"Threats to National Security"

[George K]

Huawei and ZTE

The Federal Communications Commission has formally designated two technology giants closely connected to the Chinese Communist regime as national-security threats to the integrity of telecommunications networks and the communications supply chain.

The designation applies to Huawei Technologies Company and ZTE Corporation.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai announced that, after a full investigation, the commission’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) concluded that “[b]oth companies have close ties to the Chinese Communist Party and China’s military apparatus, and both companies are broadly subject to Chinese law obligating them to cooperate with the country’s intelligence services.” Consequently, the companies pose “national security risks to America’s communications networks — and our 5G future.”

The designation, under a process the FCC adopted last year, in a November 22 order entitled “Protecting Against National Security Threats,” bars Huawei and ZTE from access to money in the Universal Service Fund. The USF is an annual $8.3 billion account funded by fees American consumers and businesses pay on their phone bills. The USF is designed to be spent on developing and maintaining secure networks; the point of the designation process is to foreclose spending on equipment supplied by companies that could threaten national security.

Huawei and ZTE were originally cited when the designation process went into effect. That triggered the PSHSB process that concluded with today’s formal designation announcement.

On Huawei, besides the company’s ties to the Chinese regime, the commission’s designation order noted:

Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, previously served as a director in the People’s Liberation Army of China (PLA), the armed forces of China and its ruling Communist Party, and that former Huawei employees have provided evidence showing that Huawei provides network services to an entity believed to be an elite cyber-warfare unit within the PLA.

The FCC further observed that credible reports had highlighted known cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities in Huawei equipment. Moreover, Congress and the executive branch have restricted the purchase and use of Huawei equipment; in fact, the Defense Department has banned the sale of Huawei devices on military bases and other DOD facilities worldwide.

DOD has placed similar prohibitions on ZTE, whose equipment is also notorious for cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities. The FCC also found that ZTE undermined the U.S. embargo on Iran by sending $32 million of American goods to Iran and then obstructing a Justice Department investigation.

[Loki]

Credible and verifiable. Although even now people will call political.

Yet we are to take as axiomatic that Trump knew about Russian bounties allowed by Putin on US troops with considerably less thought than the piece above.

[Axtremus]

“[b]oth companies have close ties to the Chinese Communist Party and China’s military apparatus, and both companies are broadly subject to Chinese law obligating them to cooperate with the country’s intelligence services.” Consequently, the companies pose “national security risks to America’s communications networks — and our 5G future.”

Obvious right from the start.

[taiwan_girl]

@Axtremus said in "Threats to National Security":

“[b]oth companies have close ties to the Chinese Communist Party and China’s military apparatus, and both companies are broadly subject to Chinese law obligating them to cooperate with the country’s intelligence services.” Consequently, the companies pose “national security risks to America’s communications networks — and our 5G future.”

Obvious right from the start.

Agree

[Mik]

Not hard to figure out, no.

[George K]

Does this qualify them as "thugs?"

China’s threats on behalf of Huawei are becoming desperate

But in the face of growing momentum against Huawei, which many Western governments fear will be forced to spy for Beijing, Chinese embassies have been doing a full court press in countries that have not yet made a decision.

In Germany, the Chinese ambassador threatened that country’s auto industry in China. The Chinese envoy to Denmark threatened the free-trade agreement with the Faroe Islands. In France, Beijing’s ambassador warned the government not to discriminate against Huawei, lest it threaten the development of European companies in China – this is the same envoy who, during his previous appointment to Canada, threatened “repercussions” if Ottawa rejected the Chinese company.

In the U.K., where the government had agreed in January to allow Huawei to supply as much as 35 per cent of the 5G network’s peripheral system, political pressure has mounted to reverse that decision. The government has initiated a club of 10 countries, called the D-10 – with “D” representing democracy – comprising the G7 plus India, South Korea and Australia to collaborate on 5G technology alternatives. The Chinese ambassador to Britain has now said that China would put a halt to its planned nuclear reactors and high-speed rail network in the U.K. if Huawei equipment is banned. And the chair of British bank HSBC warned the bank would face reprisals in China.

