the report with Huawei, and their conclusions are completely unsubstantiated. Huawei is a private company wholly owned by its employees. No government agency or outside organization holds shares in Huawei or has any control over Huawei.
Through the Union of Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd, Huawei implements an Employee Shareholding Scheme that complies with applicable laws and regulations. The Representatives’ Commission is the organization through which the Union fulfills shareholder responsibilities and exercises shareholder rights. As Huawei’s highest decision-making body, the Representatives’ Commission elects members of the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board.
In addition, the Commission makes decisions on important company matters, like capital increases, issuance of new shares, and profit distribution. Members of the Representatives’ Commission are elected by shareholding employees that have the right to vote. Daily operations of the Representatives’ Commission, Board of Directors, and Supervisory Board, including the selection of their members, comply with Huawei’s Articles of Governance.
They do not report to any government agency or political party, nor are they required to do so. We welcome experts and researchers who have an interest in this topic to visit Huawei’s exhibition hall of shares and exchange their thoughts and ideas.
(Professor Balding's)
"My response:
Like some of the other critical responses, the Huawei statement fails to identify any facts we got wrong. It does not identify any of the sources it believes are unreliable or wrong, or from which we drew the wrong conclusions. It complains that we did not verify the information with Huawei, but it doesn’t identify any specific thing we got wrong as a result. If Huawei is unwilling to tell me, it is not for me to guess which sources Huawei finds unreliable and then to defend their reliability, but I wonder whether they include State Administration of Industry and Commerce records, compiled with information supplied by Huawei, within that anathema. The only way to respond to this kind of critique is just to point back to our paper and say, “Tell me where you see a problem.” But that is precisely what the critics seem unwilling to do.
There being no specific criticisms to respond to, here is a response at a more abstract level.
Given that Huawei does not dispute any of the underlying facts, it seems that the only dispute is one about words: do the undisputed underlying facts about Huawei’s share ownership structure and virtual share system constitute something that can reasonably be called “employee ownership”? We don’t control the English language, and if Huawei wants to call it that they can. We don’t feel the system amounts to something we would call “employee ownership,” and we say so. But the main point of the paper is just to set forth the underlying facts. We include in the paper Huawei’s description of its Representatives’ Committee and what it does. We see our contribution as laying out in English the underlying facts, with citations to sources that allow anyone to retrace our steps and judge for themselves the reliability and appropriateness of the sources. Our bottom-line conclusion about what it all means is just our opinion. If readers disagree with our conception of what employee ownership means and prefer Huawei’s, that’s their opinion. As long as everyone understands what the structure is, what label one puts on it is not ultimately that important.
Some people have raised the issue of the purported share register at Huawei’s headquarters in Shenzhen. We don’t deny that there are paper books with records of something. Nor do we claim that the records are simply made up from nothing. But the question is, records of what? A name with some numbers beside it is not proof that the named person is an actual shareholder, especially given the fact that corporate records show who the actual shareholders are. Very possibly the paper books record the holdings of virtual shares under Huawei’s profit-sharing scheme.
While I’m gratified that so many people have found the paper interesting and useful, I’m also surprised. I want to stress that we don’t say anything new in the paper. We don’t discover new facts, and we don’t offer new interpretations. There’s nothing we say that hasn’t been said many times before in the Chinese media, and we cite a number of such reports, in addition to court cases in which the courts talk about Huawei-issued documents they have seen that discuss “virtual shares”. Huawei’s quarrel is apparently not just with us, but with the Chinese media, State Administration of Industry and Commerce records (themselves derived, to the best of my knowledge, from information submitted by the Huawei entities), and the court system.
Finally, I wonder if any of the earlier Chinese media reports making the identical points elicited a similar angry official statement from Huawei in response. If not, why not? Does Huawei object only to an English-language report?"
It is up to Huawei to provide transparency to prove they aren't in fact owned by the Chinese Government.
"BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States has called on China to curb the development of its state-owned enterprises (SOEs), a demand that China sees as an “invasion” on its economic sovereignty, Chinese state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday.
Trade tensions between Washington and Beijing escalated sharply earlier this month after the Trump administration accused China of having “reneged” on its previous promises to make structural changes to its economic practices.
Washington later slapped additional tariffs of up to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods, prompting Beijing to retaliate."
All in all, it is quite easy to see how Huawei has come to be the "pressure point" for the U.S. in both National Security, and trade. The WTO actually requires China to play by the rules; they haven't.
Tmay, you’re engaging with a professional troll, don’t you realize that? Doesn’t matter what evidence you provide, this asshat will just move the goalposts and twist facts around to support his BS.
Just let it go, not with the effort with this loser.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Omg, if I could reach thru my screen to put duct tape over that stupid mouth of yours I would!!
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
I suppose your STFU!!! applies to most of the EU, too.
You really need to keep up with current events.
Evidence provided.
See my previous link.
Is it enough?
Next up, radar tracking date at the time of the incident, linking the boat in the video to Iran.
Here'a a high resolution image of the Iranian boat;
I am very much up to date thank you very much.
The evidence is secondary to the point I was making. The point was that U.S claims are now taken as notcredibleuntil the credible evidence is tabled and that still might not be enough if calls for an independent investigation persist.
Can you see that? You are barking up the wrong tree. The fact that more information has been tabled has NOTHING to do with the point being made.
So, the U.S moved quickly on this case but with Huawei the complete opposite is true. Almost a decade of constant accusations and direct petitions from various governments for evidence and the table is bare.
I am not surprised.
So, here's the rub.
I don't really want the West to purchase telecom hardware from a company that is deeply controlled by the Chinese Government.
Yes. A personal opinion. Valid for being just that but not grounds enough for what you have been trying to promote for over a year. And now with a new twist: organ harvesting!
An endless string of claims on Huawei that haven't stood up to scrutiny. As an opinion you have every right to voice it but the fact remains neither you or the U.S government have been able to support your claims. On top of that you still fail to distinguish between Huawei and the Chinese government. Believe me, if your government hasn't been able to prove that connection, I doubt your capacity to do so. As for government control, can you see the irony in this?:
If Huawei is taken off the entity list as a result of the - trade - talks it will blow a hole big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through, into the whole national security argument.
As it is, Trump has stirred things up to the point of doing more harm than good to U.S business interests.
U.S technology firms who serve Huawei will lose billions as a result and what about Google?: billions more?
This may sound far fetched at the moment but I can assure you Google is sitting up, paying attention and very probably regretting the day Trump took office:
You have been unable or unwilling to understand that Huawei is under Chinese Government ownership, ie, a State Owned Enterprise, (SOE), excepting Ren's one percent share. Huawei has had plenty of opportunities to prove otherwise, but have not.
• The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company.
• We know nothing about the internal governance procedures of the trade union committee. We do not know who the committee members or other trade union leaders are, or how they are selected.
• Trade union members have no right to assets held by a trade union.
• What have been called “employee shares” in “Huawei” are in fact at most contractual interests in a profit-sharing scheme.
• Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned.
• Regardless of who, in a practical sense, owns and controls Huawei, it is clear that the employees do not."
