The United States government announced Monday that it has temporarily eased its dramatic trade restrictions on Huawei in order to minimize disruptions for its customers in the U.S.
As you may recall, the U.S. issued a startling attack against Huawei last week in blacklisting the firm from doing business with companies in the United States. The fallout was both quick and dramatic, with Google—which supplies Huawei with Android and associated apps and services—and other U.S.-based firms immediately cutting Huawei off. The moves threatened to materially harm Huawei’s mobile devices and networking businesses.
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
“Huawei has made substantial contributions to the development and growth of Android around the world,” a company statement noted, responding to the blacklisting. “As one of Android’s key global partners, we have worked closely with their open-source platform to develop an ecosystem that has benefitted both users and the industry. Huawei will continue to provide security updates and after sales services to all existing Huawei and Honor smartphone and tablet products covering those have been sold or still in stock globally. We will continue to build a safe and sustainable software ecosystem, in order to provide the best experience for all users globally.”
But after a weekend of introspection, sanity prevailed, if temporarily: The U.S. government gave Huawei and its U.S.-based customers and partners a 90-day reprieve on the blacklisting, essentially allowing business to continue as usual for now.
The U.S. moves against Huawei, which is an independent corporation with no legal ties to the Chinese government, is not completely unprecedented. But it is unusual, and the fall out was immediate. This was by design: The United States is currently involved in a quickly escalating trade war with China, and the presidential administration believes that this kind of threat will get China to bow to its demands.
For its part, Huawei has described the U.S. action against it as “bullying,” plain and simple, which is certainly accurate. Huawei is really just a pawn in a general campaign against China and its rising technological prowess, which the U.S. fears will lead to China surpassing it on the world stage. The resulting wave of fear and xenophobia—Chinese firms have a different relationship with their government than do U.S. and many western firms with theirs—has risen dramatically under the current administration.
“This is not just an attack against Huawei,” a company representative told Reuters. “It is an attack on the liberal, rules-based order.”
Perhaps. But it certainly worked. And now it remains to be seen how the trade war will be resolved, and whether Huawei will be allowed to do business with firms in the U.S. going forward. This isn’t over yet.
Stooks
<blockquote><em><a href="#429634">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>Microsoft ELECTS to do business with them. They are not forced to do business with them.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429891">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>You're repeating yourself. Read my debunk above.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429834">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>What is your imagined relationship between the American Communist Party and the China? </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#430080">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sure. Why are you making requests instead of responding to my comments?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429835">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't think he's going to respond to your straw-man challenge. </p>
Stooks
<blockquote><em><a href="#429584">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>The Chinese government controls everything in that country. Huawei is controlled by the government. They will do anything they ask. </p><p><br></p><p>The same government that has been caught time and time again using their militarized cyber espionage resources to hack multiple US companies. Remember the Google hacks? I won't even go into their human rights violations or the fact that their president is nothing but a dictator with a term that ends when he passes away.</p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(254, 254, 254); color: rgb(38, 38, 38);">In 2012 the US House Intelligence Committee published a report following a year-long investigation that found Huawei posed a security threat to the United States.</span> Multiple UK intelligence sources has said basically the same things about doing business with them.</p><p><br></p><p>The big problem will be if they get into the 5G infrastructure which is just now starting to build out. They could easily spy on anything at the base level, running through that equipment.</p><p><br></p><p>Huawei also rips off anything they want from any company because their government simply does not care about IP. I watched a video yesterday of some tech site that went over to China to visit Huawei, at their request, and they showed a Huawei store…..which was an exact copy of a Apple store, minus the logos. The same tables, with the same stands holding up products even the employees wearing t-shirts and the same type of badges. The PR guy with the tech site employee, who was an American working for Huawei was asked by the tech site guy "does this not look like a Apple store"? His answer, I do not think so. It was so completely obvious. </p>
Stooks
<blockquote><em><a href="#429603">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>You logic is flawed. The US government did not order Cisco/Microsoft/Apple etc to install code/hardware that would enable the NSA to spy. Those companies can elect to take a contract from the US government to develop that stuff.</p><p><br></p><p>China can and does order Huawei to develop, install, turn on and use their software/hardware to to spy for the Chinese intelligent services.</p><p><br></p><p>All countries spy on others. The US is a huge player in that arena no doubt. </p><p><br></p><p>All that other BS about Gitmo and treatment of Illegals at the border is debatable political horse shatt. Comparing how the US treats illegals trying to break into the US vs how China treats its own people that do not conform is a JOKE at best. Thanks for the laugh.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429904">In reply to Tom Wilson:</a></em></blockquote><p>If Paul were banning everyone here who disagrees with him we'd all be banned.</p>
Stooks
<blockquote><em><a href="#429633">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>I never said that Samsung or Microsoft did anything wrong. I agree they did do the things you said. They did it on their own, they did it for profit and both have been punished for it multiple times. Is not the former CEO of Samsung in prison? Did Microsoft not pay massive fines, especially in Europe for its actions?</p><p><br></p><p>Huawei does it for different reasons, state espionage. If they do it for profit, which I am sure they do, then the Chinese government gets the profit because you know they are communists. Will anyone in the Chinese government punish Huawei if they steal IP??? Of course not, especially if it makes the Chinese government or China a communist country stronger.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#430221">In reply to red.radar:</a></em></blockquote><p>When has any US company been held accountable in legal systems for following the government's orders?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429733">In reply to terry jones:</a></em></blockquote><p>Really, you think that's a valid comparison.?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429894">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>What comment of mine are you trying to respond to? I see you're ranting about China, but I don't see the connection to any post of mine.</p>
