Huawei Has a Plan to Help End Its War With Trump

During a rare interview, the company’s chief executive proposed negotiations with the Justice Department.

Comments: 208

  1. "going forward every purchase of telecommunications equipment will be transformed “from a business decision into a geopolitical one — a test of national allegiances to Washington or to Beijing.” We are already there, Tom Friedman. China is a rising power, with the demographics, savings, and manufacturing capacity to challenge the Pax Americana we have established not only in western Europe, but throughout much of Asia. The last thing the US needs is our telecommunications and data being intercepted and manipulated by an adversary that poses a far greater threat than the Soviets ever posed at any time during the Cold War.

  2. This trade dispute was started, inflamed and continued by one man, whose overarching concern is, always, to appear to be winning. Instead of spending time with nuanced responses, tactical business moves and geo-political considerations maybe they should try to figure out a way to make Trump look like a winner and then proceed with their original plans. Until then they have to put up with a trade partner whose position is always "My way or the Huawei."

  3. @Rick Gage I probably think of him as even more of an egghead than you do :) But specifically wrt China I love him.. There's no one in the world less trustworthy than Chinese govt. In the same vein I'd be happy if I were Chinese citizen because I expect my country to maintain technological, military and research superiority

  4. Let consumers decide for themselves if they want to buy Huawei stuff (and assume the risk of spying) or not. It’s quite an overreach for our government to tell consumers, including consumers in other countries, what brand of electronics they can buy.

  5. @HO Consumers cannot choose when it comes to the networking equipment, only their terminal. Obviously Huawei provides both, terminals and Networks, but the big issue here is about network suppliers.

  6. @Emmanuel Toledo Much of Huawei’s business is consumer products like cell phones and the government is targeting this too. Regarding network suppliers, you could have some providers use Huawei and others not and see which providers consumers pick.

  7. This article is referring to Huawei basestations not consumer smartphones.

  8. Let consumers decide for themselves if they want to buy Huawei stuff (and assume the risk of spying) or not. It’s quite an overreach for our government to tell consumers, including consumers in other countries, what brand of electronics they can buy.

  9. It is well known that Huawei has stolen and re-sold Cisco code, down to the bugs and spelling errors in technical manuals. People say that is old news and Huawei doesn't need to steal anymore. But culture - national and corporate - doesn't change overnight. This is not a court of law where the burden of proof is on the accuser. It is a commercial and geopolitical arena where no proof is required. Only trust is required. Huawei and China must earn - not demand - trust of their counter parties. To earn trust, they must change their behavior. Second problem is that of state owned enterprises. They simply can not be treated as normal private sector firms. They must be treated as part of the state. I am afraid that Trump only cares about himself - to project his image as dealmaker and to get reelected. He will capitulate on national interest just to help himself. The Chinese know that. Hence the olive branch. Be wary.

  10. @Global Citizen The Huawei/Cisco dispute was resolved in court with Huawei paying damages to Cisco. Tech companies steal IP from each other all the time, and we have a civil court system to deal with it. There’s no reason for the government’s to single out Huawei for this. And when the government uses state authority to wreck a business, it absolutely should bear the burden of proof. That’s what due process is. This isn’t a consumer or a business partner deciding to sever relations for commercial reasons.

  11. @Global Citizen "To earn trust, they must change their behavior." Such bravado. Yes, the authoritarian government of China and the 1.5 billion Chinese people and the $110 billion Huawei company will change their behavior because you demand it. Do you get the point of Tom Friedman's conclusions that "... months of impulsive Trump threats, tariffs, praises and then more threats have clearly led a lot of Chinese officials to conclude that Trump is an unstable character who always has to be seen to “win” and humiliate the other side, and therefore can’t be counted on for a big win-win deal — or even stick to it if one were agreed on. Better to let the talks drag on." Sounds like China doesn't trust Trump! Who needs to change their behavior?

  12. @HO Nice of you to defend Huawei because they paid their fine after being taken to court. But the real question is "Did they blush (like being ashamed of bad behaviour)?" and I don't think they did.

  13. Ah... we live in a complicated world. There is no doubt Huawei is a bad actor stealing technology when they can - a practice many other Chinese companies share in. But they also have cheap, good products with huge global market share. Common business thinking says US companies can maximize profits by working with Huawei. A couple of interesting factoids on Huawei and security. 1. Looking to Europe (Britian) ... they use Huawei but have a facility where they have complete access to source code of Huawei's products. Essentially, they can take the stuff apart to see what's in it. 2. Ironically, the NSA had completely hacked all Huawei equipment as revealed by Snowden. Must be annoying to them this was revealed.

  14. The first question that comes out of this is - What needs to be done to create an indigenous 5G networking manufacturer in the U.S., outside of depending on Huawei offering to share their 5G technology? Secondly, why should we trust a company that is in reality beholden to the Chinese Government, who, if we're honest here, and based on their track record, cannot be trusted?

  15. @CC We don't need Huawei to share their tech. We just need to invest heavily in research. The US government should launch a big initiative to work with US companies to create 5G tech.

  16. @Keith We already have 5G tech. The US just didn't organize companies to provide an entire end to end system like the CCP did. Here it's a bunch of individual companies with pieces of the puzzle. Huawei just put together the whole puzzle under one roof.

  17. The CCP owns and has control over Huawei in a way no other country does over their companies in our globalized economy. How is them installing the entirety of our next generation of communications networks not an existential threat? Mr. Friedman acts like this a singular opinion of the Trump administration, but my colleagues in cyber security (many liberal) that I've talked to applauded the move. Ren's offer of technology transfer and allowing us to add security should be followed up, but taking this "olive branch" at face value just because Mr. Friedman had a nice interview could be disastrous. You don't plug a USB drive a friendly Chinese national gave you into a classified system just because "well you haven't proved it has a virus on it yet."

  18. As a computer engineer with expertise in hardware and software (and networking), I have a simple solution to the Huawei problem: Escrow. Let Huawei and the US Govt select a mutually trusted third party. Let said 3rd party have full access to the hardware design and software source code. Let the third party check the code, compile the code and then publish the checksum. All incoming hardware must have comparable checksums or the hardware is held/returned. In addition, Huawei must modify the hardware to make it easy for the software checksum to be confirmed. As a side question: Why is it that no US manufacturer can make this equipment? Have we become that bad?

  19. @Kahman Software and firmware are constantly being updated, and for good (security) reasons. It's not as simple as having a hard checksum for the rest of 5G's life cycle, and even if it was finding every backdoor is virtually impossible; look at how often we're still finding accidental ones in Windows softare and Intel firmware. It isn't being manufactured in the US because it isn't economically viable yet. When people are willing to pay extra (or subsidize the construction enough) for 5G to manufacture the equipment with the fair wages and environmental policies we have in the US, they'll get built. China has an advantage in a highly exploitable labor force but also a centrally controlled government that pushes advancements in leaps and bounds regardless of economic viability, with 5G as with maglev and bullet trains as with massive ghost towns.

  20. This approach would only work if all the microchips in the 5G basestations were designed using Verilog or VHDL (logic synthesis). At the very least, both digital memories and radio frequency (analog) microchips do not use logic synthesis design methods. There is no “checksum” for these vital components.

  21. @Kahman The US lacks focus and worships the 'market'. We aren't bad at all, China just focused on 5G as a way to elbow out the US and dumped resources into making end to end equipment solutions. The market may allocate resources more efficiently but it doesn't do strategy especially geopolitical strategy.

  22. Maybe we need to ask, what is so wrong with American capitalism that we have no one in serious contention to provide global leadership on 5G?

  23. @Bradley Bleck By what criterion? Qualcomm, Intel, Quorvo, and Skyworks are global leaders in semiconductors. 5G must be built atop a dense fiber backbone. Maryland-based Ciena is a global leader in optical networking equipment, Acacia Communications is a global leader in optical subsystems, and Corning is a global leader in optical fibers and cables.There are at least a dozen US startups developing innovations that could disrupt the wireless market model. And finally, Verizon and AT&T each have defensible claims to being "first" with 5G.

  24. @Telecom Industry Analyst Hopefully none of those companies were foolish enough to move manufacturing to China.

  25. @Telecom Industry Analyst Chinas government was clever and made 5G a national priority. The US as usual just let the market decide but the market doesn't do long term strategy.

  26. Why should the US end the Trade War ? China is depressing Democracy in Hong Kong, More brutally every day Until that ends, no end to the Trade War

  27. @LarsThe trade war was never about human rights. Just like the war in Afghanistan was never about women's rights. Both will be thrown under the bus for commerce and money.

  28. @Lars We should end the trade war because we are losing the trade war and will help really hurt ours and the world economy. Like everything Trump does there is no strategic plan that is thought out. Trump is just a big bully and like all bullies will come to an unpleasant end. He has no possibility of "winning the trade war" until we all understand what the objectives are.

  29. This economic entanglement was a mistake from the start, drawn from the foolish wellspring of thought that China could be liberalized, if only they made cheap goods for us and provided a huge market and pool of labor for our greedy megacorporations to do what greedy megacorporations do. Thus emboldened, the wide-eyed political triumphalists ("End of History!") and the self-interested market forces got together to promulgate their joint China policy. We went along with it, too - the public - not like we had a choice, but it is clear to all that what we traded for is not a liberalizing China but a massive and highly-competent autocratic surveillance state that is now ready to export not just "shallow" goods but its ideology and approach to statehood. And why not? With the dysfunction wracking the democratic world? We can't just cut this gordian knot, but it is probably well past time to undo more and more of the binding, strangling threads.

