
Canada has arrested Huawei’s global chief financial officer in Vancouver - ericzawo
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-has-arrested-huaweis-global-chief-financial-officer-in/
======
mtw
Many are lost in technicalities here, if Canada has the right to arrest a
businesswoman, if the US can stop a foreign company to do business with
another country. Who cares?

I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped
nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic
relief and stop sanctions.

It is said that Iran has been developing various weapons, but these weapons do
not fall under the treaty, and experts and controllers all agree the nuclear
program has been stopped.

It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty, in the same way it was
wrong to walk away from the Paris accord agreement. You agree on one thing,
you have to follow. That is the honourable thing to do.

A few will say that Iran is threatening Middle East Peace. What is obvious is
that its Saudi Arabia who's bombing its southern neighbour or sending tanks to
Bahrain. If you want peace, you have to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia as
well.

What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do
business in Iran. Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the
US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats. For the rest of the world,
it's just abuse and plain wrong. History will judge.

~~~
nostromo
> It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty

The Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Accords were not treaties. We have a
process to ratify treaties in the US. The president approves a treaty and
sends it to the senate to approve or reject.

It's easy for president to make executive order agreements because it doesn't
require approval from the senate (something Obama knew he couldn't get for
either deal). But all parties should know that these non-treaties can be
undone without a second thought by a new president.

The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult
to pass, they are more or less permanent.

~~~
gonvaled
What I read from this is: "the US has a convoluted process, which nobody
understands, in order to commit to international agreements". It seems
everybody, including head of states, thought the US had agreed to the
treaties, but they had not (?), because of a technicality. I assume these
technicalities can be applied to anything, any time, in order to justify
pulling out of international agreements.

Worse, instead of owning to this change of mind, the rationale of technicality
is used in order to justify pulling out. This is done in bad faith.

> The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are
> difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.

You say this now. This experience shows that, once you want to pull out, you
will find a nice loophole to pull out. That is the "more or less" part.

And there is another aspect: once excuses for pulling out have run out, we
know that the US will simply break, whenever and for whatever reason it wants,
existing, ratified, seal-proof treaties.

The US is simply untrustworthy. And sneaky.

~~~
cdash
Oh come on. That is just plain insulting to all the other parties of the
agreement. They knew full well that they did not have a ratified treaty with
the US and they were explicitly warned of that fact ahead of time.

Just because people on the internet did not understand that doesn't mean the
parties involved did not know that.

~~~
ddalex
This argument reeks of "not my fault you were conned, you should have known
I'm a conman"

~~~
creaghpatr
Iran got their pallet of cash, they knew Obama was making the deal without the
support of congress thereby giving the middle finger to US citizens. It would
be diplomatic malpractice to not forecast the deal getting revoked, especially
if they violated it (and they did)

~~~
gdfasfklshg4
How did they violate it?

------
qd6pwu4
[https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/a3hied/huawei_de...](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/a3hied/huawei_deputy_chairwoman_arrested_by_canada_at_us/)

Keep in mind that US sanctions against foreign companies doing business with
Iran are opposed by:

The United Nations International Court of Justice, which ordered the US to
withdraw sanctions, to which the US responded by pulling out of international
agreements.

The European Union, which has attempted to block its companies from complying
with US sanctions.

With that said, the US is free to sanction anyone for its own interests,
that's its right as a sovereign state. It is also its right as a sovereign
state to refuse market access and trade to any company that violates its
sanctions.

But arresting foreign nationals in other countries for violating US sanctions?
That's the equivalent of Russia arresting American business executives and
extraditing them to China for violating Chinese sanctions against Taiwan - and
yes, there are sanctions against Taiwan, which are regularly ignored by the
US, of course. This is a massive escalation and will undoubtedly cause a major
international crisis. Stay tuned.

~~~
nappy
The author of this comment has a history of apologizing for Chinese crimes:

>>LOL, kill thousands of its own citizens in protests? The Chinese government
never did that (even the famous tank man was unharmed and was not arrested),
the truth is, many soldiers got killed because they were not allowed to fire
at citizens. Even the Chinese government did kill its own citizen they learnt
from the US (1932 Bonus Army, 1970 Kent state massacre, Jesus that was only 48
years ago, not mentioning almost every day someone is being shot by the police
somewhere in the US. The funny thing is one shot won't even make it to the
newspaper now.)

>>In a word, you have been brainwashed by your media. I know it's hard to wake
up someone who pretends to be asleep, but it's good for you.

