This is the first time in a few years that we've seen someone cram all of the anti-Huawei bullsh*t into one succinct piece. Sadly, the author won't respond to emails, phone calls, Twitter messages, etc., so, for the record (the bits in italics are rebuttal points):
Chinese Telecom Threatens U.S. Security
Wall Street Journal
By Patrick B. Pexton
11/07/2017
Giving Huawei the green light would allow
Beijing to spy on Americans.
Why?
The modern information and communications technology (ICT) industry is transnational,
essentially borderless. Companies like
Huawei, Cisco, Ericsson, Nokia, Microsoft, etc. are all global entities. They all conduct research and development,
code software, and design and assemble on a global basis. They all rely on common global supply chains,
sourcing inputs and labor from and in markets around the globe, including all
in China. To the extent that there are
threats facing these companies and their products, they are shared. Indeed, by virtue of the globalized nature of
the industry, no company is more secure or more vulnerable than any other,
regardless of their geography of headquarters.
Moreover, public revelations in recent years detailing various
State-developed (e.g. NSA TAO, CIA Vault 7) exploits of multiple ICT venders –
without their knowledge - have further demonstrated the universality of
vulnerability.
When President Trump meets with Chinese leaders
this week, he should consider an issue that has worried U.S. lawmakers for
years: the possibility of the Chinese telecommunications company Huawei
entering the U.S. market.
Huawei is a telecom giant,
so naturally part of this worry is about competition. It’s the third-largest
smartphone maker worldwide and also makes the back-end switches, routers and
other equipment that make cellular networks function.
Competition? With which American companies? Currently the U.S. cellular telecommunications
backbone relies primarily on Ericsson and Nokia (including former Alcatel
Lucent) as vendors – an effective duopoly that keeps costs high and the pace of
innovation slow. And what about the
hundreds of American companies that benefit from Huawei’s $10 billion in annual
procurements from U.S. suppliers? Should
we not care about their commercial success?
But the real concern is national security. Since
2011, when the House Intelligence Committee first began looking at Huawei,
members of Congress have been concerned that by using Huawei equipment,
Americans could invite the Chinese company to siphon information about them
back to the Chinese government.
See the point above about the nature of
the ICT industry.
Huawei calls itself an
employee-owned company, so its books are opaque to the public; and it’s run by
a private board whose members were first disclosed in 2011. Its founder and CEO
has longtime ties to China’s military, which is true of many Chinese companies.
But U.S. lawmakers think Huawei’s ownership is particularly problematic
because of the role telecommunications technology plays in national
infrastructure.
Well, the fact of the matter is that
Huawei’s books are audited annually by KPMG in advance of Huawei publishing a
very detailed and widely publicly available Annual Report.
In 2012 the House Intelligence Committee, after a
monthslong investigation, for national security reasons urged U.S. companies
not to form partnerships with Huawei and another big Chinese telecom
company called ZTE. It also urged the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
U.S. to block acquisitions, takeovers or mergers of U.S. companies with Huawei
and ZTE.
The House Intelligence Committee report
has been widely discredited, perhaps most succinctly by The Economist magazine
which labeled it “written for vegetarians.”
In brief, the assertions in the Report were premised on perceptions
that, despite the extensive information and documentation provided by Huawei
throughout the course of the Committee’s exercise, Huawei was deemed not to
have disproven unsubstantiated allegations made by others; The Report offered
no credible, factual evidence of its own.
In 2012, the Australian government banned Huawei
from bidding on equipment for its national broadband network out of security
concerns.
Huawei is a leading provider of commercial telecommunications infrastructure equipment in Australia.
In 2013 the U.S. government barred the purchase of Huawei
equipment by several U.S. government agencies, citing cybersecurity risks.
Huawei offers commercial
telecommunications solutions to commercial operators, not Government
entities. That said, Huawei is not aware
of any law, regulation or rule that prohibits the purchase or deployment of
Huawei equipment in the U.S.
This year, T-Mobile won an industrial-espionage
lawsuit against Huawei by showing that the Chinese company had stolen
technological secrets from clean rooms at T-Mobile’s testing center.
As one of the world’s leading
intellectual property rights holders – ranked number one in terms of patents
filed by the World Intellectual Property Organization Patent Cooperation
Treaty – Huawei considers respect for and protection of intellectual property a
cornerstone value for our company. Huawei
continues to believe in the merits of its defense to the allegations made by
T-Mobile. Notably, according to the jury's verdict, T-Mobile was not awarded
any damages relating to the trade secrets claim and there was no award of
punitive damages.
And Commerce Department officials are currently
investigating whether Huawei broke American trade controls on Cuba,
Iran, Sudan and Syria, according to the New York Times.
Huawei has very sophisticated trade
compliance programs in place globally to ensure that the company is always in accord
with U.S., EU, UN or other export control or sanctions policies. Huawei is cooperating fully with the U.S. Government
in terms of its inquiry.
Lawmakers are also worried because Huawei is
a prime bidder for South Korea’s new 5G nationwide cellular network. This
matters to the U.S. because in a confrontation with North Korea, the U.S.
military may need to use this infrastructure to communicate.
Huawei equipment is deployed, proven and
trusted across 170 markets, including virtually every NATO and OECD market,
without any reports of security incidents.
See also the points above about the nature of the ICT industry and
universal vulnerabilities.
Huawei has dismissed
American concerns, arguing that it is a legitimate business with the right to
compete in the U.S. under WTO rules. This is true.
Yes, it is.
But Congress and Mr. Trump should be vigilant. In
the 2016 elections, Russia hacked the Democratic Party, Twitter, Facebook and
Google, all without owning a major network provider in the U.S. But giving Huawei
a large telecommunications presence could make America an easy target for
Chinese spying.
Nonsense.
See points above about the nature of the ICT industry.
Congress and Mr. Trump should continue to monitor Huawei
and consider taking legal steps to block its entry into the U.S. market.
The U.S. has long been the bastion of
free trade and open markets. It would be
unfortunate for the U.S. to set market-distorting barriers precedents (which would likely be used against American companies competing abroad) that preclude
competition, innovation, and more ubiquitous and more affordable broadband in
the name of “security” concerns which – given the nature of the interdependent
and global ICT industry (see above) – would be utterly ineffective at securing
networks and data. Indeed, they would
create a false sense of security.