  30. @JB You see it. I do too. It is a clear and epic choice to support evil or to reject and stop it. I wish someone at the Times had the intellectual integrity to publish a list of bad actions the Chinese Communist government has done internally and externally, not only to America. That list would sober everyone up. I see it as if we were on the eve of WWII and American companies were selling barbwire to Nazi Germany for its concentration camps. How can we in good conscience have any commerce with China? This is not a singular isolated question about One company, it is an overarching policy against a brutal authoritarian government we indirectly underwrite. ‘Remember, there are no private companies in China. All things belong to the State. Just ask Jack Ma.

  31. @JB Only because the US subverted and destroyed the hated Communist system that ruled China and replaced it with raw capitalism that has allowed China to function much more efficiently. Why did we do it? Facepalm!

  32. @Dan Woodard MD That is so revisionist I don’t even know where to start! I’m pretty sure Mao & Co. knew from the start that they didn’t have a friend in the US. Their benefactor was the USSR.

  33. trump, our genius leader may think that Huawei presents a security threat threat but here in France where I currently staying the apparently don’t think so as I just visited the Orange mobile phone store where they sell all of their models.

  34. This article is referring to basestations not smartphones - the other side of the network.

  35. As a telecom tech professional, I support the banning of Huawei 5G basestations in the US and allied countries telecom networks. This might be the only decision the Trump administration has made that I agree with. I do think this article underplays the US role in wireless technology development - for example, in my view, Qualcomm is the most important 5G wireless technology supplier in the world. Other US companies, such as Qorvo, Skyworks, Intel, Marvell, and several others also play vital roles in the 5G ecosystem. Ericsson and Lucent purchase their vital semiconductor technologies from them and other giants such as Broadcom. So by no means has the US fallen behind in 5G technology - indeed, the RF and digital semiconductor companies in the US lead the world in this technology by a mile.

  36. @Maury Wait a minute - The Trump Administration prevented Broadcom from buying Qualcom because (although the company is based in Singapore) its CEO is Chinese. is Broadcom also "hostile"? And Huawei was such a large customer for Qualcomm that Qualcomm lobbied against the trade ban. Are you saying that American companies have to be protected against their own decisions to do business with Hauwei, both as vendors and customers?

  37. @Dan Woodard MD My experience (I worked at Broadcom, Cypress, Analog Devices, NXP) is suggests these companies feel enormous stakeholder pressure to sell to whomever they can, short of breaking the law, so, yes, I guess I do feel it is important for US national security interests to be imposed on them by the federal government. Corporations are typically not known for thinking first about how their IP might be used to the detriment of the common good...

  38. The US deploying wireless data infrastructure designed and manufactured by a rival state sponsored company is absurd and I cant believe even the possibility of such a thing was not shelved years ago. Even if we check every box and virus scan all the software, its not a good look. China specializes in mass internet surveillance and IP theft. Would you buy meat from a cannibal? Lets get real and come up with realistic solutions and try not to further alienate ourselves from our trade partners.

  39. What set this all off was the Chinese passing a law that made it mandatory -- with heavy criminal penalties for noncompliance -- for Chinese companies to cooperate with the Chinese military if requested. If they want to repeal that law, we can work with Huawei and anyone else. If they will not repeal that law, it is inevitable that the telecommunications equipment we buy from the Chinese will be used for espionage. It is that simple. The Chinese have very different assumptions about privacy and the primacy of the state when it comes to information about their own citizens, which is no doubt even more severe with foreigners. They are not worth the risk to partner with. Sometimes, Mr. Friedman, I wonder who and what is influencing your choice of topics.

  40. @Brian Prioleau And the US has similar laws that force companies to open up cell phone communication to our government. The US doesn't have a good reputation for developing secure communications.

  41. The element that has not been discussed here is just what 5G is. The concern that China may "spy" into America's core is probably quite real--because of what 5G is. Americans and the rest of the world will be hooked up and locked into networks so comprehensive as a result of 5G that the average citizen can't imagine it today. But, 10, 15 years from today it will be so. That should be the issue. Obviously we don't want a Chinese company to hold the key to that future. But, will be be OK with an American company knowing absolutely everything about our private lives?

  42. "Otherwise we’re heading for a two-technology world, with a Chinese zone and an American zone, and a digital Berlin Wall running right down the middle." That is exactly the goal of the Americans who seek to decouple from China. It may help things that today Bolton is gone, but Pompeo seems to be of the same mind. "Huawei, China’s enormous telecom networking company that Beijing sees as a crown jewel of national innovation and the Trump team sees as a giant global espionage device." It is both. The national security concerns fear the one as much as the other. They want to limit China's "rise" to keep a step back from "peer competitor" status. They also know how much this could be used for spying, because the Americans are already doing that with their own. Too many American exceptionalists want to do unto others what they wouldn't allow others to do to us. 5G tech is just the latest front in that. We can't really get an agreement on 5G spying controls until we are willing to do the same. This is not really a trade dispute. It is a struggle for tech supremacy, about not allowing a peer competitor, and a struggle to decouple for the purpose of making a new cold war possible. The trade concerns are real. They are also being used as an excuse for real motives. These same people did not do this despite the same trade issues, for decades, and are still willing to allow the same trade issues with other countries, only now it is Vietnam and Bangladesh instead of China.

  43. As a person who has a long history in telecommunications I can say unequvocally that Huawei got its start by stealing technology and selling products below cost. I also believe they will violate UN sanctions and do business with the most ruthless regimes on the planet like North Korea. All Chinese corporations are ultimately under the control of the government and will spy on anyone if asked to do so. We may not have a domestic manufacturer of 5G technology but is well within the U.S. interest to nurture one. Finally the real problem with having our 5G technology controlled by the Chinese government is not that they can spy on us. We can implement end to end encryption that would prevent spying. As long as you do not buy a phone or end device (security camera etc.) made by a Chinese company you would probably be safe from eavesdropping.. What people have not grasped is that Huawei could install a remotely controlled shut down system in their 5G equipment that would bring the entire 5G network down all at once. It could be built into the custom hardware chips that no one could possibly detect. The only way to restart the network would be with the help of the Chinese government. The entire U.S economy could be brought to a stand still in seconds with no recourse. That is why we should not allow the use of Huawei equipment in our 5G network. Assurances of technology sharing or other promises from Huawei will not make us any less vulnerable.

  44. @JS I don't understand why the US and Silicon Valley have not been able to develop and implement 5G technology. Huawei certainly didn't steal that technology from the US since the US doesn't have the technology. The current "American" technology is certainly not free of people getting into our existing networks and doing bad things. Apparently Huawei products use Microsoft systems which are constantly breached by serious hackers and bad people. Huawei probably considers security problems are more likely to seep into their products through US systems on their systems. The best we can hope for is surveillance of both China and non China products and quick updates to fix the leaks through shared processes somewhat similar to what we do today. The US needs to develop good (perhaps better) 5G technology on a a very rapid process. This will require US government investment. We need one solution with competitors working together to produce a great maintainable system. If we have multiple companies producing competing products with inconsistencies from product to product we will never catch up with Huawei.

  45. In an argument, listen to who protests the most. Trump may be on to something. Huawei's 5G plans is the tombstone of American industry. We will go the say of Russia if we allow it. Huawei has made no effort to conceal their theft of American technology. Chinese hardliners want to win this fight. So, why let them? This is a cold war whether anyone says so or not. Let's fight it!

  46. The key is to dis-entangle several distinct issues: 1. National security: if Huawei is willing to have the guts of its network gear torn apart and analyzed by other engineers, that addresses the concerns over “backdoors to Beijing.” 2. Anxiety over “technology leadership”: Huawei has an end to end 5G architecture but many western companies are quite advanced in components for 5G systems. Industry standards, component supply arrangements, IP licensing etc. will all contribute to the reality of de facto collaboration. And again skilled engineers can tell right away if there are any state security-friendly features on 5G designs and products. There is no need for paranoia here, either about security issues or “falling behind in the tech arms race.” 3. A political settlement in the Canadian extradition case would be standard operating procedure but the US should never go along with the narrative that seizing the Huawei CFO was politically motivated. It wasn’t I don’t think. There were sales of Huawei products to companies on the US black list and there’s is evidence that the CFO knew of the plan to skirt the sanctions. And our broad extradition treaty with Canada is quite reasonable in light of our huge shared border and mutual economic intermingling. It’s important to highlight the difference between detaining suspected criminals under the rule of law and rounding up dissidents or state enemies for purely political reasons.

  47. @Cal Prof 2. There are plenty of skilled engineers at Apple,Google, Microsoft. Oracle, Cisco. etc. But how often do the release software updates because of security concerns that in most cases were discovered by outsiders? Can expect these skilled engineers to review Huawei code and find back doors?

  48. It's not a stretch to assume Huawei does surveillance in China of Chinese citizens for the CCP, and that this is on demand and routine. Further, it's probably true, that the core technology to do this through embedded software in chips came from the NSA, stolen, but another point being the NSA was doing this here, in spite of Congress specifically voting it down in 1996. That is was secret and done in the Bush administration meant that their motives were entirely suspect, the same for any government program to spy on their citizens. (Google also does this. Recently I did a search for the phone # of the UCSF orthopedic clinic; the next day i had two feeds for home remedy knee braces. Fb cooperates in this; does the New York Times? Another point here: Google and other monopoly internet companies would still be rich from advertising without tracking. The basic intent of tracking is theft, what fascists do all the time. Even a little is not good.) That Huawei wants to negotiate in good faith (the right phrase) to make this go away is understandable. They are the embodiment of Chinese economic progress--jobs, infrastructure, and accumulated wealth. But they have no choice but to obey their government, which is political repression at every turn (Trump and the GOP are trying to do that here). That they would export this through backdoor communications is highly likely. I attended a class with student presentations on Huawei while in China. Like AT&T in the 1950s.

