For the last
year-and-a-half, a major news wire investigative reporter has attempted to spin
fantastical tales of China-based multinationals either supporting Iranian
Government suppression of its citizens or circumventing U.S. export controls to
provide embargoed telecommunications or computing equipment to Iran. Playing somewhat fast and loose with the
facts, the Reporter's true agenda is as muddy as might be, at least seemingly,
his journalistic ethics.
In late
2011, while still at a major U.S. daily, the reporter wove a hole-ridden cloth
of a story suggesting that Huawei had in years past nefariously installed telecommunications
equipment in Iran that would allow police to intercept calls and track people based
on the location of their cellphones.
Huawei attempted to explain to the reporter that all telecommunications
equipment venders build network equipment to the same global specifications
which require an interface to allow for what is known as lawful intercept
(as mandated by the U.S. Government, among others). Huawei further explained that while the company incorporates the interface for lawful intercept into its solutions, Huawei does not produce lawful intercept solutions themselves nor has Huawei even been involved in providing services related to monitoring or filtering. Yet, the reporter chose to
ignore these facts.
But why
listen to Huawei? How about an official
U.S. Government report?
Nope. The reporter further opted to ignore the
Summer 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which
specifically found that no company had been identified as having violated the
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010
(CISADA) in terms of the export of
technologies to the Iranian Government for monitoring, filtering and disrupting
information flows. The GAO Report cited
"the lack of a clear distinction between technology exported to Iran to
disrupt the free flow of information versus technology exported to Iran to
support necessary and acceptable filtering and monitoring of
communication." This is common
industry knowledge, as Huawei had attempted to inform the journalist.
While his
mis-informed article did run, it did so with little traction and, it seems, the
reporter came to realize that his story was full of holes, so he shifted tack
in 2012. After uncovering and reporting
in the Spring of 2012 on shipping documents and contracts that seemed to show
that China-based ZTE was circumventing or poised to circumvent U.S. export
controls by shipping or planning to ship gear from IBM, Cisco, Oracle and others
(this matter, and the allegations of related ZTE document shredding remain
under U.S. Government investigation), the intrepid investigator – with what, by seemingly all accounts, was a legitimate and important story under his belt - decided to
take a wild leap and indict Huawei as well.
After all, both companies are based in China...
In October, 2012,
his news wire ran his report on purported Huawei attempts to circumvent U.S.
export controls with the shipment of around $20,000 worth of off-the-shelf
mobile antennas from a U.S. supplier.
Except, as he further reported, it wasn't actually Huawei that would
have been selling the antennas, and, in fact, the deal was never consummated. Nevertheless, the story spun on about evidence of "how China has become a backdoor way for Iran to obtain
embargoed U.S. computer equipment." Really? Well, no.
And, in any event, mobile antennas?
These are "computer equipment" that will somehow power Iran's
nuclear ambitions? Yes, no matter how
pedestrian, if an item is controlled, it is controlled, and should not be
shipped and in fact wasn’t. But c’mon, a
never-happened antenna deal presented as “China has become a backdoor way for
Iran to obtain embargoed computer equipment?”
A ridiculous and irresponsible stretch. And, an even more naive stretch is for the reporter to believe that Huawei would risk its global reputation and $32 billion in annual sales by facilitating or knowingly allowing some third party to facilitate "backdoor ways" for $20k worth of commodity radio antennas. Absurd.
Yet, with fire yet
elusive and smoke no more apparent, the reporter belched another article in
late December 2012, in what now increasingly seems a personal and quixotic
quest to fan the flames of fear, whether China- or Iran-related.
Yet again,
his story was about a Huawei "partner" supposedly engaged in yet
another never-consummated deal over two year ago which was reported to have involved the potential sale of HP
servers to an Iranian telecommunications service provider that, notably, was
reported to already possess a farm of the self-same servers. The reporter's bold "exclusive"
limped along based on mirrors but no smoke.
To his credit, he noted that "China's Huawei...says neither it nor
its partner, a private company registered in Hong Kong, ultimately provided the
HP products to the telecom.” Yet, in an
inexplicable leap, he then proclaimed: "Nevertheless, the incident
provides new evidence of how Chinese companies have been willing to help Iran
evade trade sanctions."
Um, no, it
doesn't. I mean, really, not at
all. And the suggestion that it does is
rather shocking from a journalistic ethics perspective. Yes, the reporter has clearly telegraphed his
intent to pursue a personal long-term prejudicial windmill-tilt at China-based
companies, but we should perhaps expect better of his editors.
What's going
on here? Well, Huawei is a global
telecom giant doing business across 150+ markets with over 500 operators in a
very dynamic industry and with a wide range of partners. Deal proposals are put together all of the
time, and, given that network deployments are usually quite similar from
market-to-market and operator-to-operator, it wouldn’t be shocking if a Huawei
partner drew from previous bid materials, slides, etc. in crafting an initial
proposal. Yet, the wire reporter points
to Huawei slides - marked confidential, no less (in my decades of professional
experience in government and the corporate world, I've found the word
"confidential" to be terribly overused on a wide range of anything-but-confidential
documents) - which have been incorporated into partner materials as being
evidence of some sort of Huawei or other party's conspiratorial
sanction-circumventing endeavor. That is
blatant - intentional, for whatever reason - misrepresentation on the part of
the journalist.
Here is a
fact: Huawei’s business in Iran – and globally - is in full compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations, including those of the UN, U.S. and EU. Furthermore, Huawei requires its partners to adhere
to the same commitments, to strictly abide by relevant laws and regulations. Think about it: The deals the wire reporter
was talking about never happened. Gee,
could it be that the system to ensure compliance with export controls actually
works?
Demonization
of Iran and China are nothing new and, to some extent or another, there are legitimate
concerns to be had with both countries, and, certainly, far more so with the
former than the latter at this moment in time.
Demonization of Huawei by proxy - by virtue of geographical heritage - is
also, sadly, nothing new. We expect
these things from politicians, and from partisan or perhaps fringe media, and
certainly competitors. But we should really
expect better from the mainstream media…
No comments:
Post a Comment