This report, released by Professor Christopher Balding and Professor Donald Clarke, was based on unreliable sources and speculations, without an understanding of all the facts. They have not verified the information in the report with Huawei, and their conclusions are completely unsubstantiated. Huawei is a private company wholly owned by its employees. No government agency or outside organization holds shares in Huawei or has any control over Huawei.
Through the Union of Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd, Huawei implements an Employee Shareholding Scheme that complies with applicable laws and regulations. The Representatives’ Commission is the organization through which the Union fulfills shareholder responsibilities and exercises shareholder rights. As Huawei’s highest decision-making body, the Representatives’ Commission elects members of the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board.
In addition, the Commission makes decisions on important company matters, like capital increases, issuance of new shares, and profit distribution. Members of the Representatives’ Commission are elected by shareholding employees that have the right to vote. Daily operations of the Representatives’ Commission, Board of Directors, and Supervisory Board, including the selection of their members, comply with Huawei’s Articles of Governance.
They do not report to any government agency or political party, nor are they required to do so. We welcome experts and researchers who have an interest in this topic to visit Huawei’s exhibition hall of shares and exchange their thoughts and ideas.
(Professor Balding's)
"My response:
Like some of the other critical responses, the Huawei statement fails to identify any facts we got wrong. It does not identify any of the sources it believes are unreliable or wrong, or from which we drew the wrong conclusions. It complains that we did not verify the information with Huawei, but it doesn’t identify any specific thing we got wrong as a result. If Huawei is unwilling to tell me, it is not for me to guess which sources Huawei finds unreliable and then to defend their reliability, but I wonder whether they include State Administration of Industry and Commerce records, compiled with information supplied by Huawei, within that anathema. The only way to respond to this kind of critique is just to point back to our paper and say, “Tell me where you see a problem.” But that is precisely what the critics seem unwilling to do.
There being no specific criticisms to respond to, here is a response at a more abstract level.
Given that Huawei does not dispute any of the underlying facts, it seems that the only dispute is one about words: do the undisputed underlying facts about Huawei’s share ownership structure and virtual share system constitute something that can reasonably be called “employee ownership”? We don’t control the English language, and if Huawei wants to call it that they can. We don’t feel the system amounts to something we would call “employee ownership,” and we say so. But the main point of the paper is just to set forth the underlying facts. We include in the paper Huawei’s description of its Representatives’ Committee and what it does. We see our contribution as laying out in English the underlying facts, with citations to sources that allow anyone to retrace our steps and judge for themselves the reliability and appropriateness of the sources. Our bottom-line conclusion about what it all means is just our opinion. If readers disagree with our conception of what employee ownership means and prefer Huawei’s, that’s their opinion. As long as everyone understands what the structure is, what label one puts on it is not ultimately that important.
Some people have raised the issue of the purported share register at Huawei’s headquarters in Shenzhen. We don’t deny that there are paper books with records of something. Nor do we claim that the records are simply made up from nothing. But the question is, records of what? A name with some numbers beside it is not proof that the named person is an actual shareholder, especially given the fact that corporate records show who the actual shareholders are. Very possibly the paper books record the holdings of virtual shares under Huawei’s profit-sharing scheme.
While I’m gratified that so many people have found the paper interesting and useful, I’m also surprised. I want to stress that we don’t say anything new in the paper. We don’t discover new facts, and we don’t offer new interpretations. There’s nothing we say that hasn’t been said many times before in the Chinese media, and we cite a number of such reports, in addition to court cases in which the courts talk about Huawei-issued documents they have seen that discuss “virtual shares”. Huawei’s quarrel is apparently not just with us, but with the Chinese media, State Administration of Industry and Commerce records (themselves derived, to the best of my knowledge, from information submitted by the Huawei entities), and the court system.
Finally, I wonder if any of the earlier Chinese media reports making the identical points elicited a similar angry official statement from Huawei in response. If not, why not? Does Huawei object only to an English-language report?"
It is up to Huawei to provide transparency to prove they aren't in fact owned by the Chinese Government.
"BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States has called on China to curb the development of its state-owned enterprises (SOEs), a demand that China sees as an “invasion” on its economic sovereignty, Chinese state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday.
Trade tensions between Washington and Beijing escalated sharply earlier this month after the Trump administration accused China of having “reneged” on its previous promises to make structural changes to its economic practices.
Washington later slapped additional tariffs of up to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods, prompting Beijing to retaliate."
All in all, it is quite easy to see how Huawei has come to be the "pressure point" for the U.S. in both National Security, and trade. The WTO actually requires China to play by the rules; they haven't.
Tmay, you’re engaging with a professional troll, don’t you realize that? Doesn’t matter what evidence you provide, this asshat will just move the goalposts and twist facts around to support his BS.
Just let it go, not with the effort with this loser.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Omg, if I could reach thru my screen to put duct tape over that stupid mouth of yours I would!!
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
I suppose your STFU!!! applies to most of the EU, too.
You really need to keep up with current events.
Evidence provided.
See my previous link.
Is it enough?
Next up, radar tracking date at the time of the incident, linking the boat in the video to Iran.
Here'a a high resolution image of the Iranian boat;
I am very much up to date thank you very much.
The evidence is secondary to the point I was making. The point was that U.S claims are now taken as notcredibleuntil the credible evidence is tabled and that still might not be enough if calls for an independent investigation persist.
Can you see that? You are barking up the wrong tree. The fact that more information has been tabled has NOTHING to do with the point being made.
So, the U.S moved quickly on this case but with Huawei the complete opposite is true. Almost a decade of constant accusations and direct petitions from various governments for evidence and the table is bare.
I am not surprised.
So, here's the rub.
I don't really want the West to purchase telecom hardware from a company that is deeply controlled by the Chinese Government.
Yes. A personal opinion. Valid for being just that but not grounds enough for what you have been trying to promote for over a year. And now with a new twist: organ harvesting!
An endless string of claims on Huawei that haven't stood up to scrutiny. As an opinion you have every right to voice it but the fact remains neither you or the U.S government have been able to support your claims. On top of that you still fail to distinguish between Huawei and the Chinese government. Believe me, if your government hasn't been able to prove that connection, I doubt your capacity to do so. As for government control, can you see the irony in this?:
If Huawei is taken off the entity list as a result of the - trade - talks it will blow a hole big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through, into the whole national security argument.
As it is, Trump has stirred things up to the point of doing more harm than good to U.S business interests.
U.S technology firms who serve Huawei will lose billions as a result and what about Google?: billions more?
This may sound far fetched at the moment but I can assure you Google is sitting up, paying attention and very probably regretting the day Trump took office:
You have been unable or unwilling to understand that Huawei is under Chinese Government ownership, ie, a State Owned Enterprise, (SOE), excepting Ren's one percent share. Huawei has had plenty of opportunities to prove otherwise, but have not.
• The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company.
• We know nothing about the internal governance procedures of the trade union committee. We do not know who the committee members or other trade union leaders are, or how they are selected.
• Trade union members have no right to assets held by a trade union.
• What have been called “employee shares” in “Huawei” are in fact at most contractual interests in a profit-sharing scheme.
• Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned.