  49. Huawei is clearly an arm of the Chinese government. When Meng was detained in Vancouver at the behest of the U.S. justice department the Chinese government (not Huawei) retaliated against Canada. Two Canadians are still held in the conditions described here, and China has blocked import of Canadian beef, pork and canola. Friedman notes that Canada has stood with the U.S. despite the above actions by China. However, the U.S. doesn't return the support: see Saudi Arabia actions against Canada and U.S administration's "they're both our friends", Trump's rants against the Canadian prime minister, bullying tariffs against a neighbor and long-time ally, etc.!

  50. @Juno16 The last paragraph of your post illustrates why many Canadians have lost trust in the US and are boycotting US products in our stores or online.

  51. @Juno16 The US put trade sanctions on Turkey after Turkey arrested the American pastor Andrew Brunson, but that doesn’t make Brunson’s church an arm of the US government. Meng should never have been arrested for doing business with Iran as it is no business of the US who Huawei does business with.

  52. @HO If they use US products in their equipment then it is US business who they do business with. If you don't like it, make your own tech from what China has developed organically, then it's none of US's business. Thats the problem now isn't it, China doesn't have a modern tech industry without us machine tooling, OS, and software design tools. Go ahead and make chips without US machinery, oops, those foundries in Taiwan use US produced lithography machines and software, good luck!

  53. China has to reverse course in several major ways, starting with the law requiring all companies in China to be extensions of the government if and when asked, requiring foreign companies to turn over their technologies, and limiting foreign participation in many sectors of their economy. Don’t hold your breath. At the same time, the US does some of the same things, let’s be honest. I think many have lost the plot on who and what instigated the House investigation of Huawei to begin with. Finally, while China may have hegemonic dreams, perhaps they only want a real seat at the table, and the US has to accept the fact that there’s another great power after their own decades of hegemony replete with a litany of bad actions any reasonably aware person could ramble off. Huawei is an exceptionally capable company but their laundry is dirty too. Maybe that’s in their past. People change, so can companies. So Ren’s proposal is worth some consideration IF China (Xi) can agree to some meaningful changes to their current position.

  54. How would the world be worse off with a 'Digital Firewall' between Chinese 5G and The-Rest-Of-The-World 5G? If China presents a digital espionage problem, would containment be for the best?

  55. For a few decades there was a calculated risk that if global markets opened to China, China would evolve to become a responsible member of a global order with values of open markets and societies. Tien An Men and the sidelining of more open minded leaders like Zhao Ziyang was a warning, but China was given a 2nd chance and thanks to the hard work of former Premier Zhu Rongji, China gained entry into the WTO. With the rise of Xi Jinping and the renewed authoritarianism at home and assertiveness globally to change the very system that allowed China to prosper (most ungrateful), the calculated risk to lay a global welcome mat is over. Under Xi China is ideologically committed to a course that is anathema to free world values. As long as he or someone of his ilk is at the Chinese helm we must unfortunately change course to constrain China's technological advances that also offer military, and espionage advantages abroad, and political repression powers at home. The question is not whether Huawei is currently engaging in espionage but the fact that they are obligated to the CCP to use their networks for espionage if requested in the future. A selective decoupling from China is needed to prevent advancement in dual use technologies. China has crowded out other developing countries from opportunities for export led growth. This could be rectified by moving supply chains. Xi has created a backlash to China's rise. Hopefully his aspirations for lifetime rule will be curtailed.

  56. Any negotiating conditions with China, should include they get more concessions if they become a Democracy. Lets not forget their hatred of democratic rule as is shown by their attitude to the crackdown on Tiananmen Square and how Tank Man just "disappeared". Same could be said for Hong Kong and the arrests of teachers, lawyers, public servants, students etc etc for protesting. Just imagine how wealthy ALL Chinese citizens could become if China was a democracy instead of a communist nation like North Korea. No become a Democracy - NO NEGOTIATIONS

  57. Currently, there are only four major global telecom network equipment manufacturers: Ericsson (Sweden), Nokia (Finland), Samsung (S. Korea) and Huawei (China). Aside from China, the United States is the largest market for telecom networking equipment in the World. Twenty years ago, it was rumored in the industry that Huawei was "copying" key components of Ericsson & Nokia equipment, incorporating similar versions in Huawei equipment, thus jump-starting their market penetration around the World. Now, at the dawn of 5G, one can argue that Huawei is now more advanced in the rollout of 5G than any of the other manufacturers. Huawei offers very aggressive pricing, and they are at the cutting edge of of the latest technology. The other manufacturers are seeking to protect their marketshare by encouraging restrictions on Huawei's power.

  58. @Silvio M Probably allowing stock buybacks killed our chances at 5G. Why take the risk, when there is no risk to sending up stock price by boosting per share earnings so the best and the brightest can time stock options to maximize their booty. Besides, I b gone by the time, something hits the fan. Ah capitalism!

  59. I think the best position from which to negotiate with China would be one where the US is truly export competitive with China in markets outside China and the US. Unfortunately the current US strategy has resulted in a skyrocketing dollar, about 10% higher against the basket of currencies, and even more against the Chinese Yuan. Mathematically that is equivalent to imposing a 10% tariff on our own exports - including farm products. Very self - defeating. Yet, 10% overall cheaper imports (which actually outweigh the tariffs) has pushed consumer spending up and helped some manufacturers with domestic consumption. A competitive dollar exchange rate is a vital leg of the stool to prevent further erosion of US mfg and hopefully even expand it. Unfortunately even this paper ran an opinion piece "The factory jobs aren't coming back ..." just a few days ago - a short sighted and defeatist attitude. Like we can get by with a service economy of investment fund subsidized taxi rides forever.

  60. "While she has been awaiting extradition to the United States in a Vancouver mansion, though, Beijing has detained two Canadians in China, in solitary accommodations and under brutal conditions, so as to force an exchange..." The paragraph above says it all. That's what this trade war is about. What world will you want to live in, in the future? A world dominated by China in which there are no rules of laws or a world dominates by the US despite its imperfection. Nobody should trust anything coming from Communist China. Their stated goal is to rule the world in the next future and it would be foolish for the US to help China in its effort. There was an excellent piece in this paper today by an N.S.A official about future threats to the US. And technology was high on that list. No, Mr trump should not entertain any truce with Huawei. The company is just a tool that Beijing will use any time it sees fit. Why take that risk? As for the US companies complaining about losing market share in China, just maybe, for once they have to learn that even capitalists can be patriotic. I know the only thing that matters to them is the almighty dollar. But my freedom and those of future generations trump their greed. Unless China opens up, let it be two Internets, one for those who want an open Internet and one for those like Russia or China that while closing up their Internets to the outside world, use the openness of our Internet for their own advantage.

  61. @Chaks Who made the first arrest? China should not have retaliated against innocent Canadians, but we started it by arresting a Chinese businessperson for trading with Iran, which is none of our business. A US empire and a Chinese empire are not the only alternatives. We can make a world where both governments mind their own business and don’t interfere with the citizens of the other.

  62. @HO By that logic, Huawei started it first by breaking multiple laws in the US, which are definitely our business. Here's where there is a true difference, in Canada and the US we have a true independent judiciary and laws that produce equal treatment (for the most part). In China, people are jailed for saying (or thinking) something against the a political party and those people can be held in tortuous conditions for the rest of their lives. People are jailed simply for retribution against other countries. That's called hostage taking and I'm shocked that you don't think that's a problem.

  63. Aside from the fact that the largest Chinese companies are owned by the totalitarian Chinese military surveillance state, the primary problem is that Chinese companies can sell here but ours cannot sell there. Opening that market would do for the US economy and manufacturing what their access to the US did for them. Our access might also change the totalitarian state problem as their first world status does not now need the totalitarian control that is suited to a developing country. The CCP elite are as addicted to their power and money as are ours. Both need to implement real democracy where the People are more important than their personal profit.

  64. Random question: can the people of China even read this article behind their "Great Firewall"? Didn't their Communist Party deliberately create two Geopolitical // Telecommunication spheres by imposing an Information Iron Curtain? For that matter, is it wrong to worry about inviting the creators of that Firewall to set up shop inside our network // homes // government agencies? Maybe the US should have invited the Soviets to bid on critical national infrastructure. Perhaps that would that have made for a more prosperous and peaceful world.

  65. @Diogenes Hear, hear!

  66. @Diogenes As far as I understand, most people in China who are interested in this topic are able to read this article. "Great Firewall" is not nearly as omnipotent as you imagine.

  67. @FreedomFair A cursory search online reveals that the vast majority of Western websites are unavailable in China. These include the NYT, CNN, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, as well as Google. Not sure how to reconcile that with your comment but those are not the kind of restrictions that suggest that we’re dealing with an open, transparent, trustworthy government.

  68. The saddest part about all of this is that the issue of trust extends from Huawei to our White House. How do we know who is telling the truth here? Even if the Trump administration were to show us something that would support its position, I'm not sure anyone would, or should, believe it. This is what happens when the President takes a Sharpie to a weather map and politicizes the weather forecast. Government succeeds when the citizens trust that it tells the truth and does the right thing. All of that trust is gone, and will take a long time, if ever, to return.

  69. @MPS Perfect logic, by that measure I agree with every oppressive regime out there that Trump might be against.

  70. And what is their plan for ending their war with Canada? All they did was follow their treaty obligations with the US, but China in return arrested Canadians and ended agricultural imports. And Canada was one of the consumer markets that actually likes Huawei!

  71. Instead of discussing the merits of Huawei's modest proposal, relayed by Mr. Friedman, most commenters are repeating the same tropes about China that have circulated for decades. It really speaks to the fact that China represents not one thing, but rather a constellation of things, to different Americans at different times. Businesses want access to the huge Chinese market. The military wants to contain or control China's regional influence. American consumers want cheap goods but not at the expense of manufacturing jobs. And of course, politicians are too happy to scapegoat China instead of taking hard, substantive steps to prepare our economy for the future. We're at the point where even holding a dialogue is dismissed out of hand. Why shouldn't we have a talk?

