Huawei Sues the U.S. Government

Posted on March 7, 2019 by Paul Thurrott in Cloud with 62 Comments

Huawei has sued the U.S. government, noting that its charges against the Chinese telecommunications giant were unfair and incorrect. The goal isn’t to repeal the U.S. ban on Huawei networking equipment, but rather to expose to other countries that the U.S. government has no evidence to support the charges.

“The U.S. Congress has repeatedly failed to produce any evidence to support its restrictions on Huawei products,” a statement attributed to Huawei chairman Guo Ping reads. “We are compelled to take this legal action as a proper and last resort.”

The lawsuit will force the U.S. government to make its arguments against Huawei public. This will work in Huawei’s favor, as the government doesn’t have any hard evidence to support its claims that the firm is a security threat. Instead, the U.S. government is driven by xenophobia and fear that Huawei’s relationship with the Chinese government, which is normal in that country, will help that government spy on the U.S.

Huawei also pointed out the hypocrisy of a U.S. government that was found, thanks to Edward Snowden’s leaks, to have illegally hacked Huawei’s network to steal information.

“The U.S. government has long branded Huawei as a threat, [but] it has hacked our service and stolen our emails and source code,” Mr. Guo explained during a press conference. “Still, the U.S. government is sparing no effort to smear the company and mislead the public about Huawei.”

The United States has, of course, pursued Huawei via other channels too, none of which are related to its fears of China-based surveillance. For example, Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of Huawei’s founder, is currently being detained in Canada on behalf of the United States on charges that the firm violated U.S. sanctions on Iran. The U.S. has also lobbied many other countries, with mixed results, to ban Huawei networking equipment.

In the UK, for example, Ciaran Martin, the leader of the National Cyber Security Center, said that Huawei has been present in that country’s telecommunications networks for over 15 years and is subject to strict security reviews, none of which have ever led to any suspicions.

“Our regime is arguably the toughest and most rigorous oversight regime in the world for Huawei,” he said, adding that Huawei’s networking equipment “is not in any sensitive networks, including those of the government. Its [hardware] is part of a balanced supply chain with other suppliers.” He said that any alleged security risks could easily be managed.

Not everyone agrees, of course. Some countries have joined the U.S. in banning Huawei from the coming years-long push to establish 5G networks around the globe. And others are currently debating whether to do so.

“We need to be able to vet individual cases in order to ensure our critical infrastructure is protected,” German lawmaker Katharina Droege told Al Jazeera. “That could lead to the exclusion of Chinese firms from building our 5G infrastructure.”

Tagged with ,

Join the discussion!

BECOME A THURROTT MEMBER:

Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Register
Comments (62)

62 responses to “Huawei Sues the U.S. Government”

  1. Thomas Parkison

    Let them sue, it ain't going to change anything; we're still not going to trust a company controlled directly by a communist state.

    • Subhadip Sen

      In reply to trparky:

      Please, share substantial evidence that Huawei is controlled by the government of the People's Republic of China.


      Paul's post above seems to suggest the opposite.

      • Tom Wilson

        In reply to Sen1:

        Paul's post reads like a press release from Huawei.
        The government of China controls every breath that anybody in that country takes. And to think otherwise is naive, or worse, disingenuous.


      • MachineGunJohn

        In reply to Sen1:

        No Paul's post above baselessly attributes this to xenophobia. There is no need to show the relationship of communist party control of the company, even if you ignore that, like all companies operating in China legally they have to turn over all data to the government anytime they ask for it. No FISA equivalent, no refusal, militarily enforced. Only option is daily beatings in prison for the rest of your shortened enemy of the state life after watching your government appointed replacement turn everything over as you were being dragged away. Yep still happens.

        • MachineGunJohn

          In reply to MachineGunJohn:

          And lest you think you're data is safe here remember when they conducted this test?

          "On April 8, according to Web security specialists, a small Chinese Internet service provider published a set of instructions under the Border Gateway Protocol, that directed Web traffic from about 37,000 networks to route itself via computer servers in China.

          The list was republished by China Telecom and briefly propagated itself across the global Web, which works on a trust system, with each server updating its routing instructions based on data provided by others in the network.