• Regardless of who, in a practical sense, owns and controls Huawei, it is clear that the employees do not."
This report, released by Professor Christopher Balding and Professor Donald Clarke, was based on unreliable sources and speculations, without an understanding of all the facts. They have not verified the information in the report with Huawei, and their conclusions are completely unsubstantiated. Huawei is a private company wholly owned by its employees. No government agency or outside organization holds shares in Huawei or has any control over Huawei.
Through the Union of Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd, Huawei implements an Employee Shareholding Scheme that complies with applicable laws and regulations. The Representatives’ Commission is the organization through which the Union fulfills shareholder responsibilities and exercises shareholder rights. As Huawei’s highest decision-making body, the Representatives’ Commission elects members of the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board.
In addition, the Commission makes decisions on important company matters, like capital increases, issuance of new shares, and profit distribution. Members of the Representatives’ Commission are elected by shareholding employees that have the right to vote. Daily operations of the Representatives’ Commission, Board of Directors, and Supervisory Board, including the selection of their members, comply with Huawei’s Articles of Governance.
They do not report to any government agency or political party, nor are they required to do so. We welcome experts and researchers who have an interest in this topic to visit Huawei’s exhibition hall of shares and exchange their thoughts and ideas.
(Professor Balding's)
"My response:
Like some of the other critical responses, the Huawei statement fails to identify any facts we got wrong. It does not identify any of the sources it believes are unreliable or wrong, or from which we drew the wrong conclusions. It complains that we did not verify the information with Huawei, but it doesn’t identify any specific thing we got wrong as a result. If Huawei is unwilling to tell me, it is not for me to guess which sources Huawei finds unreliable and then to defend their reliability, but I wonder whether they include State Administration of Industry and Commerce records, compiled with information supplied by Huawei, within that anathema. The only way to respond to this kind of critique is just to point back to our paper and say, “Tell me where you see a problem.” But that is precisely what the critics seem unwilling to do.
There being no specific criticisms to respond to, here is a response at a more abstract level.
Given that Huawei does not dispute any of the underlying facts, it seems that the only dispute is one about words: do the undisputed underlying facts about Huawei’s share ownership structure and virtual share system constitute something that can reasonably be called “employee ownership”? We don’t control the English language, and if Huawei wants to call it that they can. We don’t feel the system amounts to something we would call “employee ownership,” and we say so. But the main point of the paper is just to set forth the underlying facts. We include in the paper Huawei’s description of its Representatives’ Committee and what it does. We see our contribution as laying out in English the underlying facts, with citations to sources that allow anyone to retrace our steps and judge for themselves the reliability and appropriateness of the sources. Our bottom-line conclusion about what it all means is just our opinion. If readers disagree with our conception of what employee ownership means and prefer Huawei’s, that’s their opinion. As long as everyone understands what the structure is, what label one puts on it is not ultimately that important.
Some people have raised the issue of the purported share register at Huawei’s headquarters in Shenzhen. We don’t deny that there are paper books with records of something. Nor do we claim that the records are simply made up from nothing. But the question is, records of what? A name with some numbers beside it is not proof that the named person is an actual shareholder, especially given the fact that corporate records show who the actual shareholders are. Very possibly the paper books record the holdings of virtual shares under Huawei’s profit-sharing scheme.
While I’m gratified that so many people have found the paper interesting and useful, I’m also surprised. I want to stress that we don’t say anything new in the paper. We don’t discover new facts, and we don’t offer new interpretations. There’s nothing we say that hasn’t been said many times before in the Chinese media, and we cite a number of such reports, in addition to court cases in which the courts talk about Huawei-issued documents they have seen that discuss “virtual shares”. Huawei’s quarrel is apparently not just with us, but with the Chinese media, State Administration of Industry and Commerce records (themselves derived, to the best of my knowledge, from information submitted by the Huawei entities), and the court system.
Finally, I wonder if any of the earlier Chinese media reports making the identical points elicited a similar angry official statement from Huawei in response. If not, why not? Does Huawei object only to an English-language report?"
It is up to Huawei to provide transparency to prove they aren't in fact owned by the Chinese Government.
"BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States has called on China to curb the development of its state-owned enterprises (SOEs), a demand that China sees as an “invasion” on its economic sovereignty, Chinese state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday.
Trade tensions between Washington and Beijing escalated sharply earlier this month after the Trump administration accused China of having “reneged” on its previous promises to make structural changes to its economic practices.
Washington later slapped additional tariffs of up to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods, prompting Beijing to retaliate."
All in all, it is quite easy to see how Huawei has come to be the "pressure point" for the U.S. in both National Security, and trade. The WTO actually requires China to play by the rules; they haven't.
The problem here (or not, depending on your point of view) is that 'transparency' is not required as they say they are a private company.
The original paper made it clear that is was only an interpretation of the data they could gather. The follow up, simply re-affirms that interpretation and even restates that it is simply an opinion:
Our bottom-line conclusion about what it all means is just our opinion. If readers disagree with our conception of what employee ownership means and prefer Huawei’s, that’s their opinion
You are going to have to live with that reality.
On the other hand, Trump is spending billions of government money keeping farming companies afloat, of which many should have already gone out of business. Should we now consider those companies 'state owned'?
Or the billions of government money that went to Boeing? The WTO has already given its opinion on that:
Try reading past the issue of subsidies and take a deeper look at the attitude of the US described in that piece and you begin to get an idea of how things have gone off the rails with diplomacy, foreign policy and trade.
As you admit. You have a completely biased opinion and are 'anti' China (I hope that can be limited to the government and not the people). As l have mentioned before, though, perhaps you should stand by your anti Chinese conviction and actually do something that could work towards the change you see as necessary. That would involve telling manufacturers you will no longer purchase goods made in China. If all those who actually shared your opinion acted in tandem it would definitely move the needle. Of course you don't do that because your convictions aren't really strong enough (despite the bluster) and the complexities surrounding China are vast.
My personal opinion is that China has come a long way in 30 years and in a largely positive way. That isn't to say it is perfect but neither is the U.S or E.U.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Omg, if I could reach thru my screen to put duct tape over that stupid mouth of yours I would!!
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
I suppose your STFU!!! applies to most of the EU, too.
You really need to keep up with current events.
Evidence provided.
See my previous link.
Is it enough?
Next up, radar tracking date at the time of the incident, linking the boat in the video to Iran.
Here'a a high resolution image of the Iranian boat;
I am very much up to date thank you very much.
The evidence is secondary to the point I was making. The point was that U.S claims are now taken as notcredibleuntil the credible evidence is tabled and that still might not be enough if calls for an independent investigation persist.
Can you see that? You are barking up the wrong tree. The fact that more information has been tabled has NOTHING to do with the point being made.
So, the U.S moved quickly on this case but with Huawei the complete opposite is true. Almost a decade of constant accusations and direct petitions from various governments for evidence and the table is bare.
I am not surprised.
So, here's the rub.
I don't really want the West to purchase telecom hardware from a company that is deeply controlled by the Chinese Government.
Yes. A personal opinion. Valid for being just that but not grounds enough for what you have been trying to promote for over a year. And now with a new twist: organ harvesting!