  72. @SS Good questions, Lets look to history for guidance. We had an oppressive regime in Germany under Hitler and countries in Europe employed a policy of appeasement instead of trying to contain and limit him. On the other hand, we had a oppressive regime in the USSR which we actively contained and challenged and made it difficult for them in every part of the world. Which approach are you suggesting we take with the oppressive regime in China?

  73. The reason that "the United States...has no indigenous 5G networking manufacturer" is because of people like Friedman, who have been telling us for the past twenty-five years that manufacturing wasn't important, so we should just offshore all those millions and millions of jobs that paid enough to support a middle-class lifestyle. And, they said, while we were at it, we may as well export the innovation and world-leading technology that America created along with them. In fact, we may as well just give them away for free, in many cases. Shareholder value would increase, and all that. Globalization would lift all boats! And those awesome innovators out there in that magical place called Silicon Valley would "make the world a better place"! What's not to like? Well, there is now abundant empirical data that irrefutably shows that globalization failed. And we traded those manufacturing jobs for jobs stacking shelves at Big Box retailers and driving for Uber. And we've only just begun to confront the dark side of technology, which is already enough to make you wish the Internet was never invented. But the society-destabilizing effects of technology are about to go exponential. And now the two pillars of Friedman's disastrous worldview over the past decades--technology and globalization--are intersecting in an extraordinarily dangerous way. And so the CEO of Huawei invites him to resolve what is a legitimate crisis. You can't make this stuff up.

  74. @TB As I mentioned in an earlier comment, US companies are leaders in most of the technologies that compose the 5G ecosystem. The one subsystem that is not made by any US-based companies is base stations, and I'm aware of two startups that will negate that. Motorola and Lucent were once leading base station vendors. Both fell not to globalization, but to mismanagement. Both were ultimately acquired by Nokia, and their former R&D facilities in Illinois and New Jersey are critical to Nokia's 5G network solution.

  75. According to this article: "The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which vets acquisitions of U.S. corporations by foreign companies, said the Broadcom takeover risked weakening Qualcomm, which would boost China over the United States in the 5G race. ... Qualcomm (QCOM.O) is the dominant player in smartphone communications chips, making half of all core baseband radio chips in smartphones. It is one of the last big U.S. technology companies with a major role in mobile communications hardware" So sanctioning Huawei makes sense unless, as Mr Friedman suggested, they license their technology to US manufacturers.

  76. Clearly the Huawei case now calls for a meeting of those who can negotiate commerce, diplomacy, intellectual property rights and a respect for justice. Justice comes to the forefront for those Canadian citizens who have witnessed Canadian border security take orders to restrain and hold now for legal proceedings related to US charges. The result is that two Canadian citizens, innocent of any wrongdoing, are played as chips in the present stranglehold they are held (a parenthesis in this column, but primary for Canadians who care sorely.) So far the Canadian Liberal government has seen agricultural products also punished by China policy. Time for a change in leadership, at the very least.

  77. @Soleil Yes, Xi must go!

  78. This is a very intractable problem because neither Trump nor China is good friends with the truth.

  79. The Chinese government has bullied many companies during the Hong Kong protests and expects public expression of allegiance and submission from CEOs or their firing if otherwise as seen for Cathay Pacific. To even assume that Huawei is not acting on behalf of the Chinese government is ludicrous. In the meantime the communications of the Chinese Diaspora is closely monitored by censors on WeChat while agitators rail against HK protesters on Twitter and Facebook, all banned in China like Google. Banning Huawei makes sense as long as these policies continue.

  80. If China allows Trump full unfiltered access to Trump real estate empire , Huawei will be off the black list. No exaggeration

  81. The Justice Department is Trump's personal law firm headed by his Trump's own private lawyer, William Barr. The interests of the American people do not enter into their actions.

  82. All they have to do is hold their next Board of Directors meeting at Doral and they will get everything they want from the Donald.

  83. The premise of this article, that Huawei *might* not be a apparatus of the repressive communist government, is a nonstarter. There exists so much corroborated evidence in domestic and foreign news reporting that Americans should simply accept it as fact that Huawei is almost *certainly* an espionage arm for China and on that basis should be permanently excluded from present negotiations on trade with China.

  84. I think Huawei is desperate to sign a deal. Let America and Trump follow US agenda, not the Chinese one. USA should outright ban Google and all major US applications like Facebook, Linkedin, Youtube, Instagram etc on all Huawei smartphones. Every such device is a spying tool of every's world citizen that is using such a device

  85. Huawei is simply an arm of the Chinese Communist Party. Like everything else in China it must do what the Party says. Thus any deal with it is meaningless. That can be cancelled at any time a the whim of Mr Xi.

  86. @Grace A deal with Google can be cancelled at any time at the whim of Mr. Trump.

  87. Huawei is under the control of the totalitarian communist party of China, and that is how the US, and other countries, should view it. Why do Friedman and so many other opinion writers continue to make it sound like Huawei might plausibly be what it wants us to believe, an independent company? It is owned by a union that is under the direct control of the communist party. The company follows the orders of the party, and of course, Xi Jinping. Period. Pretending otherwise is foolish, and plays right into the hands of the Chinese dictatorship.

  88. Underlying much of the 5G discussion is... why is there no US manufacturer of this nex gen equipment, but China is the leader and Europe has two (but expensive)? Is it because the Chinese are so much smarter? Is it because Huawei gets almost free money from the government but our almost free money is not quite as cheap, and Europe “burdens” businesses with living wages, taxes, environmental rules, and other impediments the Chinese don’t bother to worry about? Forget the high tech and Econ jargon; what’s the grift? Do the Chinese count on a supply chain of items that fell off a truck and an army of slaves kept in their place by the government... or are America’s businesses just too short sighted and risk averse to compete these days?

  89. @Norman Then go live there. I would rather stay in the US and wait a little longer for a 5G technology, developed, produced and distributed by a US company. I am quite happy with my current 4G.

  90. @Norman it's always easier to get things done in a dictatorship, if that's how you want to live

  91. @Pottree Yes, it's because they're smarter than us. Their colleges only charge $2,000 a year. They are competing with us for the fastest computer in the world; sometimes we're ahead, sometimes they're ahead. For your information every industrial country subsidizes business and technology. The US government created the internet. All the big technology companies have big government contracts, often the biggest, most profitable contracts they have. Many scientists and engineers, particularly in aerospace, served in the military. And of course the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health fund most of our university-based basic research. Maybe Chinese communism is just a better system for developing a modern economy.

  92. The problem with allowing Huawei to build telecommunications infrastructure isn't limited to the factors listed by Mr. Friedman such as backdoors, which have been elucidated elsewhere. A key unmentioned problem is allowing the Chinese Communist Party to have a string upon which to pull if a country does not toe the Party line. What if 10 years from now, a Canadian journalist writes an article detailing how Xi Jin Ping's daughter is now engaging in corrupt practices? Instead of detaining Canadians in China, why not just withhold critical telecommunications infrastructure that would have been supplied by Huawei to Canada? The Chinese Communist Party likes to promote "win-win" deals with countries. But, making the Chinese Communist Party lose face, challenging them as the true embodiment of the Chinese people, or simply disagreeing with them on something unrelated to a deal makes them feel justified to them unilateral action. I wouldn't let our telecommunications infrastructure be subject to the glass heart of the Chinese Communist Party.

  93. It's not often I disagree with Tom Friedman, but on this one, he's swallowed the Huawei kool-aid and totally buried the lead. Over half way into his column, in parentheses no less, he mentions that two Canadians are being held hostage by the Chinese government in brutal conditions because of the daughter of the subject of Mr. Friedman's not-so-rare interview (he was all over the Toronto Globe and Mail in June). In that Canadian interview, he is quoted as saying he wants our Minister of Justice to ignore the rule of law and intervene to free his daughter. And, "If Canada is prepared to initiate an exchange – freeing Ms. Meng – “we will start our part of the work,” Mr. Ren said, suggesting Huawei might then advocate for the release of the two Canadians. Funny how those are the same lines the Chinese government has been pushing at us, along with 'reflecting on our mistakes'. I think Mr. Friedman should reflect further on this column. As we like to say in Canada, he got 'snowed.' Big time.

  94. The US position against Huawei is particularly intriguing. Just as the European empires of old rely on military might to force open foreign markets or to seize land and resources outright, the US is using all tools available in its arsenal to stop Huawei, even when it has no domestic producers of 5 g technology. Huawei already has little to no foot print in the US because US has "banned" sale of its cell phone by major carriers, and government agencies also are forbidden to purchase its equipment. Now it wants other countries to not buy Huawei's equipment, and for US suppliers to stop providing parts or software adds on to Huawei's phone. May be the truth of Huawei's built in back door is closer to Trump's claim that Hurricane Dorian will or have hit Alabama, and Alabama will qualify for disaster aid. The refugees from Jamaica, on the other hand, will have to get a visa to come into the US if they cannot afford to fly and have to come by boats.

  95. Mr. Freidman: The following story from the NY Times from 2010 tells you everything you need to know about China using its industrial power to coerce foreign governments: In 2010, a Chinese fishing boat was fishing in the Sea of Japan without permission. The Japanese Coast Guard (JCG) asked the Chinese ship to leave Japanese waters. The Chinese Captain refused. After further discussion, his boat rammed the JCG ship and sped away. A week later, the same thing happened. This time, the JCG was ready and seized the Chinese fishing boat and arrested the Chinese Captain. The ship and crew were released, but the Captain was held for trial for ramming the JCG boat. About a month later, all 32 Chinese suppliers of rare earth metals (REM) , without comment or warning, ceased shipping REM to Japan. REM are essential and critical to high tech manufacturing (electric car motors, wind turbines, cell phones, etc.) and China controls 93% of the REM supply. Even REM not mined in China are shipped to China for processing because purifying these metals involves extremely toxic methods that are outlawed in most countries. All Japanese manufacturing involving the use of REM came to a screeching halt. China demanded that the Chinese Captain be released. Eventually, the Japanese capitulated and REM shipments to Japan resumed. China would exert the same type of pressure on the US if Huawei 5G equipment were used in the US.