          He said China Telecom is not an independent commercial entity, calling it “a surrogate, owned and controlled by the Chinese government.”

          gov and .mil websites were affected by the 18-minute-long April 8 redirection, including those for the Senate, all four military services, the office of the secretary of defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration “and many others,” as well as commercial websites including those of Dell, Yahoo, Microsoft and"

      • coreyp

        In reply to Sen1:

        Chinese companies are legally required to have CCP members on their board.

        • Greg Green

          In reply to CoreyP:

          Now even joint ventures and foreign firms are required to have party committees. Some have already exercised significant power.


          NYT, Apr 2018: “One hammer and sickle at a time, the Communist Party is making its way deeper into everyday Chinese life — and that includes the foreign companies doing business there.


          “Honda, the Japanese automaker, changed its legal documents to give the party a say in how its Chinese factories are run. A Chinese state oil giant vowed to put the party front and center in its joint ventures with foreign partners.


          “And Cummins, the engine maker from Indiana, felt the party’s reach, too, when it tried to appoint a new manager for one of its China businesses. The party said no.”

      • Greg Green

        In reply to Sen1:

        “Government, the military, society and schools, north, south, east and west — the party leads them all.” Oct 2017, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, President of the People's Republic of China, Chairman of the Central Military Commission, "Paramount Leader" (since 2012), and "Core Leader" (since 2016).


        Foreign Policy dot com, Feb 2019: Huawei claims to be an independent firm, but China's own laws mandate a different reality.


        “The National Security Law (of 2015) requires all parties, including citizens, state authorities, public institutions, social organizations, and enterprises, “to maintain national security.” More specifically, and worryingly for the telecommunications industry, Article 28 of the Cybersecurity Law states that network operators, which include telecommunications companies such as Huawei, have to provide “technical support and assistance” to government offices involved in protecting national security.


        “The National Intelligence Law of 2017...instructs every organization or citizen to support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence work, building upon the legal framework set forth by both the national security and cybersecurity laws.


        “At high-tech enterprises such as Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent, company campuses have police-embedded cells, in which employees hand over sensitive information without due process.”


        To think operations there there are western in any way is delusional. The evidence has been available for years.

  2. provision l-3

    Unlike others I don't really have an issue with the U.S. government being asked to justify its stance and it is totally fair game for Paul to offer an editorial opinion on the subject. What I do find troubling is Paul's lack of transparency. He has reviewed a slew of Huawei products recently and has given them favorable reviews. What popped up in his most recent review is that Huawei is provided the unit to him for testing. What was unfortunate was that it didn't come up as part of the intro of the review. There was no "I received this from Huawei to review for X number of days/weeks". The only way it came up was when he mentioned that they would have provided a case as well. If they had done that we would have never known that Huawei was providing him with free product(s). So there is a basic issue of journalistic ethics here. When reviewing a product a reviewer should state up front if the unit was purchased or provided by someone else. The reviewer should state if they were given the product to keep or if they have to return it (realistically, they should refuse any product that they allowed to keep to avoid the perception of that their review is purchased). Lastly, in articles like this, Paul should be open about his relationship with Huawei.


    Since Paul clearly hasn't been transparent about products he is getting for free and his relationship with Huawei and that has damaged his credibility with product reviews in general and it hurts his credibility in articles like this.

    • jbinaz

      In reply to provision l-3:

      While I don't agree with Paul on the xenophobia comments, and think (admittedly without lots of research) that there probably is something wrong (who knows what) with Huawei, I don't think the free review units sway his objectivity, but being explicitly clear about when review units are provided certainly can't hurt.


      At this point, though, I typically assume that most reviewers, Paul or someone else, get a review unit provided.

      • provision l-3

        In reply to jbinaz:

        I think you have unintentionally proven my point though. We are all just left to guess as to what is happening.


        Thurrott dot com doesn't have a published statement of ethics for the site or by the authors or any publication of editorial process or standards. When you look at other common tech news sites (CNET, recode, the verge ..) they all publish these things. Because of that I know things like their reviewers do not keep anything they review nor accept anything of value from the companies they cover. I know that their advertising sales teams don't work with their review teams to ensure favorable coverage for advertisers. Personally I think Recode does the best on this front as their individual contributors all disclose things that may be considered a conflict of interest about them personally.


        What's funny/ironic is Paul will have his fits of claiming the mainstream tech media is biased and yet they are transparent about what they are doing and how they are doing it. On the other hand, Paul just went to MWC and wrote several glowing reviews of Huawei's presence there. Do we know that Huawei didn't pay for that trip? (I doubt they did, I honestly don't think Paul's influenced is broad enough for them to make that sort of investment.)