An endless string of claims on Huawei that haven't stood up to scrutiny. As an opinion you have every right to voice it but the fact remains neither you or the U.S government have been able to support your claims. On top of that you still fail to distinguish between Huawei and the Chinese government. Believe me, if your government hasn't been able to prove that connection, I doubt your capacity to do so. As for government control, can you see the irony in this?:
If Huawei is taken off the entity list as a result of the - trade - talks it will blow a hole big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through, into the whole national security argument.
As it is, Trump has stirred things up to the point of doing more harm than good to U.S business interests.
U.S technology firms who serve Huawei will lose billions as a result and what about Google?: billions more?
This may sound far fetched at the moment but I can assure you Google is sitting up, paying attention and very probably regretting the day Trump took office:
You have been unable or unwilling to understand that Huawei is under Chinese Government ownership, ie, a State Owned Enterprise, (SOE), excepting Ren's one percent share. Huawei has had plenty of opportunities to prove otherwise, but have not.
• The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company.
• We know nothing about the internal governance procedures of the trade union committee. We do not know who the committee members or other trade union leaders are, or how they are selected.
• Trade union members have no right to assets held by a trade union.
• What have been called “employee shares” in “Huawei” are in fact at most contractual interests in a profit-sharing scheme.
• Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned.
• Regardless of who, in a practical sense, owns and controls Huawei, it is clear that the employees do not."
This report, released by Professor Christopher Balding and Professor Donald Clarke, was based on unreliable sources and speculations, without an understanding of all the facts. They have not verified the information in the report with Huawei, and their conclusions are completely unsubstantiated. Huawei is a private company wholly owned by its employees. No government agency or outside organization holds shares in Huawei or has any control over Huawei.
Through the Union of Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd, Huawei implements an Employee Shareholding Scheme that complies with applicable laws and regulations. The Representatives’ Commission is the organization through which the Union fulfills shareholder responsibilities and exercises shareholder rights. As Huawei’s highest decision-making body, the Representatives’ Commission elects members of the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board.
In addition, the Commission makes decisions on important company matters, like capital increases, issuance of new shares, and profit distribution. Members of the Representatives’ Commission are elected by shareholding employees that have the right to vote. Daily operations of the Representatives’ Commission, Board of Directors, and Supervisory Board, including the selection of their members, comply with Huawei’s Articles of Governance.
They do not report to any government agency or political party, nor are they required to do so. We welcome experts and researchers who have an interest in this topic to visit Huawei’s exhibition hall of shares and exchange their thoughts and ideas.
(Professor Balding's)
"My response:
Like some of the other critical responses, the Huawei statement fails to identify any facts we got wrong. It does not identify any of the sources it believes are unreliable or wrong, or from which we drew the wrong conclusions. It complains that we did not verify the information with Huawei, but it doesn’t identify any specific thing we got wrong as a result. If Huawei is unwilling to tell me, it is not for me to guess which sources Huawei finds unreliable and then to defend their reliability, but I wonder whether they include State Administration of Industry and Commerce records, compiled with information supplied by Huawei, within that anathema. The only way to respond to this kind of critique is just to point back to our paper and say, “Tell me where you see a problem.” But that is precisely what the critics seem unwilling to do.
There being no specific criticisms to respond to, here is a response at a more abstract level.
Given that Huawei does not dispute any of the underlying facts, it seems that the only dispute is one about words: do the undisputed underlying facts about Huawei’s share ownership structure and virtual share system constitute something that can reasonably be called “employee ownership”? We don’t control the English language, and if Huawei wants to call it that they can. We don’t feel the system amounts to something we would call “employee ownership,” and we say so. But the main point of the paper is just to set forth the underlying facts. We include in the paper Huawei’s description of its Representatives’ Committee and what it does. We see our contribution as laying out in English the underlying facts, with citations to sources that allow anyone to retrace our steps and judge for themselves the reliability and appropriateness of the sources. Our bottom-line conclusion about what it all means is just our opinion. If readers disagree with our conception of what employee ownership means and prefer Huawei’s, that’s their opinion. As long as everyone understands what the structure is, what label one puts on it is not ultimately that important.
Some people have raised the issue of the purported share register at Huawei’s headquarters in Shenzhen. We don’t deny that there are paper books with records of something. Nor do we claim that the records are simply made up from nothing. But the question is, records of what? A name with some numbers beside it is not proof that the named person is an actual shareholder, especially given the fact that corporate records show who the actual shareholders are. Very possibly the paper books record the holdings of virtual shares under Huawei’s profit-sharing scheme.
While I’m gratified that so many people have found the paper interesting and useful, I’m also surprised. I want to stress that we don’t say anything new in the paper. We don’t discover new facts, and we don’t offer new interpretations. There’s nothing we say that hasn’t been said many times before in the Chinese media, and we cite a number of such reports, in addition to court cases in which the courts talk about Huawei-issued documents they have seen that discuss “virtual shares”. Huawei’s quarrel is apparently not just with us, but with the Chinese media, State Administration of Industry and Commerce records (themselves derived, to the best of my knowledge, from information submitted by the Huawei entities), and the court system.
Finally, I wonder if any of the earlier Chinese media reports making the identical points elicited a similar angry official statement from Huawei in response. If not, why not? Does Huawei object only to an English-language report?"
It is up to Huawei to provide transparency to prove they aren't in fact owned by the Chinese Government.
"BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States has called on China to curb the development of its state-owned enterprises (SOEs), a demand that China sees as an “invasion” on its economic sovereignty, Chinese state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday.
Trade tensions between Washington and Beijing escalated sharply earlier this month after the Trump administration accused China of having “reneged” on its previous promises to make structural changes to its economic practices.
Washington later slapped additional tariffs of up to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods, prompting Beijing to retaliate."
All in all, it is quite easy to see how Huawei has come to be the "pressure point" for the U.S. in both National Security, and trade. The WTO actually requires China to play by the rules; they haven't.
The problem here (or not, depending on your point of view) is that 'transparency' is not required as they say they are a private company.
The original paper made it clear that is was only an interpretation of the data they could gather. The follow up, simply re-affirms that interpretation and even restates that it is simply an opinion:
Our bottom-line conclusion about what it all means is just our opinion. If readers disagree with our conception of what employee ownership means and prefer Huawei’s, that’s their opinion
You are going to have to live with that reality.
On the other hand, Trump is spending billions of government money keeping farming companies afloat, of which many should have already gone out of business. Should we now consider those companies 'state owned'?
Or the billions of government money that went to Boeing? The WTO has already given its opinion on that:
Try reading past the issue of subsidies and take a deeper look at the attitude of the US described in that piece and you begin to get an idea of how things have gone off the rails with diplomacy, foreign policy and trade.
As you admit. You have a completely biased opinion and are 'anti' China (I hope that can be limited to the government and not the people). As l have mentioned before, though, perhaps you should stand by your anti Chinese conviction and actually do something that could work towards the change you see as necessary. That would involve telling manufacturers you will no longer purchase goods made in China. If all those who actually shared your opinion acted in tandem it would definitely move the needle. Of course you don't do that because your convictions aren't really strong enough (despite the bluster) and the complexities surrounding China are vast.