  96. @JTS 100% air tight proof against having anything to do with Huawei.

  97. @JTS It is their freedom to control their industrial output. If a certain country does not like that, there's a simple solution: find a non-sino alternative. Can't? Too bad. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

  98. @Tek The solution is not so simple. This is how global war starts.

  99. JS Given I am currently in France where Huawei phones are sold, I find it something of a stretch to describe France as a “ruthless regime.” Really!

  100. This will be difficult as Huawei is a quasi China government enterprise.

  101. The US negotiating with Huawei on the spying issues is like the British negotiating the retention of democracy in Hong Kong before the 1997 handoff to China.

  102. I thought the Chinese said Ms. Meng's detention in Canada was unlawful and arbitrary. Now, there's talk of negotiations! Think tariffs are working and the Chinese have much to hide.

  103. Who owns Huawei? No one can answer this question. Who are we negotiating with, a corporation or the Chinese government? Who are we allowing to build out infrastructure? Huawei says it is owned by its employees, but if millions of employees can produce no annual statement documenting what they own and what it's worth than it's a meaningless answer. Is there a board of directors? By-laws? Crickets How can Huawei tender contract bids for an entire communications system for less than its closest size competitor, Ericsson, charges for the equipment? Why would a company make an offer and be guaranteed to lose money? Absent an answer that makes sense, it only makes sense to assume Huawei is not just "owned" by the Chinese government-Huawei is the Chinese government. It makes bids cheaply because it is in China's national interest to be building its national competitors communications networks. This is the definition of a national security threat and any administration, indeed any nation interested in maintaining its sovereignty, would be foolish to negotiate with Huawei and agree to any contract with them. Either there is transparency amongst Chinese companies; their actions, financial interests, and their treatment of intellectual property or business should not be conducted. Trump is right this time. If you disagree then tell me who owns Huawei. Otherwise give credit where it is due.

  104. @jkemp I agree. Huawei seems like a total Trojan Horse.

  105. @jkemp Who owns the Trump Organization? We don't know that either. Are they selling condos to launder money from the proceeds of international bribery and crime? Are they getting hundreds of millions of dollars from Ukrainian, Russian, and Saudi government front men to influence Trump's "executive orders"? When Trump releases his tax returns, then come back and ask those questions. I'd believe Ren Zhengfei over Donald Trump.

  106. @jkemp This is an excellent comment.

  107. The UK's GCHQ (their NSA equivalent) vets Huawei's 5G equipment and has yet to discover any backdoors. Their only criticism is about spaghetti code and sloppy code review, which also afflicts Nokia and Ericsson's tech. According to a DoD study and the consensus of industry analysts, Huawei's 5G tech is not only cheaper, but also superior to the only other offerings from Europe and Northeast Asia. Many of our allies, including the UK (Vodafone), Germany, France, and South Korea (LG U+) remain unconvinced of US concerns about Huawei, continually imploring the US for solid evidence - while maintaining their relationships with Huawei. Either such concerns are legitimate, or they are not. Analysts (and also Huawei's CEO, for what it's worth) warn that excluding Huawei could cost the US dearly in the race to stay at the forefront of the 5G revolution.

  108. @Jeff How do you think backdoors are created...? I'll tell you... spaghetti code and sloppy code. Whether Huawei's insufficient code is designed to look that way or not, I'd say we know who their master is and there is zero reason to believe them.

  109. @Jeff Hi Jeff, I haven't read the report you referred to but the annual oversight report prepared by the UK government reaches a very different conclusion than complaints about sloppy code. From the report's summary: 4 iv. Further significant technical issues have been identified in Huawei’s engineering processes, leading to new risks in the UK telecommunications networks; 4 v. No material progress has been made by Huawei in the remediation of the issues reported last year, making it inappropriate to change the level of assurance from last year or to make any comment on potential future levels of assurance.

  110. @Mark The reference to the UK's report in the report I cited: "While DoD security typically focuses on vendor-installed backdoors that could be used to remotely control a system or exfiltrate information, a wide variety of security issues could also be introduced through poor software development practices both during and after the rollout of 5G. Many of these risks were mentioned in a UK report on the joint effort with Huawei and the UK government to manage security issues with Huawei deployments in the UK. Security issues from poor software development issues are a universal problem, and are not restricted to only Chinese vendors." Huawei's official response claims that it is "transforming" its software practices while purporting to maintain transparency. British telecoms cite Huawei's record of promptly fixing uncovered vulnerabilities. "Vodafone, the world’s second-biggest mobile operator, said it had found security vulnerabilities in two products and that both incidents, first reported by Bloomberg, had been resolved quickly." "BT, Britain's biggest fixed and mobile operator, said that over the course of more than 10 years of working with Huawei it had not identified any security breaches or evidence of unsolicited communications."

  111. Ren knows that he can extend an olive branch because there is no hope for serious dialogue with the current US regime. Ren comes out looking good with an interview like this and he loses nothing.

  112. Well, he has a daughter to lose...

  113. A decisive factor in both the First and Second World Wars was the Allied advantage in code breaking. It has been estimated that WW II was shortened by two years as a result of Turing's cracking of the German Enigma code. Now, imagine what Huawei might do to American communications in the event of hostilities with China. Xi is calling the shots at Huawei not Mr. Ren.

  114. Tom Friedman downplays the central issue, and it isn't Huawei. U.S. trade negotiators are pressing China to change their entire economic model, which they view as key to their success. It's like the Chinese demanding the U.S. dump capitalism and adopt their communist system. Huawei is just a side show.

  115. @Mark McIntyre The Chinese economic model is to steal everything they can from the West. Of course, they don't want to change.

  116. "Otherwise we’re heading for a two-technology world, with a Chinese zone and an American zone, and a digital Berlin Wall running right down the middle." From the Occidental perspective, we're already there, if only in very nebulous and still-porous ways (i.e. osmosis still takes place.) The "new cold war" pre-dates the unfortunate shambles that is Trump. As Mr. Friedman implies, at least the situation has now received real exposure; I cannot, however, buy into Huawei's good faith. Even if the offer of licensing is real, US and EU labour costs put any manufacturing efforts into the Nokia-Ericsson price range mentioned in the article. Furthermore, it would take a large team of very expensive engineers to find security weaknesses, inadvertent or baked-in. May as well buy Scandinavian and eat the cost; it may be hard to swallow the price tag, but we can afford it, at least for now.

  117. @ennio galiani: British Telecom invested heavily in Huawei 3G/4G equipment. Before they did this, they worked with Cambridge University (with the cooperation of Huawei engineers) to thoroughly vet the equipment. No problems were found. Certainly there was some cost, but not a cost on the scale you suggest. I suspect that when BT buys equipment from Cisco, they do exactly the same thing. Would you trust the NSA not to have Cisco to put back doors into its telecom equipment?

  118. @ShenBowen you make good points. On the hand, many years ago, I remember it took DARPA several years to realize that their T-Mobile satellite network was German-owned.

  119. @ShenBowen oops. on the OTHER hand

  120. "Otherwise we’re heading for a two-technology world, with a Chinese zone and an American zone, and a digital Berlin Wall running right down the middle." Bearing in mind that the Berlin Wall was a Soviet structure intended to keep the citizens of East Germany and the Eastern Bloc from defecting westward, then it seems obvious to me that the digital Berlin Wall between China and the rest of the world already exists and has been built by the Chinese Communist Party to keep its citizenry uninformed and obedient. So it seems a poor rationale for negotiating with Huawei that we can avoid an already-existent digital divide.

  121. This leads to some interesting questions: If the Huawei ban really was just about protecting western 5G manufacturers from the competition (versus security), then they are calling our bluff by allowing full system access. If they do provide US companies with the source code, etc. then we are doing exactly what US companies are accusing China of doing: requiring they give us their intellectual property in order to do business with us. It will be interesting to see how this moves forward.

  122. The words plan and Trump do not belong in the same sentence. It’s an oxymoron. Emphasis on moron. Seriously.

  123. Mr. Friedman is being, perhaps intentionally, naive, in his editorial focus on Huawei technology as an economic “choice” to be made in moving forward with American telecommunications. This is about China and America in an existential fight to the finish and at stake our Western democratic system. Huawei is only one small skirmish. At heart we need to ask ourselves if we want to live in a world of freedoms based on rule-of-law, or for the price of cheap phones will we sell out who we are to China?

  124. Indeed - if Friedman came out of these visits concluding that "... months of impulsive Trump threats, tariffs, praises and then more threats have clearly led a lot of Chinese officials to conclude that Trump is an unstable character who always has to be seen to “win” and humiliate the other side, and therefore can’t be counted on for a big win-win deal — or even stick to it if one were agreed on. Better to let the talks drag on." He's nailed it. China plays it safe rather than sorry and from what they've seen of Trump, they've decided to treat him like the unstable character he is. You can't agree to anything with someone who is so flaky. So just don't. If America has no proof or evidence, why claim that Huawei can install “back doors” in its equipment that Chinese intelligence can exploit? No one has yet found any — or at least none has been publicly reported. Is it paranoia on the part of Trump or just an excuse to try to prevent Huawei 5G from taking over the world? Surely American tech companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Apple would not do business with Huawei if there was any chance that "espionage" was possible on their products. American tech companies are smart!