        The long and the short of it is that all of this could be rendered moot if the site followed standard journalistic practices and had an ethics statement.


  3. ecumenical

    Paul, as someone who respects your work and approach this is difficult to read:


    "This will work in Huawei’s favor, as the government doesn’t have any hard evidence to support its claims that the firm is a security threat. Instead, the U.S. government is driven by xenophobia and fear that Huawei’s relationship with the Chinese government, which is normal in that country, will help that government spy on the U.S."


    1. You don't know what evidence the US does or doesn't have.

    2. You're right that having the company's direction and leadership determined directly by the Chinese Communist Party is "normal" for a strategic enterprise in China. But I'm surprised that you think this has no bearing on whether they should be treated as just another private enterprise in the US.


    A few general points to consider:


    - You bring up Meng Wanzhou. Are you familiar with the hostages China has taken from Western firms over the past five years? GlaxoSmithKline was a famous case, and of course there are the additional Canadians just detained in retribution for Meng.

    - China forces foreign companies to enter into "joint ventures" with local "partners" as a condition of entering the Chinese market. MS Azure + Vianet, SAIC-GM for cars, etc. No foreign firm is allowed to hold majority ownership of a Chinese business, including their own "joint ventures" with local partners.

    - The current effort by Huawei to get redress from the US government through an independent court system is unavailable to any US company operating in China. The Party controls the country absolutely, with a "president" (in Chinese, he is always referred to as the Party Chairman - this should tell you something) who has just removed term limits so that he may remain in power as long as he wishes.


    I would strongly recommend reading more about these topics before deciding that you know more than the people following them closely, or that if Trump believes something that it must be wrong. A great person to start with is Bill Bishop at Axios.

  4. cadrethree

    The hypocrisy of Huawei and the Chinese government is rich. They would use our general freedoms against us? A authoritarian government and it's stooges trying to hold onto it's power through our courts of freedom. Rich. If western countries tried suing the China government they would die laughing.

    • skane2600

      In reply to cadrethree:

      Canada is holding a Huawei executive for violating a United States law. Perhaps the legal world is a little more complicated than you imagine.

      • cadrethree

        In reply to skane2600:


        The legal and political world's are very complicated, indeed. You could say this is a warning from a fading world power (US) to one of it's heirs (China) looking to pick it clean before it's even in the ground. I assume a deal will be reached with her once the message has received. Simply put this is a struggle to see which form of government will lead in the centuries that follow. Democracy or a authoritarian form of government. All these minor flare ups are set pieces being used.

  5. skane2600

    While US intelligence agencies aren't required by law to reveal evidence they have against a foreign nation, in this case there would be no good reason not to unless the "evidence" is limited to hearsay from assets. Whether Huawei has a backdoor in their equipment is a simple engineering question, not a political one. We've had the technology to make such a determination for over 30 years.

    • provision l-3

      In reply to skane2600:

      I would imagine "sources and methods" would be a reason to not want to disclose information but seriously, how clandestine of an operation can Huawei really be?

      • skane2600

        In reply to provision l-3:

        For a technical evaluation, the "source" would be the equipment itself and the "methods" are well known in the commercial world. At least one company stripped the casing off the Atari 2600's chips and looked at the internal circuitry to reverse engineer how it worked and sold the spec for about $20,000 in 1980s money.

        • provision l-3

          In reply to skane2600:

          Given that neither you nor I know how the government came up with their claims you are being speculative at best. I am inclined to agree with you and there is likely no reasons to hold back one what, if any, the government actually has. That said, "sources and methods" is commonly referenced for why the intelligence community is disinclined to divulge information publicly so it was worth pointing out that the there may be a legitimate reason as slim as a possibility as it is.

          • skane2600

            In reply to provision l-3:

            No, I was describing how the government should have come up with their claims if they were credible. We know from what happened with respect to Iraq how informants can supply the US with faulty claims for their own personal gain and how easily the US can believe them.

            • provision l-3

              In reply to skane2600:

              According to Huawei the U.S government has hacked their network and the government's claim is based on intent not an actual issue with Huawei hardware. So it is within the realm of reason that the concerns are based on something tangible like Huawei's communications email, wiretap ... whatever. Which gets back to sources and methods. So while I agree with your assessment that physical evidence should be easy to cough up and informants can be an Iraq level shit show there is more than those two options for evidence. And again, I'm absolute ly skeptical and with Paul on this.