My personal opinion is that China has come a long way in 30 years and in a largely positive way. That isn't to say it is perfect but neither is the U.S or E.U.
More irony (and before you go off on a rant about a 'Chinese government mouthpiece'), consider the actual facts and what they actually mean.
I am completely biased against Authoritarianism.
The difference between us appears vast. I see China retreating into Authoritarianism, where once I saw a least a glimmer of a democratic future for the Chinese People.
See the Hong Kong demonstrations if you want to know how Chinese people feel about freedom.
You, on the other hand, are quite the apologist for the Chinese Government, likely because you are vested in Huawei's brand, and Huawei's connection to the Chinese Government.
Your whataboutism wrt to trade is weak sauce.
Sad.
Edit
Interestingly enough, I've seen little support from you wrt the other Chinese Smartphone brands, nor ZTE, which also makes telecom equipment.
You really are just an overenthusiastic supporter of a single brand, Huawei, where I am actually the one interested in a better China for its people, hence why I am happy to see Apple continue in China, showing the very best of the Western world.
Making China bleed & change is much more important than a few lost jobs. Intellectual property theft costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
The case with Huawei isn't about making China 'bleed'. It is protectionism IMO.
Nah. As you know, the heads of six US intelligence agencies have explained to senators that it’s about a security threat, due to your knockoff hero’s allegiance to the murderous, authoritative regime that is the Communist Party. I know they’re apparently your role model, but giving our comms over to them is suspect.
People like you and the other feller had no problem accepting US intelligence findings when they told us Russia helped get Trump elected. But now that your heroes are the subject of scrutiny all of a sudden you refuse to accept that their investigations made it a good bet that the chinese communist party cannot be trusted.
We call this “cognitive dissonance”.
They explained there fears. Not much else.
So little in fact that no foreign state that has asked for evidence, actually received any.
Now the U.S is reaping the consequences of its 'national security' actions with many EU foreign ministers asking for an independent investigation into the oil tanker attacks.
With Huawei we are talking pure unadulterated protectionism and absolutely nothing else.
Which debriefings did you attend? How long have you been on the security committee?
LOL. You actually know nothing, Jon Snow. Just an astroturfer campaign.
I didn't attend any debriefings. Why would that be necessary? Did you?
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
How do you respond to the Australian's on security? They've done the risk analysis, and prompted the U.S., Canada and New Zealand to ban Huawei 5G as well. Britain is in such a weak position that they can't even make a decision without considering the economic impact that China's reaction to a Huawei ban would be.
No. protectionism is certainly the case.
The Australians have nothing either.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
By the way, it looks like "credible" evidence in the tanker attacks is in fact now available to EU Ministers, among others:
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
It is not about the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. It about the validity of the claims.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Omg, if I could reach thru my screen to put duct tape over that stupid mouth of yours I would!!
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
I suppose your STFU!!! applies to most of the EU, too.
You really need to keep up with current events.
Evidence provided.
See my previous link.
Is it enough?
Next up, radar tracking date at the time of the incident, linking the boat in the video to Iran.
Here'a a high resolution image of the Iranian boat;
I am very much up to date thank you very much.
The evidence is secondary to the point I was making. The point was that U.S claims are now taken as notcredibleuntil the credible evidence is tabled and that still might not be enough if calls for an independent investigation persist.
Can you see that? You are barking up the wrong tree. The fact that more information has been tabled has NOTHING to do with the point being made.
So, the U.S moved quickly on this case but with Huawei the complete opposite is true. Almost a decade of constant accusations and direct petitions from various governments for evidence and the table is bare.
I am not surprised.
So, here's the rub.
I don't really want the West to purchase telecom hardware from a company that is deeply controlled by the Chinese Government.
Yes. A personal opinion. Valid for being just that but not grounds enough for what you have been trying to promote for over a year. And now with a new twist: organ harvesting!
An endless string of claims on Huawei that haven't stood up to scrutiny. As an opinion you have every right to voice it but the fact remains neither you or the U.S government have been able to support your claims. On top of that you still fail to distinguish between Huawei and the Chinese government. Believe me, if your government hasn't been able to prove that connection, I doubt your capacity to do so. As for government control, can you see the irony in this?:
If Huawei is taken off the entity list as a result of the - trade - talks it will blow a hole big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through, into the whole national security argument.
As it is, Trump has stirred things up to the point of doing more harm than good to U.S business interests.
U.S technology firms who serve Huawei will lose billions as a result and what about Google?: billions more?
This may sound far fetched at the moment but I can assure you Google is sitting up, paying attention and very probably regretting the day Trump took office:
You have been unable or unwilling to understand that Huawei is under Chinese Government ownership, ie, a State Owned Enterprise, (SOE), excepting Ren's one percent share. Huawei has had plenty of opportunities to prove otherwise, but have not.
• The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company.
• We know nothing about the internal governance procedures of the trade union committee. We do not know who the committee members or other trade union leaders are, or how they are selected.
• Trade union members have no right to assets held by a trade union.
• What have been called “employee shares” in “Huawei” are in fact at most contractual interests in a profit-sharing scheme.
• Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned.
• Regardless of who, in a practical sense, owns and controls Huawei, it is clear that the employees do not."
This report, released by Professor Christopher Balding and Professor Donald Clarke, was based on unreliable sources and speculations, without an understanding of all the facts. They have not verified the information in the report with Huawei, and their conclusions are completely unsubstantiated. Huawei is a private company wholly owned by its employees. No government agency or outside organization holds shares in Huawei or has any control over Huawei.
Through the Union of Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd, Huawei implements an Employee Shareholding Scheme that complies with applicable laws and regulations. The Representatives’ Commission is the organization through which the Union fulfills shareholder responsibilities and exercises shareholder rights. As Huawei’s highest decision-making body, the Representatives’ Commission elects members of the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board.
In addition, the Commission makes decisions on important company matters, like capital increases, issuance of new shares, and profit distribution. Members of the Representatives’ Commission are elected by shareholding employees that have the right to vote. Daily operations of the Representatives’ Commission, Board of Directors, and Supervisory Board, including the selection of their members, comply with Huawei’s Articles of Governance.
They do not report to any government agency or political party, nor are they required to do so. We welcome experts and researchers who have an interest in this topic to visit Huawei’s exhibition hall of shares and exchange their thoughts and ideas.
(Professor Balding's)
"My response:
Like some of the other critical responses, the Huawei statement fails to identify any facts we got wrong. It does not identify any of the sources it believes are unreliable or wrong, or from which we drew the wrong conclusions. It complains that we did not verify the information with Huawei, but it doesn’t identify any specific thing we got wrong as a result. If Huawei is unwilling to tell me, it is not for me to guess which sources Huawei finds unreliable and then to defend their reliability, but I wonder whether they include State Administration of Industry and Commerce records, compiled with information supplied by Huawei, within that anathema. The only way to respond to this kind of critique is just to point back to our paper and say, “Tell me where you see a problem.” But that is precisely what the critics seem unwilling to do.
There being no specific criticisms to respond to, here is a response at a more abstract level.
