U.S. Officially Blacklists Huawei (Updated)
- Paul Thurrott
- May 16, 2019
-
29
Updated: Huawei has provided a statement which I’ve added to the end of the article. –Paul
As part of a trade war with China, the United States government formally added Huawei to its Entity List, barring it from doing business with any company based in the United States.
The blacklisting happened in a two-step process. First, the president of the United States signed an executive order—that didn’t name China, Huawei, or any other China-based firms—that bars U.S.-based companies from using telecom gear from sources the administration believes are threats national security. Then, the U.S. Commerce Department formally added Huawei and numerous Huawei partners to the Entity List, so that it will be covered by the executive order.
As you might imagine, the U.S. government backed up its move—which included declaring a national emergency—with some solid evidence against Huawei. This evidence includes [this sentence intentionally left blank because there is no evidence].
China, predictably, reacted with outrage, and described the blacklisting as “a wrongful action.”
“China has always stressed that the concept of national security should not be abused,” a China Ministry of Commerce spokesperson said. “It should not be used as a tool to push forward trade protectionism.”
Huawei, which had to be expecting this move, appears resigned to the inevitable.
“Restricting Huawei from doing business in the U.S. will not make the U.S. more secure or stronger,” a Huawei statement notes. “Instead, this will only serve to limit the U.S. to inferior yet more expensive alternatives, leaving the U.S. lagging behind in 5G deployment.”
In addition to hurting Huawei and other big Chinese firms, this action will also harm big U.S. technology firms like Qualcomm and Broadcom that do business with companies in that country. And as CNN notes, the order could also harm smaller American telecom companies, especially those in rural and underserved areas, that rely on low-cost providers like Huawei.
“We’ll just have to see what it is and we’ll have a definite reaction one way or another,” the CEO of a small network that uses Huawei gear told CNN. “Because when all this equipment went in there was no talk of these issues. [Will] there be help to replace it?”
In addition to the blacklisting, the U.S. government is also petitioning its allies to ban Huawei from their national 5G infrastructures, and it has seen some mixed success, with many countries in Western Europe, plus Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, reevaluating their use of Huawei equipment. But many have likewise complained about the lack of evidence, and some countries, like the UK, have pledged to allow Huawei to participate going forward under ongoing security reviews.
The fears about Huawei are centered on one point only: It is based in China and there is a belief—which both Huawei and China have denied, repeatedly—that it is required to work hand-in-hand with Chinese security services. In other words, many believe that the Chinese government could compel Huawei to use its products to spy on the West.
“China’s main export is espionage, and the distinction between the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese ‘private-sector’ businesses like Huawei is imaginary,” Senator Ben Sasse said this week.
In response to these allegations, Huawei this week offered to sign no-spy agreements with Western governments and argued that spying on behalf of any government, China or otherwise, would effectively end its ability to compete globally.
“Huawei is the unparalleled leader in 5G,” a Huawei statement provided to Thurrott.com reads. “We are ready and willing to engage with the US government and come up with effective measures to ensure product security. Restricting Huawei from doing business in the US will not make the US more secure or stronger; instead, this will only serve to limit the US to inferior yet more expensive alternatives, leaving the US lagging behind in 5G deployment, and eventually harming the interests of US companies and consumers. In addition, unreasonable restrictions will infringe upon Huawei’s rights and raise other serious legal issues.”
Tagged with
Conversation 29 comments
-
skane2600
<p>This move is of dubious constitutionality and problematic enforceability. Not that different from declaring Facebook and Twitter as threats to national security and nationalizing them.</p><p><br></p><p>We really need Presidential power to be pared back to what the founders intended. </p>
-
pargon
Premium Member<p>Paul loves bashing Trump for moves like this when really Huawei has been on the list during the Obama administration as well. They have been stealing US Technology for decades. Long over due, applaud this action.</p><p><br></p><p>Paul should just move to China or Venezuela, Trump is so awful and these shithole countries are better than USA, obviously.</p>
-
Todd Northrop
<p>And when a deal finally happens that brings parity to the US-China trade relationship, Paul will yawn and make some disparaging remarks about Trump. Paul, please understand by writing in a partisan style you lose credibility in future articles, no matter if you're right or wrong. </p><p><br></p><p>In this case you are dead-wrong in your analysis, especially with your flippant remark about there being no proof. The proof is ample and has already provided to the public by the administration numerous times. It was also provided by the very intelligence agencies that you have undoubtedly been defending (along with all of your fellow liberals) as being above reproach with regard to anything that could hurt Trump.</p><p><br></p><p>I understand that being around other liberal nerds all the time has the ill effect of embuing your own personality with such traits, but for gosh sakes please leave it out of your commentary.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#428718">In reply to Speednet:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm not sure what you are talking about specifically, but if you are talking about proof (or even minimal evidence) that Huawei's network equipment contains deliberately planted backdoors, then, no, the administration has provided nothing of the kind.</p><p><br></p><p>Proof would not consist of a intelligence asset simply saying it is so, Proof would be forensic evidence easily obtained from the software or hardware of Huawei's equipment. As I've noted before, the capability to obtain this sort of evidence has been common knowledge at least as far back as the 80s and is not classified. The fact that such evidence has not been presented by government suggests it doesn't exist since revealing it would not in any way compromise intelligence assets or classified techniques.</p><p><br></p><p>Your comment about "liberal nerds" is kind of funny since engineering types traditionally are a rather conservative bunch. </p>
-
PeterC
<p>This will not end well for US tech companies nor US consumers. I really do understand both sides of the arguments, really do, but this Will not end well for you. Sorry. </p>