~~~
simias
The fact that the parent is pro-chinese is pretty clear, I don't see what
digging into their post history adds to the discussion, especially since in
this case it's tangential at best.

~~~
Dirlewanger
Because astroturfing has utterly subverted discussion on hot-button issues on
all social media platforms (including this one), whether you choose to believe
it or not.

~~~
dang
We've spent a lot of time working on this, and the actual astroturfing that
we've found is small compared to the frequency with which users fire this
accusation at each other merely because they hold opposing views. That's why
the site guidelines ask people not to bring this toxic trope up without
evidence. Some users holding opposing views to yours is not evidence of
astroturfing, only of divided views.

Perhaps you or someone else knows more than we do about this on Hacker News,
but in that case you should be telling us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look
into it. That's in the guidelines as well. When there's real information, we
take it very seriously. Unfortunately, though, this trope is driven mostly by
imagination, not information.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
fosk
Can somebody explain to me on what authority the US can request the arrest of
a Chinese national on Canadian soil for any action they took while conducting
operations of a Chinese organization headquartered in China?

~~~
dreamcompiler
The article suggests she took US-made products and routed them to Iran through
Huawei. That's a US crime, and the US can issue a warrant for her arrest, and
if she shows up in a country with extradition to the US, she can get arrested.
Which is apparently what happened.

~~~
djsumdog
This only works one way though. No one arrested Ronald Regan for selling guns
to the contras to fund the revolution in Iran. The US gets to do this because
might makes right.

~~~
freeone3000
The US did, in fact, arrest the arms salesmen:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokers_of_Death_arms_case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokers_of_Death_arms_case)

Regean had sovereign immunity, so he could not be personally tried.

~~~
austincheney
I just learned, thanks Wikipedia, that Jamal Khashoggi (journalist murdered in
Turkey) who has recently been dominating the news is the nephew of the arms
dealer king pen, Adnan Khashoggi, behind the Brokers of Death. It appears
Adnan and our current US president have had a prior business relationship
(according to Wikipedia).

That is a strange closed loop.

~~~
mrtksn
A good lesson about the value of networking. Similar things are all over the
politics, business or even arts and people inclined to believe in conspiracies
love to dig these but most of the time it's just the effect of having a way to
meet people that are already in.

------
huahaiy
Coincidentally, a Stanford Chinese American scientist, Prof. Shoucheng Zhang
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoucheng_Zhang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoucheng_Zhang)),
who discovered the Quantum Spin Hall effect that plays a big part in the
recent Intel announcement of the next generation of chip design, was found
dead on Stanford campus on Dec. 1st. Before he's death, Prof. Zhang went
together with Huawei's CFO to attend a dinner in Argentina on Dec. 1st.

Basically, after that dinner in Argentina, one of them is dead, another is
arrested.

~~~
Laforet
There is no way for all the events you prescribed to happen in one day across
four different countries.

I'm sorry to hear the loss of Prof. Zhang, however I suspect that his death
may have had something to do with his heavy investment in some questionable
blockchain startups.

~~~
mrtksn
>however I suspect that his death may have had something to do with his heavy
investment in some questionable blockchain startups

Why do you suspect that?

~~~
eastWestMath
>His family said in a statement that he died after "a battle with depression."

------
estsauver
I would not look forward to being an American businessman abroad in China
right now. I think we're all used to the fiction that we live in a world
that's totally governed by fairness and laws. That's been a pretty useful
fiction for a long time, and in (some) of the developed world that's basically
been how it's worked.

But I really wonder how many shocks this system can take. I would bet money
that an important US executive for some company is arrested in the two years
while visiting China.