  125. China's Communist government is really a sort of Confucian fascist state. Trump is a blip on their 20 year plan. That he went after them solo, while at the same time pretty much going after everyone else simultaneously, assures them that he will be unable to seriously destabilize their regime, or even their program for global influence and power. The US is 20% of their exports; even if Trump succeeded in reducing that share by as much as 20% that is still only 4% of exports. In the meantime, China is not idle, they are countering in many different ways the effects of the tarifs. The prospects for Trump making the big deal with China is effectively between 0 and .05%. That's a slender thread to hang his re-election on. At best for him, the election will be close, and to lose even a few votes on a tariff war that persists until next November could be disastrous. I think he's going to effectively capitulate and declare victory on whatever evanescent or illusionary concession China makes. But that's not an election winning strategy either. So, I think he will make a deal on Huewei, and for that the Chicoms might give him something equivalent, like allowing Google, e.g., to offer uncensored search in a limited geographic area; that's just an off the top of my head example that is probably not germane, but something comparable to that, which requires a real change in policy, but very limited in scope. Then, he will have something "real" for which to claim his crown next November.

  126. "Otherwise we’re heading for a two-technology world, with a Chinese zone and an American zone, and a digital Berlin Wall running right down the middle." No. We already have a digital Berlin Wall, and it is China that built it by banning all sorts of American companies that freely operate throughout the rest of the world, such as Google, FB, Twitter, etc. Banning Huawei is simply a natural and long overdue reaction.

  127. @Rahul Sharma, Well at least Chinese need not worry about their private information being collected and sold by likes of facebook to the highest bidder anywhere in the world. However, Chinese government makes sure it uses the firewall to prevent any dissent against the communist regime from spreading. This includes fake news and political manipulation schemes. Look at India, they are learning the hard way to not trust corporations with user data. They have recently enacted strict rules about storing user data within India. Obviously, the US companies weren't impressed.

  128. I appreciate this piece because it attempts to think through the hard problem of dealing with China outside of the Trump framework. That said, there are points I disagree with. As a number of recent academic papers and media reports have suggested, Huawei appears to be a corporate extension of the Chinese government. This interdependence between a tech corporation whose products have the potential to undermine American national security and a government that sponsors intellectual property theft and other criminal behavior is sufficient cause for the American government to proceed with extreme caution. Trust is earned - not once but in each transaction; when it is repeatedly violated, it is rational and justifiable to curb it. So, a fundamental problem here is not as Ren suggested that "the US reach out to us in good faith," but that the Chinese government and its corporate extensions reach out to the US in good faith. Because of this lack of trust, Huawei's offer to license its 5G network to the US sounds like a Trojan horse. The offer would need to be examined thoroughly, including its potential to foster American technological dependence on China and to dampen American innovation, and the product compared in detail with European products. Finally, it may be the case that having two tech standards rather than one global tech standard is preferable; if handled properly, it could curtail intellectual property theft, keep more people employed, and protect national security.

  129. @AG I am all for two standards, and Berlin wall (and a sea) between us.

  130. @VB Yes, separate standards is an unpopular idea, not only because, as your sarcastic comment suggests, it may be erroneously connected to other forms of geopolitical separation, but because it undermines the common narratives of the necessity of a single standard. The attempts to adopt a single standard, however, strike me as problematic. Firstly, these attempts seem to constitute a proxy war; the US and Chinese governments/tech firms each seek to dominate this standard, and both are hoping the other side will blink. I'm betting neither will, because neither side believes it can afford to. And indeed they cannot. Secondly, if it's true that competition drives technological innovation, a single global standard will likely check innovation, as innovation will unfurl according to that single standard and not according to need or possibility. Finally, the problem of labor arbitrage may begin to be addressed more equitably.

  131. I'm sure Chinese have a plan, but can we trust them? After all, they've made plenty of promises in the past, but have kept none. As much as I detest Trump, the trade war with China is the ONLY issue I completely agree with him, and I suspect that no matter who gets elected in 2020 (Biden, Warren, Harris, or someone else), he/she will continue the same policies vs China.

  132. @OTT Ask the Native American population if the US can be trusted with agreements? Or, any of our allies, post-Trump.

  133. @OTT I don't think it is the trade war that you are agreeing with, just the objectives. The trade war is an idiotic way of achieving the objectives based on an incompetent and outdated understanding of geopolitical issues.

  134. This trade war is becoming a national security issue, or already is. Decoupling in trade and technology might very likely be the future. We can't stand their business practice and political ideology and they refuse to change. War is not an option. So we go our separate way. Time will tell.

  135. Let China hold multi-party, free elections at the regional and national level. And free the Uighurs. And renounce violence in resolving the future status of Hong Kong and Taiwan. And, of course, withdraw from the artificial islands that they created and militarized in the South China Sea. Then, we can discuss Huawei's networking products.

  136. Excellent proposal. Forward it to the White House and Congress.

  137. @NorthernVirginia Nice list of requirements! From the Chinese perspective, why would China accept all of those conditions? China already helps the USA by purchasing about 5% of our Debt. This isn't "Red China" of 30 years ago. China's major companies are gov't , public or privately-owned (Huawei). The major ones are already doing more infrastructure projects around the World than USA companies. Chinese businesses (eg. Huawei, Sinopec, Pacific Construction) are actively working in many African, Asian and South American countries on major infrastructure projects. China purchases raw materials, minerals, soy beans and other food from these countries.

  138. We already know that Apple, Amazon, and Google all listen in on us, and save all recordings. Why would Huawei be different? Oh, except the Chinese government actually requires back doors, so need to wait for the scandal to break.

  139. The US is a scaredy cat #1 economy in the world. Anyone who approaches this position, as in China's case by being # 2, will be defamed, attacked, stopped - by all means necessary.

  140. The bigger issue is 5G safe for the environment and humans? What testing has actually been done?

  141. Until Chinese communist party is dissolved, we should not let the country grow any bigger. The US invited China to the world so that it can become a normal country. But, it has been growing as a monster. It wants to become a superpower while maintaining its outrageous ideology and dictatorship. We should never allow them to be one. It's an absolute order from the people all around the world.

  142. Nice picture of Shanghai! Featuring three fine examples of China's national bird, the crane.

  143. The biggest by far question I have after reading this troubling article: Huawei is the largest 5G infrastructure provider in the world, followed by Nokia and Ericsson. How on Earth no US company is involved in this essential technology which will facilitate the internet of things, self-driving vehicles, etc.? In other words, whether we like it or not, our future? This transcends Trump's character and cluelessness because it is going to be a major issue for many years to come (past 2020).

  144. That’s why American officials are asking: How can we let Huawei place its 5G technology in our cities and homes? Can’t it be used by China to spy on us or turn off our electricity in a war? And China asks the same about us. Mr. Friedman misses a critical point -- Chinese state owned telecommunications companies (China Telecom and China Unicom) have access to the US domestic communications network. China's domestic communications network is essentially walled off from the world. Their isn't a single foreign carrier that operate within China. I wonder why? I'm guessing China's ability to turn off electricity in the United States is a lot easier given their access to our network. In May, the FCC after eight years of negotiations denied China Mobile's application to interconnect with the United States. The FCC is currently investigating whether China Telecom and China Unicom's licenses should be rescinded in light of China Telecom hijacking vast amounts of internet traffic and routing it through China for over two and a half years. The stakes are too high to trade off for short term economic gain. The risk is Trump sells our freedom for a trade deal.

  145. The Executives said some nice things huh? Didn't Iran recently promise not to deliver the oil on the seized tanker to Syria? Did they keep their promise? Its easy to Promise to do anything.

  146. It seems there is already two systems of technology because China has corrupted the open concept of the internet. They have a huge apparatus to monitor and clamp down on the free exchange of information and ideas. It is the very same, "Berlin Wall," already in place! Isn't this two technologies? If this is how they treat their own people how can we trust them in any way?

  147. "... Nokia and Ericsson, European companies whose products are far more expensive than Huawei’s." Friedman sets this out there without explaining why those companies are more expensive. But this is part and parcel of the problem. It is half of the administration's trade war with China. Between treating workers as automata at best, and slaves at worst; between state subsidies and intellectual property theft, Huawei continues to profit from a system that disadvantages the competition at every turn. These practices are too deeply rooted to be dispelled by a sit down with the DOJ. They are basic to China's business plan, as is subversion of the internet and supersession of the U.S. as the leader of the globe.

  148. @Expat50 Exactly to the point. Friedman hides these differences because he either: 1- does not care; or 2- sell out to big corporations who value profits above everything else. A combination of 1 and 2 is also possible

  149. Trade wars hurt both sides, and they can lead to shooting wars. Remember that the path to Pearl Harbor and American entry into WWII began in 1939 when the United States terminated its 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. On July 2, 1940, FDR signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials. This led to embargoes on U.S. exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and iron and steel scrap. Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt froze Japanese assets in the United States, bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. Maybe Huawei's overtures, along with Bolton's departure, are hopeful omens, and the worst can be averted. But how can any negotiating partner trust Trump and the U.S. Congress to follow through?

  150. A great piece of reporting! Balanced and well-informed

  151. American government's infiltration of AMERICAN tech behind American companies' backs is well documented, thanks to Snowden. Only recently a NSA malware has been hijacked by hackers to use against governments of the world when NSA exploited it and intentionally withheld the information from Microsoft. These are hard evidence. Show us the same kind of evidence with Huawei, please.

  152. This article manages to omit the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that Huawei spies on anyone. On the other hand, there is conclusive evidence that the US government spies on Huawei. Perhaps it is the US who should be offering Huawei reparations.