In Canada, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains said recently that China is “applying pressure” on Ottawa to accept Huawei for our 5G systems but that Canada will not be “bullied or pressured.” It was very good to hear that reassurance from Mr. Bains, as China only respects countries that are strong.

But we still don’t know exactly what “pressure” is being applied behind closed doors. In other countries, the Chinese ambassadors were specific about what was at risk if that particular country did not cave to China’s demands. We have already seen what the regime in Beijing will do to Canadian citizens and companies in its agitation for Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou’s release. But what are the nature of the threats being made to the Canadian government if it does not accept her company’s equipment?

And why is Beijing so desperate to have Huawei provide our 5G equipment? The company has repeatedly said it is independent of the government of China. But it is not a truly private company, as only 1 per cent is owned by Ms. Meng’s father – and 99-per-cent owned by a trade union committee accountable to the Chinese Communist Party. Private companies do not typically have their governments make dramatic threats on their behalf.

[taiwan_girl]

Intersting article @George-K

I dont think there is any mainland Chinese company that is not under the influence in some way of the government.

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in "Threats to National Security":

Intersting article @George-K

I dont think there is any mainland Chinese company that is not under the influence in some way of the government.

I agree.

And the unasked question is: "Why are we doing business with them?"

[Mik]

@George-K said in "Threats to National Security":

what

I think the intention was to bring them in. They have clearly demonstrated they do not value that except as a route to advantage.

[Rainman]

". . . only 1 per cent is owned by Ms. Meng’s father – and 99-per-cent owned by a trade union committee accountable to the Chinese Communist Party."

Sounds fine to me, no problem.

[Axtremus]

And the unasked question is: "Why are we doing business with them?"

For the businesspeople, it’s mostly greed.
For Trump, it’s stupidity.

Barack Obama had the astute strategy of uniting the Pacific Rim nations through the Trans-Pacific Partnership that excluded China, and that would have economically kept China in check. Trump unraveled the TPP and got into a senseless ”trade war” with China that needlessly served up the American agricultural industry as collateral damage, made his administration impotent against the Chinese government’s other transgressions because he’s too desperate to strike a trade deal that he so far cannot close with China, and pissed off just about every other trading partner that could have coordinated with the USA to keep China’s economic influence in check.

[bachophile]

I’m in the chapter in Bolton’s book on China and ZTE.

Interesting stuff.

[Jolly]

@Axtremus said in "Threats to National Security":

And the unasked question is: "Why are we doing business with them?"

For the businesspeople, it’s mostly greed.
For Trump, it’s stupidity.

Barack Obama had the astute strategy of uniting the Pacific Rim nations through the Trans-Pacific Partnership that excluded China, and that would have economically kept China in check. Trump unraveled the TPP and got into a senseless ”trade war” with China that needlessly served up the American agricultural industry as collateral damage, made his administration impotent against the Chinese government’s other transgressions because he’s too desperate to strike a trade deal that he so far cannot close with China, and pissed off just about every other trading partner that could have coordinated with the USA to keep China’s economic influence in check.

Yep, that Obama feller did some amazing things with Chinese trade, did he not?

[Larry]

@Axtremus said in "Threats to National Security":

And the unasked question is: "Why are we doing business with them?"

For the businesspeople, it’s mostly greed.
For Trump, it’s stupidity.

Barack Obama had the astute strategy of uniting the Pacific Rim nations through the Trans-Pacific Partnership that excluded China, and that would have economically kept China in check. Trump unraveled the TPP and got into a senseless ”trade war” with China that needlessly served up the American agricultural industry as collateral damage, made his administration impotent against the Chinese government’s other transgressions because he’s too desperate to strike a trade deal that he so far cannot close with China, and pissed off just about every other trading partner that could have coordinated with the USA to keep China’s economic influence in check.

You've said some stupid things before, but that one set a new record for stupid.