EDIT:

There's another comment here asking how it's possibly legal for the US to do
this. Whether you believe it or not, it's useful to know that the philosophy
much of our state department believes in is called Realpolitik
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik)).
It doesn't really matter what the law says or what treaties we've signed, the
primary thing that matters for the US is what's pragmatic for it at the
moment.

~~~
MetalGuru
Seriously. It's this fiction that makes me believe that, despite it's flaws,
America (along with other democratic countries) is a beacon compared to the
rest of the world. A country locking up a foreigner for breaking their laws is
so different than a country locking up said foreigner out of retaliation,
which is what I imagine China will end up doing.

~~~
bilbo0s
The problem is this, you're always violating _some_ law.

Even in the US, there are over 20,000 laws and regulations at the federal
level alone. In China, there are even more. Any small foreign operator in
China naive enough to assert with 100% confidence that they are not in
violation of any of those codes is being dangerously foolish.

So here's the thing, I actually agree with you. What China will do, they will
do out of retaliation. However, I can pretty much guarantee that whoever the
patsy is, that person will be in violation of some obscure code that no one in
their right mind would have been paying attention to. They will definitely be
in violation of some law. And they will condemn him/her to whatever ungodly
prison camp for however many years.

So China will also be simply arresting someone for violating their laws.
That's the issue.

Now my point is that if you are American, and a small operator without the
clout to prevent this sort of thing from happening to you, it's best to try to
get out in front of the problem. I know that I really don't want to be one of
the poor stooges sitting in a Chinese prison for a decade because these people
are trying to make tit-for-tat points.

I'm not talking politics or philosophy. I'm just saying that China is not like
the US, and I'm advising people to be careful if they are small and plan to
operate in what appears to be a dangerous legal environment that will likely
be getting more treacherous with time.

~~~
DINKDINK
>The problem is this, you're always violating some law.

"21 USC §§331, 333, 343 & 21 CFR §133.113(a)(3) make it a federal crime for a
cheesemaker to sell cheddar cheese unless the curd was matted into a cohesive
mass."

[https://twitter.com/crimeaday](https://twitter.com/crimeaday)

~~~
Retric
Look for laws to be enforced cops need to be aware of them.

Specialists exist both on the government side as say food safty inspectors
etc, and the private side as compliance officers. So, rules like this are not
obscure for people building factory’s to manufacture cheddar and your local
cops are not going to know about this crap they are searching your house for
something else.

This actually works really well, as we want food to be safe to eat even if
most people are not aware of how long food can be kept at what temperatures.
Likewise what safty systems need to be part of nuclear reactors, or the
minimum safty factor for bridges.

~~~
Benjamin_Dobell
It's just a bit odd that _highly_ specific examples like this make it into
written law. A pretty clear example of what happens when you have a Government
that can be heavily influenced by corporate lobbying.

I don't think your average reasonable person is in opposition to requirements
to label food correctly and not mislead consumers. These things are already
written in law, in the case of food it's governed by the FDA. However, when we
start including overly specific laws like this, of which this is but one of
many (sheesh, check-out what was in the TPP), then every other company in
every other industry wants the same treatment, and we end up with a convoluted
mess that we have today. This is a problem because your average citizen can't
possibly keep up with all this; but more importantly these overly specific
laws are a nightmare when it comes time to introduce new legislation. _So_
much time is wasted on garbage like this.

The TPP actually had plenty of reasonable components to it, but it was also
filled to the brim with corporate garbage. It's hard enough to form trade
agreements and pass legislation without corporations insisting their obscure
needs must be met. Particularly when legislation and agreements are either
signed and passed as entire unit, or not at all. It just wastes everyone's
time when there's a few odd sticking points holding up the whole process.

~~~
torstenvl
I don't understand your argument. You seem to be opposed to specificity in the
written prohibition. So what's the alternative? You'd prefer it if FDA
regulations _didn 't_ have the force of law? Or would you prefer it if FDA
regulations were secret, unwritten, unavailable for cheddar manufacturers and
cheddar manufacturer compliance officers to examine? Neither of those seem
like good solutions.

~~~
Benjamin_Dobell
It's called _industry standards_ , and it's common practice and already in
place in written legislation.

 _Written laws_ give Government bodies power to maintain and enforce theses
standards, independent of legislation that needs to be passed through long
slow processes involving many politicians who have no knowledge of the
relevant field.