  153. Huawei phones and networking equipment is sold in Germany, among other European countries. I'm sure they have fully vetted the equipment and the Germans are just as technically sophisticated (if not more so than us). If Huawei offers us the source code and allows us to modify it, it would essentially be technology transfer (what we accuse China of). Imo, it seems like this is purely a politically motivated move, as we have not offered any shred of evidence besides talking points.

  154. The fight for supremacy of adversarial technology titans is on. And we the people in the middle, squeezed by our information appetites and the need to at least simulate some privacy. Are we doomed? Or is this just a trial to see how far we must compete with A.I. to survive?

  155. Sure Huawei has a plan to end the battle with him as much as he can count. That's always worked before, with everyone and everything else. Simple. Huawei will now become the preferred restock and servicing supplier for the U.S. Military and Government. And then put all that money in a big safe in Trump Tower Beijing, Trump Tower Hong Kong, Trump Tower Taiwain, Trump Tower Shanghai, Trump Tower Shenzhen, Trump Tower get the general idea. Huawei will now become the sole supplier of tele, data, electronic, and internet services, replacing Google, Apple, etc. Simple, effective, immediate. Works every time.

  156. There is no such thing as independent commerce in China, every company is just a tool of the CPC or PLA end of story. The Renminbi is basically monopoly money ten years after the supposed liberalization of the currency. If you really want to understand what they are doing read On Practice and On Contradiction by Mao.

  157. Why would we want a brutal dictatorship bent on our destruction to spy on us...? How is this even a question?

  158. "...then he {Ren} is also ready, for the first time, to license the entire Huawei 5G platform to any American company that wants to manufacturer it and install it and operate it, completely independent of Huawei." Do it, analyze the platform, modify it if necessary, and sell....What else? On another level, who cares? More speed, more information, more 'tyranny of the urgent,' more "disimagination machines," and more ego-stroking competition that pales in comparison to infrastructure that needs to be repaired, a retooling of the fossil-fuel industry to at least ATTEMPT to slow-down anthropocentric climate-change, taking the FICA, over-$132K cap off to fund universal healthcare and other needs in the U.S. etc. etc. etc. The bigger, better, faster, more-more-more, growth-for-growth-sake metastatic-cancer capitalist exercise has about run its course, no? Doesn't matter if the digital or physical "walls" go up Tom, for they all ARE going, and will, go up anyway in the 'race for what's left" (Michael Klare). If it's the 'china-white' addiction of the Internet and information-highway and its speedy bandwidth that are all so important, well, then stick a fork in 'em...we're done.

  159. "Imagine China telling Apple that it can never make or sell another phone in China or in any of China’s Asian trading partners, which is the rough equivalent of what Trump has told Huawei in America." As Huawei currently does not market any phones in the US, I feel this is an inapt metaphor.

  160. China and Huawei cannot be trusted, period. The Chinese government has, for decades, funded a state and private sector global intellectual property heist the likes of which we've never seen before. Their goal is dominance on a global scale. In this one and only instance, I support Trump's hard line and hope that others wake up to the danger of giving another inch to the Chinese side.

  161. @John as Mr Cohen has pointed out recently in these pages, Trump was bound to get something right and his hardline stance against China and Huawei is the correct position to take.

  162. how does one negotiate with a Trojan horse?

  163. I guess we're going to have to read Ren Zhengfei's book "The Zen of the Deal". And re-read your insightful book "The Earth is Flat". The corollary to that insight is that China will be bigger than us and could call the shots in the future, so the strategic thing to do is to keep pushing China toward our cultural ethic, which truth be told also includes stealing tech, but with speed limits. I am sure that the propaganda has distorted our concept of China, and we need that in order to wage war, but waging war, even trade war is stupid in the 21st Century.

  164. Trump is, first and foremost, a political animal. Anyone paying attention for the last twenty years realizes that the Chinese have repeatedly made apparently fair trade deals with western companies...then played by their own rules in a variety of ways. Some adjustment in the trade relationship has probably been long overdue. And this fits right into Trump’s playbook. He can make a big fuss over the unfair Chinese (which is a sure winner) and hold out until the time is politically ripe for a deal...a HUGE new deal...probably as the November drop-dead date with Huawei approaches or later in 2020 when the economic bounce resulting from the deal will boost his chances for reelection. The irony is that as long as the securities markets hold up fairly well, the more time Trump has to pick his moment. It’s not about economics...its about politics.

  165. There are two related issues here: (1) the narrow question of whether Huawei equipment can be manufactured in a way that ensures definitively that it cannot be used to spy or be weaponized; and (2) the broader question of whether America (and the West) should make any effort to assist the business development of Huawei. On (1), I will assume that there is some package of technology licencing and coding transparency that would allow the west to de-fang Hwawei. But (2) remains. We would not buy Chinese missiles, for example, to give support to the Chinese missile industry. Why would we buy Chinese high tech communications products to give support to that industry? Why would we not support Nokia and other companies from societies whose values we share? China has already weaponized communications against its own people, and especially against ethnic minorities (eg., Uighurs). Chinese will weaponize telecommunications against the rest of the world as soon as it can. Make no mistake. The Chinese communists are implacable foes of the entire Western way of life. If they obtain the power to dominate by force, they will do so just as they have their own people. As one example, no civilized nation in the 21st century would take hostages and torture them, as the Chinese have done to two Canadians in retaliation for the arrest of Ms. Meng, who resides in a series of multi-million dollar mansions notwithstanding her arrest. Buy Chinese T-shirts. Boycott Chinese high tech.

  166. Um..... Abu Grabe?.... Guantanamo Bay?.... CIA Black sites?.. Rendition? I seem to remember a Canadian Citizen rendered to Jordan I think? I seem to recall that the US has 2.2 million of its own citizens incarcerated, a greater percentage of its population than almost any other country, including China... A quick glance in the mirror might reframe your hubris. US companies moved their manufacturing to China voluntarily, motivated by greed. There was no compulsion. They offshore their profits and avoid tax. Their choices. To say that the Chinese subsidise their industries and that’s somehow cheating, then what is the US defence budget, heading toward 1Trillion dollars, larger than the next 8 nations combined, other than a gigantic tech and employment subsidy? Oh yes! I nearly forgot.... You elected Trump! You break your democracy, you own it. Unfortunately, we in the rest of world have to deal with your collateral damage, and frankly, we don’t trust you anymore. The Dr.

  167. Huawei is neither a capitalist success story nor a giant espionage scheme for China. It is simply the product of a plutocracy that spans investment houses all over the world - profits guaranteed by the Chinese government. I think Mr. Friedman simply got enamored with the beautiful Chinese hospitality and forgot to notice the guards with semi-automatic rifles in front of the engineering building in Shenzhen, the prison like cafes, and the dorms that look like the factories of the past.

  168. @Linus Actually guns are outlawed in China. Even for security staff of large state owned companies.

  169. @Detective Pikachu He's referring to Red Army soldiers, not security guards.

  170. @Detective Pikachu I've lived in China, and saw more guns than I see in the U.S.. Cops, bank security, government buildings, etc, etc... And these guns were typically not hand guns. More like machine guns.

  171. Ask China to accept foreign immigration to their country and then we'll talk.

  172. Wasn’t it Nixion who was trying to embarrass Deng Xiao Ping by asking him why he won’t let people out of the country so easily. Deng asked him back something like, “how many millions of peasants would you like? 100 million will go tomorrow if you agree.”

  173. Tom, I have a naive but obvious question that I have never seen addressed: with all our technological prowess, why are no US companies manufacuturing 5G equipment? I expect that you know the answer - please write a column about it.

  174. The problem here is that Trump has zero credibility... he lies constantly for the most inane reasons. The man can't even be trusted to not alter hurricane maps. You can't possibly trust him over something this important. What's more, he corrupts everything he touches so, there are no independent third parties that we can turn to for validation. In the case of Huawei, the U.S. government, presumably can't show what it has on the company since doing so would almost certainly reveal sources and methods. We have no choice but to wait for a better president to come along to either validate Trump or dismiss his claims as an unfortunate side gambit in his ill-conceived trade war. I, for one, refuse to give either Trump or Huawei the benefit of the doubt.

  175. @Jasonmiami Excellent comment.

  176. @Jasonmiami Agreed. I don't trust Huawei to tell us the truth about their interlocking connections with the Chinese government and how those might potentially be used strategically. But I also don't trust Trump to tell us the truth about . . .well, anything. Radical disclosure into the sunlight is the only thing that will work here, but that means each side has to give up strategic info and advantages, and apparently at least at this moment the negatives of doing so are thought to outweigh the positives.

  177. @Jasonmiami Trump is right; the sooner we break the U.S.-China supply chain and induce our companies to move their operations to the peripheral nations, the more secure we'll be. Tariffs are the way to do that, but Trump -- with his eye on the 2020 economy and the election -- can't maintain consistency. Hopefully, the next President will take her first two years -- that is, before reelection concerns become dominant -- and do Trump's policy the right way.

  178. Boy, Ren Zhengfei is a great negotiator! And he's wealthier than Donald Trump, too.

  179. I presume Ren Zhengfei is sincere when he claims he doesn't intend to build spy tools into his product, but no matter. Huawei is bound by law to comply with all of the CCP's demands, and the CCP is not to be trusted. Ren Zhengfei's proposed compromise might be necessary at the moment, but it's not an acceptable long game strategy.

  180. I was just on We chat with a friend. I live in China. We both stayed up late to watch the unveiling of the new Apple products. I have an Iphone, she has an older Iphone. We were disappointed there were no 5g phones. The city I live in will have 5g soon. But Apple products still have many people in China who want to buy them. If we continue this trade war and Huawei takes over the Chinese market, I don't think it will be good for China or America. You need competition. But Trump is so toxic, I think the Chinese, and really, the rest of the world, we have to wait until we get rid of this jerk.