              • skane2600

                In reply to provision l-3:

                But the legitimate basis for banning equipment isn't an accusation of intent but rather something amiss with that equipment. We can only speculate whether these weaker forms of "evidence" actually exist. We know the danger of relying on snippets of covertly acquired data to draw a specific conclusion and how the bias of those interpreting the communications can lead us astray.


                Update: There's some potential irony here: "Our illegal effort to obtain your data proves you have an illegal effort to collect our data".

  6. yaddamaster

    Chinese companies are controlled by the "Party" and their markets are manipulated to disadvantage foreign competition. As long as that continues I'm all for banning Huawei and all other Chinese companies. Give American companies five years to transition and move their operations to friendlier companies.


    But of course that's xenophobic to some. Whatever.

  7. bluvg

    "...the government doesn’t have any hard evidence to support its claims that the firm is a security threat."


    All the examples posted on this site here and previously notwithstanding?

    • skane2600

      In reply to bluvg:

      What "hard evidence" are you referring to?

      • bluvg

        In reply to skane2600:

        They've come up in just about every post about Hauwei... this controversy has been going on for many years now, especially on the IP theft side (which is indeed a security threat). There are plenty of examples of issues online, but here's one that's rather funny:


        https:// www.businessinsider.com/us-indictment-against-huawei-t-mobile-reads-spy-movie-2019-1

        • skane2600

          In reply to bluvg:

          No, IP theft is not a legitimate security threat in the general case. If a particular Hauwei product incorporates stolen IP there are numerous legal remedies that could be used including restricting the sale of that specific product. But it wouldn't be legitimate to ban all products regardless whether they incorporate stolen IP or not. Of course these kinds of disputes happen all the time between US based tech companies but the remedies are not so extreme in those cases.


          Of course my contention was that there was no "hard evidence" of a backdoor in Hauwei equipment that has been presented. The whole "IP theft is a security risk" claim appears to be a fall-back argument when the is no evidence of undisputed security risks.



          • bluvg

            In reply to skane2600:

            Undermining the pillars of a another nation's economy is most definitely an issue of national security. IP theft is part of the Chinese govt's plan (in writing).


            There was a recent case in which a major paint manufacturer had an employee of many years decide to move back to China. One help desk tech had the sense to audit the account as part of their user dereg process, and saw many GBs of research data copied to portable media. They intercepted the former employee at the airport. He later confessed that he was going to take the formula info back to China to produce paint there and then sell it back to the US (among other places). This would have put that manufacturer out of business, and possibly the entire US paint manufacturing industry.

            • skane2600

              In reply to bluvg:

              Sure, we'd be vulnerable to attack if we had no domestic paint companies.

              • bluvg

                In reply to skane2600:

                Take out our economy and there's nothing much left to defend.

                • skane2600

                  In reply to bluvg:

                  Even If the Chinese were able to illegally obtain 100% of the US IP they couldn't "take out our economy". It's an absurd exaggeration.

                • bluvg

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  Are you thinking in terms of black and white, 100% vs. 0%, back-to-the-stone-age total decimation of our economy? I'm not. Does the govt have an interest in protecting the jobs of thousands in one industry, a few thousand more in another industry, a few thousand more in yet another? It certainly does. If the loss of those jobs is due to IP theft of a foreign nation, is that a national security threat? Most definitely yes.

                • skane2600

                  In reply to bluvg:

                  There's nothing nuanced about the phrase "take out our economy". If your intent is to make a qualified statement, than make one. It's a common tactic to make a broad, unqualified statement and then walk it back when it's called out.

                • bluvg

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  "Take out our economy" is hardly a term of art or precise terminology. The assumption of the apocalyptic is your own. What I described is more than damage enough to raise the concern of the govt, and more than damage enough to the welfare of the nation.

                • skane2600

                  In reply to bluvg:

                  I think the term is well understood, but if it's imprecise, that's hardly the reader's fault for misinterpreting it.

  8. red.radar

    Publicity stunt ?


    just because other markets haven’t found issues through security audits doesn’t mean they don’t exist.