~~~
torstenvl
Industry standards don't have the force of law unless they are given the force
of law.

> _Written laws give Government bodies power to maintain and enforce theses
> standards, independent of legislation that needs to be passed through long
> slow processes involving many politicians who have no knowledge of the
> relevant field._

"Written laws ... independent of legislation" doesn't make sense. What are you
trying to say here?

~~~
Benjamin_Dobell
> "Written laws ... independent of legislation" doesn't make sense. What are
> you trying to say here?

You're right, it doesn't. That's what happens when you truncate a quote to
completely remove the context.

------
mciak
Note that this arrest was due to the lesser sin of export control busting,
rather than Huawei's biggest sin: facilitating surveillance and IP theft.

Remarkable that they (she?) went through all the effort to set up a HK front
company, but then left the Huawei logo on their powerpoint decks

~~~
emmelaich
Maybe they're getting for what they can prove rather than what they suspect.

Like Capote for tax fraud.

~~~
mips_avatar
I think you mean Capone

~~~
emmelaich
Hah. Yes.

------
freewizard
Notably she’s not just CFO, but also vice chairwoman of the board, daughter of
founder/CEO, and very widely viewed as the successor of his father.

~~~
jacquesm
his/her

------
refurb
In case people aren't aware, Canadian-Iranian relations aren't exactly in a
good place right now.[1]

Extraditing someone to the US for violating US sanctions against Iran aligns
pretty well with Canada's interests right now.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Iran_relations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Iran_relations)

~~~
KSS42
Huawei also has a large R&D presence in Canada. Maintaining good relations
with Huawei is more in Canada's interest.

~~~
davemp
I believe that the USA's relationship is at least a bit more important than
Huawei's R&D budget.

------
anonymous5133
I also wonder what this is going to do to Canada's real estate market
considering that Canada has basically been a "safe haven" for Chinese
nationals to flock to basically launder their money.

~~~
msie
It's sad how this has become a fact because it's insinuated enough times in
the press by the same few reporters. First it was Chinese foreigners buying up
all the real estate, but that was proven false. Now, it's all these foreigners
are laundering their money. Yes, a few (although the RCMP is having trouble
with their money laundering case) but not all. The press simplifies and that
becomes the reality that everyone believes. I had a coworker mention this
"fact" after hearing it on the radio. Ugh. Reminds me of the weapons of mass
destruction debacle.

~~~
parthdesai
Though it's not. There is a property management company out of Hong Kong/China
that owns 30 condos in my unit and rents it out to tenants. I work near One
Bloor and if you see the demographic over there it's all non-english speaking
Asian people. Heck the Nordstorm rack in that Condo accepts WePay. Where else
have you seen that in Toronto?

~~~
hamstercat
All statistics point to it being false.

From the financial post ([https://business.financialpost.com/real-
estate/perception-of...](https://business.financialpost.com/real-
estate/perception-of-foreign-ownership-heavily-influences-housing-prices-
cmhc)):

A study from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation released Wednesday
found that 68 per cent of Vancouver respondents, 48 per cent of Toronto
respondents and 42 per cent of Montreal respondents believe foreign buyers are
having "a lot of influence" on their markets and are driving up home prices.

The insight into perceptions around foreign buyers that 30,000 respondents in
the three cities shared with the Crown Corporation between September and mid-
October is in stark contrast with recent data from Statistics Canada showing
foreign buyers only own 4.8 per cent of Vancouver properties and 3.4 per cent
of homes in Toronto.