Given that Huawei does not dispute any of the underlying facts, it seems that the only dispute is one about words: do the undisputed underlying facts about Huawei’s share ownership structure and virtual share system constitute something that can reasonably be called “employee ownership”? We don’t control the English language, and if Huawei wants to call it that they can. We don’t feel the system amounts to something we would call “employee ownership,” and we say so. But the main point of the paper is just to set forth the underlying facts. We include in the paper Huawei’s description of its Representatives’ Committee and what it does. We see our contribution as laying out in English the underlying facts, with citations to sources that allow anyone to retrace our steps and judge for themselves the reliability and appropriateness of the sources. Our bottom-line conclusion about what it all means is just our opinion. If readers disagree with our conception of what employee ownership means and prefer Huawei’s, that’s their opinion. As long as everyone understands what the structure is, what label one puts on it is not ultimately that important.
Some people have raised the issue of the purported share register at Huawei’s headquarters in Shenzhen. We don’t deny that there are paper books with records of something. Nor do we claim that the records are simply made up from nothing. But the question is, records of what? A name with some numbers beside it is not proof that the named person is an actual shareholder, especially given the fact that corporate records show who the actual shareholders are. Very possibly the paper books record the holdings of virtual shares under Huawei’s profit-sharing scheme.
While I’m gratified that so many people have found the paper interesting and useful, I’m also surprised. I want to stress that we don’t say anything new in the paper. We don’t discover new facts, and we don’t offer new interpretations. There’s nothing we say that hasn’t been said many times before in the Chinese media, and we cite a number of such reports, in addition to court cases in which the courts talk about Huawei-issued documents they have seen that discuss “virtual shares”. Huawei’s quarrel is apparently not just with us, but with the Chinese media, State Administration of Industry and Commerce records (themselves derived, to the best of my knowledge, from information submitted by the Huawei entities), and the court system.
Finally, I wonder if any of the earlier Chinese media reports making the identical points elicited a similar angry official statement from Huawei in response. If not, why not? Does Huawei object only to an English-language report?"
It is up to Huawei to provide transparency to prove they aren't in fact owned by the Chinese Government.
"BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States has called on China to curb the development of its state-owned enterprises (SOEs), a demand that China sees as an “invasion” on its economic sovereignty, Chinese state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday.
Trade tensions between Washington and Beijing escalated sharply earlier this month after the Trump administration accused China of having “reneged” on its previous promises to make structural changes to its economic practices.
Washington later slapped additional tariffs of up to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods, prompting Beijing to retaliate."
All in all, it is quite easy to see how Huawei has come to be the "pressure point" for the U.S. in both National Security, and trade. The WTO actually requires China to play by the rules; they haven't.
The problem here (or not, depending on your point of view) is that 'transparency' is not required as they say they are a private company.
The original paper made it clear that is was only an interpretation of the data they could gather. The follow up, simply re-affirms that interpretation and even restates that it is simply an opinion:
Our bottom-line conclusion about what it all means is just our opinion. If readers disagree with our conception of what employee ownership means and prefer Huawei’s, that’s their opinion
You are going to have to live with that reality.
On the other hand, Trump is spending billions of government money keeping farming companies afloat, of which many should have already gone out of business. Should we now consider those companies 'state owned'?
Or the billions of government money that went to Boeing? The WTO has already given its opinion on that:
Try reading past the issue of subsidies and take a deeper look at the attitude of the US described in that piece and you begin to get an idea of how things have gone off the rails with diplomacy, foreign policy and trade.
As you admit. You have a completely biased opinion and are 'anti' China (I hope that can be limited to the government and not the people). As l have mentioned before, though, perhaps you should stand by your anti Chinese conviction and actually do something that could work towards the change you see as necessary. That would involve telling manufacturers you will no longer purchase goods made in China. If all those who actually shared your opinion acted in tandem it would definitely move the needle. Of course you don't do that because your convictions aren't really strong enough (despite the bluster) and the complexities surrounding China are vast.
My personal opinion is that China has come a long way in 30 years and in a largely positive way. That isn't to say it is perfect but neither is the U.S or E.U.
More irony (and before you go off on a rant about a 'Chinese government mouthpiece'), consider the actual facts and what they actually mean.
I am completely biased against Authoritarianism.
The difference between us appears vast. I see China retreating into Authoritarianism, where once I saw a least a glimmer of a democratic future for the Chinese People.
See the Hong Kong demonstrations if you want to know how Chinese people feel about freedom.
You, on the other hand, are quite the apologist for the Chinese Government, likely because you are vested in Huawei's brand, and Huawei's connection to the Chinese Government.
Your whataboutism wrt to trade is weak sauce.
Sad.
Edit
Interestingly enough, I've seen little support from you wrt the other Chinese Smartphone brands, nor ZTE, which also makes telecom equipment.
You really are just an overenthusiastic supporter of a single brand, Huawei, where I am actually the one interested in a better China for its people, hence why I am happy to see Apple continue in China, showing the very best of the Western world.
I knew you would try to wangle a 'whataboutism' reference in there.
There is a 'whatabout' reference but it is not 'whataboutism'. LOL
They are not the same.
My first four paragraphs dealt with your original claim, and fully.
The second part highlights a reality you seem unwilling or unable to tackle.
Your inability to seperate Huawei from China has become chronic. They are not the same.
As I have said many times, I know something about Huawei. I can speak about them because of that. I know nothing about ZTE, hence I have little to add.
As for being an apologist for the Chinese government. I really don't speak about them that much, beyond stating the obvious. So labelling me as an apologist for them amounts to just another label you are firing off and like all the others - wrong.
The same applies to Trump. Everything I write about him and his presidency is such common knowledge and provable that there is simply little to question.
More often than not, he himself tweets himself into holes.
My point on trade is weak?
No.
This is weak. Unbelievably weak:
"You really are just an overenthusiastic supporter of a single brand, Huawei, where I am actually the one interested in a better China for its people, hence why I am happy to see Apple continue in China, showing the very best of the Western world."
You think buying Apple products made in China is in some way good for the future of the Chinese people!
Well, Apple has been manufacturing there for years, and according to you in this very thread, things are getting worse!
Comments
Pretty much all of Huawei's smart phones are rip offs. Huawei's leader dresses like Steve Jobs on stage.
I don't feel any pity for Huawei.
Tariff's date back to the Founding of our Country and were designed to level the playing field. Republicans and Democrats alike sold out when dropping Tariffs for Countries like China.
I say this as a person who would never vote for Carrot Head.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-wto-eu/china-pulls-wto-suit-over-claim-to-be-a-market-economy-idUSKCN1TI10A
"Without a WTO ruling in Beijing’s favor, the EU and United States can keep imposing duties on cheap imports from China while disregarding its claim that they are fairly priced.
China had insisted that they treat it as a “market economy”, countering their view that the price of Chinese exports could not be taken at face value due to state interference in the economy."
"But the United States and the EU disagreed. They said Chinese goods — especially commodities such as steel and aluminum — were still heavily underpriced because of subsidies and state-backed oversupply, giving Chinese exporters an unfair advantage.