Stooks
<p>"<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">with no legal ties to the Chinese government"</span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Proven multiple times to be completely false.</span></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429591">In reply to Stooks:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's true In the same sense that US companies have no legal ties to the US government. If you take a very strict view of "legal ties" this ban was a legal tie between the US government and companies like Google.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429643">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>That's a bit of an insult to the non-Chinese countries. A lot of countries treat people better than we do in the US. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429886">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>How did "a lot of countries" become equivalent to Vietnam and the Philippines? You're really into this straw-man thing.</p>
Stooks
<blockquote><em><a href="#429630">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>A US company, say Microsoft, could tell the CIA, NSA or whomever to go pound sand and go to the press and tell them they did.</p><p><br></p><p>Can any Chinese company do the same?</p>
skane2600
<p>I suspect that quietly the administration knew they were on shaky legal ground once Google made the implications of this ban clear. It's one thing to ban products that have not yet been sold, effectively retroactively banning already-purchased and received products is quite another. Of course this ban was never about national security or human rights. </p><p><br></p><p>I suspect at the end of 90 days nothing will change. It's just a face-saving gesture on the part of the administration.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429641">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Such an agreement would either be BS like the North Korean one or something that China couldn't possibly agree to. I agree abut Trump's lawlessness, but it's harder for him to victimize people in other countries then it was to victimize people in the US.</p>
jedwards87
<blockquote><em><a href="#429640">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Exactly. But had Obama been the one to do this all these liberal technical people would be 100% blindly behind him. This is all about Trump. How can anyone support the Chinese government is beyond me.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429749">In reply to jedwards87:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm sure it's comforting to imagine that "liberal technical people" would approve of this if it were Obama doing it, but it's not true. Our Huawei phone could still end up unusable.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429885">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yes, at one time Saddam had chemical weapons, the press reported it and everybody knew it. Completely irrelevant to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq since they had been abandoned by that time.</p><p><br></p><p>The story in the Times is just about the dangers posed by these abandoned chemicals. It didn't provide any evidence that Saddam had an active chemical weapons program that could be a threat to Iraq's neighbors (and of course, it could never be a threat to the US since Iraq had no means to deploy these weapons against the United States).</p><p><br></p><p>I'm surprised that this article would still be used in an attempt to justify our invasion after being repeatedly debunked. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
jedwards87
<blockquote><em><a href="#429628">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>"And you just trusting any government is hilarious. #eyeroll" </p><p><br></p><p>So you admit you can't trust the Chinese government either right ? Isn't Huawei backed/part of/supported by the Chinese government ? </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429658">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Again, real evidence doesn't require any reports from spies. We've had the technology since at least the 80s to reverse-engineer any technology product. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429752">In reply to jjonas51:</a></em></blockquote><p>And US Administrations have claimed that a President has the power to designate <em>anyone</em> as an "Enemy Combatant" and lock them away indefinitely without a trial or any due process.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429876">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>Did you actually read what I wrote? There's no qualifications on the claim that a President has the power to determine that an individual an "Enemy Combatant". It doesn't matter whether a person fought against the US or where they are. </p><p><br></p><p>The irony of course is that the most common scenario for foreign fighters is when the US sends troops to foreign countries. We lead the world in Enemy Combatants.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429849">In reply to RobertJasiek:</a></em></blockquote><p>The US government (and sadly some of us citizens) have squandered the good will of other nations. We can leverage our previous good deeds for only so long. It's time for other nations not to make excuses for our bad behavior and I believe they are starting to do so. </p>
Stooks
<blockquote><em><a href="#429841">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yes I have. How many US families or citizens for that matter have been put into Gitmo?</p><p><br></p><p>Seriously wake up! Gitmo was a prison for war criminals, you know those that fought against us in war. Probably the nicest war prison in history.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429973">In reply to Stooks:</a></em></blockquote><p>Absolutely false. War criminals are individuals who have been found guilty of very specific crimes through some system of due process. Most people in Gitmo wouldn't quality both because they weren't accused of actual war crimes and they didn't have due process.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429765">In reply to brduffy:</a></em></blockquote><p>So at what percentage do you think people's rights kick in? If 1% of iPhone users phones stop working and Apple refused to fix them and you were one of the 1%, you wouldn't have any reason to complain?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429769">In reply to YouWereWarned:</a></em></blockquote><p>It would be much more accurate to call China a trading partner than an adversary. If China was such a big threat why wouldn't the government ban any manufacturing of US products over there? The very selective basis of the ban undermines the whole credibility of the security justification. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429825">In reply to terry jones:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's funny when people learn about college life from watching old TV shows and movies. There's no particular reason to think hippies would agree or disagree with the ban.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#429878">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sure, but can they code or read a schematic? </p>