\----

The truth is that we're house horny enough to not need any outside help to
increase the price of real estate. According to Statistics Canada, 69.0% of
households are owner ([https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-
sa/99-014-x/99-0...](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-
sa/99-014-x/99-014-x2011002-eng.cfm)). While anecdotal data can be comforting,
the data doesn't support the thesis.

~~~
butisaidsudo
I don't know which Stats Canada statistics the Financial Post article refers
to (I'm sure they have more than one measure), but here's Stats Canada putting
non-resident ownership at over 7% in Vancouver
([https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-
quotidien/180625/dq180...](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-
quotidien/180625/dq180625a-eng.htm)).

Whatever the exact number is, I don't think you can draw a conclusion just
from that measure alone. The percentage of total properties owned by non-
residents is less important than the percentage of recent sales that went to
non-residents.

Some completely made up and simplified numbers to illustrate my point:

Let's say 10% of all properties in Vancouver have been sold on the market in
the last 8 years, and 25% of those went to foreign buyers. That would only
account for an increase in 2.5% of non-resident ownership. That by itself
doesn't sound significant, but 25% of all sales going to buyers many of which
are price insensitive is going to have a massive effect on prices.

------
arijun
Wow this seems like a huge deal.

If the whole company is suspected of breaking the embargo, why is just the CFO
arrested? Was she just the one they could get?

Also, it seems weird that Huawei can sell their own products to Iran but not
American products they own.

~~~
dreamcompiler
> Was she just the one they could get?

This seems likely. Any officer of the company might do in this circumstance.
She might be the only one currently accessible in a country friendly to US
extradition.

------
cronix
> “Wanzhou Meng was arrested in Vancouver on December 1. She is sought for
> extradition by the United States, and a bail hearing has been set for
> Friday,” Justice department spokesperson Ian McLeod said in a statement to
> The Globe and Mail. “As there is a publication ban in effect, we cannot
> provide any further detail at this time. The ban was sought by Ms. Meng.

I don't understand the last bit there about a "publicaton ban." So, in Canada,
a suspect can request that some info of their arrest be withheld? I googled
and came up with [https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/victims-
victimes/factshe...](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/victims-
victimes/factsheets-fiches/publication.html), but it doesn't make much sense
to me since her name was published? So how would a publication ban protect her
identity? I guess there could be others involved that she was protecting and
not wanting the names released?

~~~
forkLding
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_ban](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_ban)

As stated on the wiki, likely because the publicity generated could affect the
case. This case likely will get a lot of publicity.

~~~
cronix
Yes, but her name was released. I'm questioning on what exactly this ban is
protecting if her identity is already known?

~~~
pducks32
I believe (based on the fact she was arrested Dec. 1) that her name was part
of the tight information security but once it gets out that she has been
arrested the news are allowed to publish that. Moreover, It also appears these
may be international papers and I don’t know enough to say they have to or
don’t have to follow the ban.

------
gdfasfklshg4
The Iran sanctions are yet another sad example of the US losing the moral high
ground and soft power (followed by hard power). Americans might not like
hearing this but increasingly the US is seen a dangerous, untrustworthy and
negative value ally. As this continues the EU block will steadily move away
from the US eventually NATO will fragment and this will have serious
implications for global stability.

Prior to the current return to Iran sanctions the USA had a monopoly on
international payments clearance. The EU has responded by setting up an
alternative system.

------
rdl
I’m curious where she was flying. If Chinese execs can’t do China to Mexico
via Canada connections, that will be interesting. (I am pretty sure she was
actively avoiding connections in the US. Overflight of the US is bad if you
are Snowden level but it isn’t quite as risky as connecting in Canada and way
less than connecting in the US, since the US doesn’t do sterile transit.)

~~~
Laforet
Details are pretty scarce because of the publication ban atm, however rumour
has it that she's arrested in the Vancouver suburb of Richmond, and she may
have entered the country using a Canadian passport.

Again these are just hearsay at the mlment, however it does explain why the
US/Canadian authorities were enboldened to act and she had to seek an order to
prevent publication of the particilars of the case against her.

------
hacknat
It is telling that Chinese-US relations are at stake when a "private" citizen
is arrested for a crime. Beijing was quick to say there was no wrong-doing
before formal charges were even made.