  181. Friedman's interview makes Ren sound like the adult in the room. China isn't perfect, the US isn't perfect, Huawei isn't perfect, Amazon, Microsoft, and Facebook aren't perfect. Ren is suggesting that we move past the blame game and negotiate some agreements. The claim that Huawei puts spyware into its code is baseless. The claim that Huawei, in the past, infringed patents is certainly true. They settled with Cisco on this, paid a large settlement, and were not allowed to sell most equipment in the US for many years. The claim that the NSA broke into Huawei's data center in Shenzhen is certainly true as reported by the NYTimes: . The funny part is that the NSA was searching for evidence of Huawei espionage activities, which it didn't find. It is most likely true that Huawei was trying to circumvent the Iran sanction by dealing through third party countries. It's also undeniable that the US government supports American companies financially when they get into trouble (AIG, Chrysler, GM, etc.). So, Ren's got the right idea. An abundance of blame to go around. So let's stop bickering, sit down, and work out solutions. And, PLEASE don't tell me that the Chinese can't be trusted to keep their agreements! Need I cite the Iran agreement and the Paris Climate Accords? Nice article Mr. Friedman!!!

  182. "United States ***has no indigenous 5G networking manufacturer * * *tThe only other 5G major suppliers are Nokia and Ericsson " "Google * * * Android operating system sits on every Huawei phone; Microsoft * * *Windows operating system sits on every Huawei computer; Intel * * * chips run Huawei’s 5G networks" Why doesn't the US manufacture 5G networking equipment? How is that Huawei is dependent on American software and processors, but we cannot make 5G networking equipment? The trade war, particularly the Huawei part, will be unintelligible to readers (certainly me) until someone answers this question.

  183. @MKR The campaign of fear of unknown is spread systematically, but not without reason. Huawei and many other Chinese companies have been building alternative operating systems and have plans to replace every product that you have cited. It's all about whose software will world rely upon. Until now many parts of the world relied on US designed software and hardware. After security vulnerabilities exposed by Wikileaks and other public websites, governments across the world are growing suspicious. Chinese have their own software/hardware stack now, at obviously much cheaper prices than American products. So companies in USA are pushing vehemently to prevent these products from becoming prevalent. US government is trying to prevent the inevitable.

  184. @MKR The campaign of fear of unknown is spread systematically, but not without reason. Huawei and many other Chinese companies have been building alternative operating systems and have plans to replace every product that you have cited. It's all about whose software will world rely upon. Until now many parts of the world relied on US designed software and hardware. After security vulnerabilities exposed by Wikileaks and other public websites, governments across the world are growing suspicious. Chinese have their own software/hardware stack now, at obviously much cheaper prices than American products. So companies in USA are pushing vehemently to prevent these products from becoming prevalent. US government is trying to prevent the inevitable.

  185. In the mindset of the CCP, no Win Win. They only think of Win Or Loss. I won't trust those related to the PLA background. A country with the scandals of fake eggs , fake vaccine and infant formula, I can not get a reason to give credit in its advance technology manufactured in mainland China. Even meng Wanzhou has two apple cell phones. I wonder if still many Americans are influenced by the book " Red Star Over China "

  186. I don't know why the Times thinks that interviews with Ren are "rare". He was all over Yahoo and CNBC a few weeks ago, He's clearly on a propaganda campaign.

  187. The world is becoming an overtly Darwinian, Mercantilism & merely transactional place. The Meng Wanzhou/Huawei saga is a case in point from its beginning; a blatant example of how the US & China each use smaller countries like Canada as scenes on which to act in an aggressive but indirect way against each other with small risk to themselves. Not only Canada, but many other middle powers are becoming tired & increasingly annoyed as they experience collateral damage in this manner. This compounds our anger at being casually bullied for concessions by one or other of these superpowers, often for domestic political purposes. This breakdown of stable, rule-based & equitable ways of conducting international affairs can only make the world a more unpredictable & risky place. This breakdown & its potential consequences currently may be more evident to nations other than the US & China, but all are at risk.

  188. Didnt you recently observe, correctly, that Trump is the US President that China deserves ? Chinese Confucian thought famously abhors chaos, and Trump is all about chaos. It is unlikely the twain shall meet.

  189. IMHO USA government agencies are paranoid about the kind of espionage that they have carried over for many years over every country in the world would be replicated by Chinese. Processor firmware issues could have been exploited by agencies in USA to collect and leverage data from around the world.

  190. IMHO USA government agencies are paranoid about the kind of espionage that they have carried over for many years over every country in the world would be replicated by Chinese. Processor firmware issues could have been exploited by agencies in USA to collect and leverage data from around the world.

  191. Sooner rather than later, accommodation on some products will be agreed on, and trade will resume out of necessity. Though the “new silk roads” are much trickier to navigate since these are paved with traps, mines and deceit. That we know. A WTO recalibration will be required down the the “road”, as it were. On Huawei’s G5 technology, the world knows what a “Trojan Horse” the company and its technology are. Nothing good will come if embraced. The late Nancy Reagan’s “sage” advise comes to mind at a time like this: “Just say NO!”

  192. @Ted How does the world know? How do you know? I haven't heard an engineer or scientist say they know anything about Huawei's supposed trojan tech, despite the fact that teardowns are posted all over the internet. Republican politicians "know," but then again, the world is learning what it means for a Republican to "know" something...

  193. @Ted For twenty years the Washington foreign affairs elites have been telling us that we have to "engage" China and that that "engagement" would result in China moving steadily toward becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. The result has been the build up of a China which now sees itself as a coming great power and Asia's hegemon. We are in a Cold War with China and will be for the foreseeable future. It's time we stop allowing our companies to hand over their intellectual property; stop allowing our telecommunications companies to sacrifice our security for their profits by way of cheaper Chinese equipment; stop welcoming their scientists into our defense labs. Our "engagement" should be solely with the periphery. The sooner we're out of China the better!

  194. @Ted The UK has been studying Huawei's 5G technology for a couple of years in it's bid for the UK market. Every line of code has been examined and no spyware has been found. So as far as I know there is no evidence of of Huawei doing anything nefarious. If it can proved otherwise, then fine, ban their products. Otherwise it is just hysteria. OT Funny how it's okay for US companies (Google, Apple, Facebook, Uber, etc.) to spy on us in the name of capitalism. Or if they are fined it is just chump change.

  195. Talk is cheap. Just show us the proof that Huawei stole our trade secrets to build its 5G technology. May be we can pinpoint the stolen patents that Huawei used in its 5G network technology or in its latest Mate30 cell phones. It's been over more than one year. I am still waiting for the naysayer to show the proof. In the meantime, several European countries has decided to use Huawei equipment for their latest 5G network. Either we move forward or sit still doing nothing, and let other people passing us.

  196. China is going to "win" this one, though it is hard to see how any of this is 'winning'. China has trump boxed in - there is great pressure on trump to end this trade war prior to the 2020 election, and China knows this. They have little to lose.

  197. How ironic it would be if Huawei licensed back to US companies code descended from earlier code stolen from US companies.

  198. There are three major issues in the US 1. Climate Change...well Trump is crazy on this 2. Immigration...yes they are illegal, Trump is dead right 3. By focussing ONLY on economics and not on geopolitics we have ceded power to China. Trump is brave and dead right. He is just not smart enough to target tariffs. So if you think it is OK to have Chinese government spying on Americans then go ahead. Its a phone we can all live without. The choice is Techno push with totalitarian China running the world...or standing up to them with TARGETTED tariffs.

  199. Come on Tom, you're smarter than this. or at least not this disingenuous. This reads like a Xi press release. Huawei is one issue of many. Did you forget about: Forced Technology Transfers, Forced Partnership with Chinese Companies, Lack of Open Markets, Corporate Espionage, Continual Counterfeiting and IP Theft Harassment/Surveillance of Western Employees Any agreement to move forward has to address most, if not all, of these issues as well. Then, maybe, we can have something that looks like a fair playing field that benefits Huawei as well as Qualcomm or Ericsson or Siemens. It's amazing that the euros just sit without a peep since their technology has been/is being stolen at the same rate as American products.

  200. @Andrew You left out flooding the U.S. market with fentanyl and refusing to arrest the Chinese responsible. Saying that addiction is America’s problem.

  201. @China Charlie Well I have to admit that addiction is America's problem. If we did have the demand there wouldn't be a problem.

  202. Revenge for the Opium Wars?

  203. "Ren told me: If the U.S. reaches out to us in good faith and promises to change their irrational approach to Huawei..." Note to Ren: The US under Donald Trump does not understand the meaning of "good faith" or respect the notion of "promises"; In fact, expecting anything other than "irrational" from Donald Trump is beyond foolish. Note to Trump: Chinese companies and their government have been stealing our technology for decades, and cannot be stopped or trusted simply because you think (sadly, without cause) that you know how to negotiate a "deal". Note to Friedman: Expecting anything like a coherent and honest trade policy while Trump is in office is like expecting the good fairy to make everything right again.

  204. I don't know about all the spying stuff, all of its ramifications but I do know that my previous phone before my present Pixel 3XL a flagship phone I had a medium-low price Huawei 5g4x & I loved it especially its camera, a jewel! & I've read reviews of its current flagship model the P30 Pro, which say it absolutely blows away Samsung's & Apple's flagship offerings, so I think there's a good chance this is an "eliminate the competition" deal... especially as the Europeans don't seem to have any problems whatsoever with Huawei phones...on the other hand implementation of 5G is very worrying, especially with reports of birds falling dead out of trees where it's been tried & reports that it will finish off all insect life...but here, 5G is only spoken of as a desirable technology, the only problem being how fast & how economically it can be implemented!

  205. Donald Trump managing a sophisticated, win-win geopolitical and technological negotiation with a powerful and sensitive adversary? It is to laugh, and then to weep.