I will note that there is plenty of evidence that Huawei telecom equipment is also massively underpriced compared to Samsung, Ericsson, and Nokia equipment, indicating support and subsidies from the Chinese Government.
The row had become an explosive issue for the United States, with President Donald Trump threatening to quit the WTO if the organization did not “shape up”.
I'd never vote for Trump either, but it seems that this is one thing that most of the U.S. is in agreement with; China isn't a fair player in the world economy, and worse, is an authoritarian threat that we are going to have to deal with.
Are you referring to the 'explanations' given years ago? The ones that also included a company with the name 'Huawei' in it but that wasn't even remotely connected with the Huawei they were targeting. Perhaps they were trying too hard!
Are you referring to explanations that were so convincing that no ban on Huawei phones was ever put in place?
Or are you referring to much more recent events where Germany asked for evidence (not explanations) and got none? The same events where, after not being able to provide any real evidence, a high ranking US official claimed that evidence wasn't necessary? Or the official U.S claim that no 'smoking gun' was needed because if the smoking gun existed, it meant 'you had already been shot'?
Well, that's s heck of a lot of years of trying as hard as they can and coming up empty handed! Really. Nothing? In almost a decade?
Now is your moment, if you, by some freak chance, actually have any evidence, it is time to provide it because those committees didn't do that for you and the world knows it.
On the other hand U.S interference in all things communications is quite widely documented, having been caught red handed (by the Germans no less!). We also have a truckload of nasty stuff from the NSA, not thanks to Mr. Snow but to your very own Mr. Snowden!
We also know that AT&T is widely regarded to have been pressured by the U.S to back out of a deal with Huawei (protectionism). We also know that Huawei phones were not even banned in the U.S! Some national security threat, right?
Of course if such a national security threat truly existed you would think AT&T would cut ties with Huawei but they didn't! In fact they still use Huawei equipment in Mexico! That's because national security isn't what all this is about. It is about protectionism.
You want to tell a story but few people want to listen to it because - it hasn't been backed up!
So, after 'urging' foreign states to ban Huawei (more interference) and getting nowhere, the U.S moved to direct threats and still got nowhere!
And now, with the pendulum of technological power and influence already swinging away from the U.S, and towards China no less, Trump only had one card left which he played last month. A tremendously foolish move.
That card has undermined the entire global supply chain on the whim of one country and set off a chain reaction that cannot be rewound. Ever. What has been seen cannot be unseen and eyes were wide open on the Huawei issue.
To make matters worse Mr. Trump can hardly get a tweet our without weakening his own position.
So, where are we now that the national security ruse is well and truly out of the bag?
Well, for one, hundreds of U.S companies are basically pleading with Trump to stop what he has done. The problem though, the root problem, is that the damage has already been done and the world is scurrying to reduce or eradicate any core dependency on U.S companies.
As Phil Schiller might say: "National Security, my ass!"
No. protectionism is certainly not the case.
If anybody had anything it would be the end of Huawei. It would crumble under its own wrongdoing. I can't see why they would even think about taking action that would effectively lead to self destruction.
I say what I always say. If you make accusations, at least back them up.
Have you asked yourself why EU ministers are demanding credible evidence in the case of the recent tanker attacks? Have you asked yourself why they are asking for an independent investigation?
The U.S has lost credibility. That is the reality now.
As for risk analysis, you are wrong to hold Australia as a torch bearer. Huawei has signed almost 50 commercial 5G contracts worldwide. Each one of those signatories has also carried out risk analysis.
Perhaps people should start carrying out risk analysis on some of the internet giants and see what conclusions are drawn. Is Facebook's record enough to have them banned world-wide? After all, they too are laying thousands of miles of undersea cables for communications. The same goes for Microsoft.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28574/u-s-releases-new-evidence-of-irans-involvement-in-tanker-attacks
The benefits of an MQ-9 Reaper drone and a Navy MH-60R helicopter overhead, both with AN/AAS-52 MTS surveillance and targeting sensor. That's the technical means that caught the Iranians attempting to retrieve a failed limpet mine on the ship's hull.
I'm guessing that you will deny that as well.
That you are so personally invested in Huawei welfare is impressive, but misguided.
They aren't the good guys in this; they are part and parcel of the Chinese Government, and I've posted a shit ton of links on that, that you are in denial of.
Claims, into and unto themselves, are now not enough when it comes to the U.S.
That is why credible evidence was sought.
A sorry state of affairs.
In the case of Huawei there has been none.
Many of us here have told you to do some actual due diligence and open those closed eyes of yours to see the true nature of the situation, yet you just keep your head so far up your ass and regurgitate the pro-China propaganda they spread is appalling!
Please, do everyone here a favour and learn something, or seriously STFU!!!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/gulf-of-oman-iran-tanker-attack-eu-uk-trump-uk-evidence-investigation-a8961776.html
I suppose your STFU!!! applies to most of the EU, too.
I am willing to bet it's an alien phrase for the bots here.
Evidence provided.
See my previous link.
Is it enough?
Next up, radar tracking date at the time of the incident, linking the boat in the video to Iran.
Here'a a high resolution image of the Iranian boat;
The evidence is secondary to the point I was making. The point was that U.S claims are now taken as not credible until the credible evidence is tabled and that still might not be enough if calls for an independent investigation persist.
Can you see that? You are barking up the wrong tree. The fact that more information has been tabled has NOTHING to do with the point being made.
So, the U.S moved quickly on this case but with Huawei the complete opposite is true. Almost a decade of constant accusations and direct petitions from various governments for evidence and the table is bare.
I am not surprised.
I don't really want the West to purchase telecom hardware from a company that is deeply controlled by the Chinese Government.
You know, those Chinese that harvest organs;
An endless string of claims on Huawei that haven't stood up to scrutiny. As an opinion you have every right to voice it but the fact remains neither you or the U.S government have been able to support your claims. On top of that you still fail to distinguish between Huawei and the Chinese government. Believe me, if your government hasn't been able to prove that connection, I doubt your capacity to do so. As for government control, can you see the irony in this?:
https://www.itwire.com/open-sauce/us-companies-obey-their-govt-–-as-huawei-was-accused-of-doing.html
If Huawei is taken off the entity list as a result of the - trade - talks it will blow a hole big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through, into the whole national security argument.
As it is, Trump has stirred things up to the point of doing more harm than good to U.S business interests.
U.S technology firms who serve Huawei will lose billions as a result and what about Google?: billions more?
This may sound far fetched at the moment but I can assure you Google is sitting up, paying attention and very probably regretting the day Trump took office:
Professors Christopher Balding and Donald Clarke;
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3372669
"In summary, we find the following:
• The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company.
• We know nothing about the internal governance procedures of the trade union committee. We do not know who the committee members or other trade union leaders are, or how they are selected.
• Trade union members have no right to assets held by a trade union.
• What have been called “employee shares” in “Huawei” are in fact at most contractual interests in a profit-sharing scheme.
• Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned.
• Regardless of who, in a practical sense, owns and controls Huawei, it is clear that the employees do not."