    You can never test in quality .. it has to be designed. Other markets are just using process as a means to justify some savings.


    but this is really about iptheft and the security argument was a bad way to go to address the issue

  9. panjjj

    Paul


    For a non xenophobic presentation of the concerned view on Huawei you should take a look at Daniel Cooper's piece on Engadget back on February 20th. This is not an easy issue to resolve and it seems a bit of a stretch for you to claim the US government doesn't have any hard evidence--you have a deep contact in NSA :) ? Joking aside, I think it is not yet clear how cautious policy should be on Huawei and a trial may not be conclusive either (for public discourse) due to the sensitivity on methods used to gather info on Huawei practices.

    • wright_is

      In reply to panjjj:

      The problem is, the US keeps spouting that Huawei can't be trusted, yet every time anybody (other governments, press) asks where the evidence is, they go quiet or spout that if they use Huawei, then the US will no longer be present in their country.

      It is a bit hypocritical, given the NSA has been caught tampering with, among others, HP networking gear, and Cisco has been removing dozens of back doors from their kit for the last year to 18 months.

      • panjjj

        In reply to wright_is: Fair points but the response was from Paul's statement that there is no evidence. We are just speculating and are not justified with that absolute position. Also, I think the defense that NSA/US is hypocritical is a straw man argument--point here is the alleged assertion of thievery which may be true whether or not the accuser is a thief as well. Hope the trial results in some hard evidence one way or the other. Cheers.


      • mattbg

        In reply to wright_is:

        It is hypocritical in one sense, but there's a difference between the US government surveilling its own people, and a foreign government surveilling the US people, US corporations, US military, and especially spying on the US government itself.


        It's not realistic to assume that a government in a world as complex as the one today will not have some kind of surveillance in play.


        I don't have a hardline position on this - just don't agree with the sense that there's no difference between domestic and international affairs. One is in our control to some extent and the other isn't.


        Is the Chinese government willing to use Qualcomm gear where it makes sense? This isn't rhetorical - it is a genuine question :)

        • wright_is

          In reply to mattbg:

          No, it is exactly the same, you are looking at it from a purely USA point of view. But the kit that the NSA intercepted was going to its allies in Europe, amonth other places. So, as a nation state, which is worse, buying kit with spyware from the USA or kit that could allegedly contain spyware from China?

          Answer: Both are completely inacceptable. The only really safe way forward is for each country to make 100% of their own communications and IT infrastructure, which is, for most nations, not a realistic proposition.

          So companies and nations have to take a more practical stance; do they buy expensive kit known to have been infected in the past from the USA, or do they buy cheap kit from China that is progressive, they have access to the full software stack and can examine it at will? If they can compile it and either load the firmware themselves or checksum the self-build from the available source code against what is loaded on the machines, they can be more certain that the software hasn't been tampered with than the kit out of the USA, where they have no access to the source code...

          Until the USA actually trumps up its evidence, I am inclined to be more open minded about using non-USA kit.


  10. RonH

    Why would any other country trust a government run by Trump?

    • MachineGunJohn

      In reply to RonH:

      All this Huawei vs US stuff started during the Obama administration, as did putting together the list of countries on the travel ban, another thing those without insight often mischaracterize as xenophobic. Trump had zero to do with it. You're also misguided if you think Trump runs the government. Perhaps you missed the 500+ house bills that never made it to a vote in the senate since Trump took office.

    • Bob Nelson

      In reply to RonH:
      Stop that. There are very few places left online that you left wing zealots haven't polluted. I had high hopes this site could avoid that.

      But I guess Paul has given you nuts permission after making a statement in an "article" like this:

      "the U.S. government is driven by xenophobia"

      I know that Paul is from Massachusetts, but he's done a pretty good job so far of keeping that crap out of here.

      Too bad, it was fun while it lasted.




  11. waethorn

    The US gov't is using this situation in a number of ways:


    1) They're weeding out Chinese tech companies that are willing (forced) to work with the Chinese gov't but won't work with the US gov't. Why? Technology backdoors for state spycraft, of course.

    2) Leverage against Canada. It makes Canada look bad in the foreign marketplace, especially considering Trudeau's Liberals' willingness to work with the Chinese gov't because Commies stick together. What you may not know is that Trudeau bent over and signed over Canada's soul to the US in the new USMCA in that Canada isn't allowed to negotiate with China independently anymore, without the US's permission. Much of this comes from the threat of BRICS as a world economic opponent to UN/EU/NATO/USMCA, which Iran is a proponent of, as is Venezuela. Pretty much any country that the US tried to commit regime change on.