Huawei's response;
https://thechinacollection.org/huaweis-ownership-huaweis-statement-response/
"Huawei’s statement:
(Professor Balding's)
"My response:
Like some of the other critical responses, the Huawei statement fails to identify any facts we got wrong. It does not identify any of the sources it believes are unreliable or wrong, or from which we drew the wrong conclusions. It complains that we did not verify the information with Huawei, but it doesn’t identify any specific thing we got wrong as a result. If Huawei is unwilling to tell me, it is not for me to guess which sources Huawei finds unreliable and then to defend their reliability, but I wonder whether they include State Administration of Industry and Commerce records, compiled with information supplied by Huawei, within that anathema. The only way to respond to this kind of critique is just to point back to our paper and say, “Tell me where you see a problem.” But that is precisely what the critics seem unwilling to do.
There being no specific criticisms to respond to, here is a response at a more abstract level.
Given that Huawei does not dispute any of the underlying facts, it seems that the only dispute is one about words: do the undisputed underlying facts about Huawei’s share ownership structure and virtual share system constitute something that can reasonably be called “employee ownership”? We don’t control the English language, and if Huawei wants to call it that they can. We don’t feel the system amounts to something we would call “employee ownership,” and we say so. But the main point of the paper is just to set forth the underlying facts. We include in the paper Huawei’s description of its Representatives’ Committee and what it does. We see our contribution as laying out in English the underlying facts, with citations to sources that allow anyone to retrace our steps and judge for themselves the reliability and appropriateness of the sources. Our bottom-line conclusion about what it all means is just our opinion. If readers disagree with our conception of what employee ownership means and prefer Huawei’s, that’s their opinion. As long as everyone understands what the structure is, what label one puts on it is not ultimately that important.
Some people have raised the issue of the purported share register at Huawei’s headquarters in Shenzhen. We don’t deny that there are paper books with records of something. Nor do we claim that the records are simply made up from nothing. But the question is, records of what? A name with some numbers beside it is not proof that the named person is an actual shareholder, especially given the fact that corporate records show who the actual shareholders are. Very possibly the paper books record the holdings of virtual shares under Huawei’s profit-sharing scheme.
While I’m gratified that so many people have found the paper interesting and useful, I’m also surprised. I want to stress that we don’t say anything new in the paper. We don’t discover new facts, and we don’t offer new interpretations. There’s nothing we say that hasn’t been said many times before in the Chinese media, and we cite a number of such reports, in addition to court cases in which the courts talk about Huawei-issued documents they have seen that discuss “virtual shares”. Huawei’s quarrel is apparently not just with us, but with the Chinese media, State Administration of Industry and Commerce records (themselves derived, to the best of my knowledge, from information submitted by the Huawei entities), and the court system.
Finally, I wonder if any of the earlier Chinese media reports making the identical points elicited a similar angry official statement from Huawei in response. If not, why not? Does Huawei object only to an English-language report?"
It is up to Huawei to provide transparency to prove they aren't in fact owned by the Chinese Government.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china/china-says-u-s-demand-on-its-state-owned-enterprises-is-invasion-on-economic-sovereignty-idUSKCN1SV0I7?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
"BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States has called on China to curb the development of its state-owned enterprises (SOEs), a demand that China sees as an “invasion” on its economic sovereignty, Chinese state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday.
Trade tensions between Washington and Beijing escalated sharply earlier this month after the Trump administration accused China of having “reneged” on its previous promises to make structural changes to its economic practices.
Washington later slapped additional tariffs of up to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods, prompting Beijing to retaliate."
All in all, it is quite easy to see how Huawei has come to be the "pressure point" for the U.S. in both National Security, and trade. The WTO actually requires China to play by the rules; they haven't.
Just let it go, not with the effort with this loser.
The original paper made it clear that is was only an interpretation of the data they could gather. The follow up, simply re-affirms that interpretation and even restates that it is simply an opinion:
Our bottom-line conclusion about what it all means is just our opinion. If readers disagree with our conception of what employee ownership means and prefer Huawei’s, that’s their opinion
You are going to have to live with that reality.
On the other hand, Trump is spending billions of government money keeping farming companies afloat, of which many should have already gone out of business. Should we now consider those companies 'state owned'?
Or the billions of government money that went to Boeing? The WTO has already given its opinion on that:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-usa-aircraft-wto/wto-says-us-failed-to-halt-state-tax-subsidy-for-boeing-idUSKCN1R923B
Try reading past the issue of subsidies and take a deeper look at the attitude of the US described in that piece and you begin to get an idea of how things have gone off the rails with diplomacy, foreign policy and trade.
As you admit. You have a completely biased opinion and are 'anti' China (I hope that can be limited to the government and not the people). As l have mentioned before, though, perhaps you should stand by your anti Chinese conviction and actually do something that could work towards the change you see as necessary. That would involve telling manufacturers you will no longer purchase goods made in China. If all those who actually shared your opinion acted in tandem it would definitely move the needle. Of course you don't do that because your convictions aren't really strong enough (despite the bluster) and the complexities surrounding China are vast.
My personal opinion is that China has come a long way in 30 years and in a largely positive way. That isn't to say it is perfect but neither is the U.S or E.U.
And then there is this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/06/19/chinas-state-media-in-vicious-attack-on-top-u-s-senator-over-huawei-patent-law/#33a28fec74e3
More irony (and before you go off on a rant about a 'Chinese government mouthpiece'), consider the actual facts and what they actually mean.
The difference between us appears vast. I see China retreating into Authoritarianism, where once I saw a least a glimmer of a democratic future for the Chinese People.
See the Hong Kong demonstrations if you want to know how Chinese people feel about freedom.
You, on the other hand, are quite the apologist for the Chinese Government, likely because you are vested in Huawei's brand, and Huawei's connection to the Chinese Government.
Your whataboutism wrt to trade is weak sauce.
Sad.
Edit
Interestingly enough, I've seen little support from you wrt the other Chinese Smartphone brands, nor ZTE, which also makes telecom equipment.
You really are just an overenthusiastic supporter of a single brand, Huawei, where I am actually the one interested in a better China for its people, hence why I am happy to see Apple continue in China, showing the very best of the Western world.
There is a 'whatabout' reference but it is not 'whataboutism'. LOL
They are not the same.
My first four paragraphs dealt with your original claim, and fully.
The second part highlights a reality you seem unwilling or unable to tackle.
Your inability to seperate Huawei from China has become chronic. They are not the same.
As I have said many times, I know something about Huawei. I can speak about them because of that. I know nothing about ZTE, hence I have little to add.
As for being an apologist for the Chinese government. I really don't speak about them that much, beyond stating the obvious. So labelling me as an apologist for them amounts to just another label you are firing off and like all the others - wrong.
The same applies to Trump. Everything I write about him and his presidency is such common knowledge and provable that there is simply little to question.
More often than not, he himself tweets himself into holes.
My point on trade is weak?
No.
This is weak. Unbelievably weak:
"You really are just an overenthusiastic supporter of a single brand, Huawei, where I am actually the one interested in a better China for its people, hence why I am happy to see Apple continue in China, showing the very best of the Western world."
You think buying Apple products made in China is in some way good for the future of the Chinese people!
Well, Apple has been manufacturing there for years, and according to you in this very thread, things are getting worse!