    3) It's another foreign 5G technology company that the US can cross off their list to MAGA. There are absolutely no North American 5G technology companies in the front-running. Refer to point 1.


    Just FYI: If you're wondering about the Iran context in point 2: Huawei, a company in the BRICS founding member country of China, is negotiating with Iran, which is why the CEO's daughter got arrested - she was setting up deals with a US-sanctioned country. And the US doesn't want another BRICS member state.

  12. Daekar

    It's sort of getting to the point where it's not worth reading anything from Paul about this company... seriously. An opinion without evidence isn't worth much except as virtue signaling.


    I'll be glad to see the trial get underway so everybody can move forward, especially because they were wise enough to avoid challenging the right of the government to enforce the ban. They absolutely have the right, the conversation should be about whether or not it's a good decision in this specific case. I don't care whether the the ban is lifted or not, as long as the evidence supports the verdict... I'm just tired to hearing about it at this point.

    • wright_is

      In reply to Daekar:

      An opinion without evidence isn't worth much except as virtue signaling.

      Exactly. The US keeps blathering on about Huawei being a danger, but they never back up this opinion with any evidence. Oh, wait, that wasn't what you meant.

  13. cheetahdriver

    Considering how much of our defense infrastructure is dependent on the internet, this is a place where I feel an abundance of caution and more than a little deference to the intelligence community is in order. Most of the next gen conflict points are with China, and I would hate to find out that we were working on how quickly we could de-mothball F-4's after being "Cylon'd".


    Also I would point out that the public doesn't know (or need to know) everything that the intelligence agencies do. The fact that the intelligence agencies are united in this allegation, and that the Five Eyes countries are pretty unanimous in it as well, is good enough for me. The absence of public proof does not constitute a validation of the charge of xenophobia, and I agree with the other comments that Pauls opinions on this subject are beginning to get old.


    I use a ton of stuff made in China, hard not to these days. Lenovo PCs, Apple phones, and practically every screen on the market. I don't feel it's xenophobic to avoid one company in the crowd, and trying to smear the policy as such lessens and cheapens the argument.

    • jbinaz

      In reply to cheetahdriver:

      I think your last point is one that really makes the point our gov't. might have legit reasons to be wary about Huawei. Why aren't we going after Lenovo or other Chinese companies? Either the government just hasn't gotten around to other companies yet, or there is actually something to the allegations against Huawei.


      Sometimes I do wonder how open our government should be with regards to intelligence. I vacillate between thinking "they overstate the threat because military industrial complex" (regardless of administration) and "we have a right to know a lot more."


      I love the phrase "orange man bad", because it's mocks how reflexive some are when it comes to the current occupant of the white house. There is so much to criticize Trump for, but not everything he says or does is bad, in the same way not everything President Obama did was all bad or all good. Just like every other president. Trump can be abrasive as hell, probably more so than any other president, but you have to look beyond what he says and observe what he actually does.


      Anyway, time to step off my soapbox. Sorry if I hijacked your comment.

  14. waethorn

    "daughter of Huawei’s founder, is currently being detained in Canada on behalf of the United States on charges that the firm violated U.S. sanctions on Iran"


    Point of order here. She isn't being detained: she was arrested but is now out on $10M CAD bail under conditions of electronic surveillance, pending extradition.

  15. txag

    This reads like a Huawei press release, though they’re probably smart enough not to use the word xenophobia.

  16. melinau

    The truth is that it all depends on your perspective.

    There is no doubt that Huawei is very close to the CPC, that's their system, and one facilitated by Big Capital (mainly USA) to ensure cheap labour during globalisation. Everyone was fully aware that China would "steal" IP from the West during this period, and that China's Military Industrial Complex would end-up with access to, and control of the technologies involved. There was only minor espionage involved.


    The old adage about using a long spoon when you sup with the Devil applies here.

    The question is not "Will China use Huawei to spy on the West?" That they will engage in Cyber spying is a given "our" Intelligence Services have been at it for years. But most importantly Can we stop them from accessing our critical systems? Will allowing Huawei (and others) to build our infrastructure make it easier for them to spy on interfere with our systems?


    The answers to these kinds of questions determine whether Trump's policies and tweets are common-sense or Xenophobia. However given his propensity to shoot first, think second and never take advice, xenophobia is a more likely explanation.

Leave a Reply