China wonders why we distrust their businesses, and this is the reason. They
all seem to be heavily politically supported by the Chinese government.

We're all discussing it with the presumption that, of course, it would. When
we indicted half of FIFA everyone in the EU loved us for it, and certainly no
political establishments condemned it.

------
dsl
A tl;dr to address some of the obvious questions here:

In 2013 she set up a Hong Kong shell company called Skycom Tech. That company
(attempted to) purchase HP computers from the United States and resell them to
Iran. The deal did not involve Huawei products, but many of the documents
related to the deal were labeled "Huawei confidential" indicating they created
the shell company to conceal their involvement.

She broke the law by attempting to do a straw purchase for the Iranian
government of US manufactured restricted goods.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase)

Canada has an extradition agreement with the United States, so the Canadian
government arrested her on behalf of the US.

~~~
floatboth
It's kinda scary that the US can do anything about straw purchases. US company
sells to HK company, the stuff becomes property of HK company, US should be
completely out of the goddamn picture at this point, HK company sells to Iran,
done. The US govt must not be able to do anything about the HK company's
intention to resell.

~~~
tathougies
> The US govt must not be able to do anything about the HK company's intention
> to resell.

What does that statement mean?

~~~
floatboth
Ah, if it's not buying with the intention to resell that's illegal, but the
resale itself, it means nothing.

I just think it's weird that the US law handles the resale case. Like they
think they have authority over the whole world.

The US supposedly loves private property. But this transitive application of
trade restrictions sounds like complete disrespect of private property. (And
honestly even just any trade restrictions in general…)

~~~
tathougies
My question was significantly higher level than that. The United States exists
to further the objectives of the United States. You made the statement 'The US
govt must not be able to...'.

What does that statement mean given that (1) the United States is most
certainly able to, (2) the United States merely looks after its own interests,
and (3) there is no (earthly at least) authority which can actually judge the
United states's actions in this case.

Thus, what does it mean to say '<insert country here> must not'? By what
standard?

------
api_or_ipa
Suspicious how this comes right on the heels of negative publicity about
Huawei's IP theft and possible infiltration of global telecom networks. I
suspect someone might be wanting to apply pressure and forcing Huawei to
respond.

------
ineedasername
Is she _herself_ accused of breaking the Iran sanctions or is it Huawei, and
as the CFO she's being held accountable? I can't tell from this article or the
one from NYT. And it seems like that would be a big difference, and if it was
Huawai then the US should just level sanctions against Huawai rather than
arresting its executives on criminal charges.

~~~
freddie_mercury
"It seems" is not really a useful starting point in discussions. It is better
to actually know the relevant laws & practices.

~~~
ineedasername
"It seems" is just fine. I was expressing my opinion of how it should be
handled, not making a statement of fact on applicable laws.

------
lennydizzy
Only if Huawei could dismember some journalists, then they would probably be
fine, maybe even get to shake the President's hand.

------
deckar01
[https://outline.com/NWDj34](https://outline.com/NWDj34)

------
xmly
Huawei has a branch in the US and Canada. Why not arrest some of them now?

If the criminal is done by other colleagues in the company, should the
executives be punished? I highly doubt the CFO is arranging the shipment to
Iran...

Or simply because the CFO is the daughter of the founder?

~~~
briandear
The CFO is a fiduciary if the company. The rank and file generally are not.
The CFO couldn’t possibly be unaware of shipments to Iran. That would be
absurd — and awareness of, is the same as agreement with, when you are the CFO
of the company. Surely the receipts from Iranian payments crossed the CFO’s
desk. This isn’t some subsidiary selling a few laptops illegally, this was far
bigger. Some minion in the US office wasn’t making decisions unilaterally.

------
nimbius
double standard? I dont recall seeing any of the Bluecoat (Symantec now) CEO's
cuffed at the airport when hackers found Bluecoat hardware in Syria...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Coat_Systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Coat_Systems)

It seems like the US Government has a serious axe to grind with Huawei.

~~~
cedivad
And HN plays its part with the downvotes.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I flagged this one as a dup, not for content.

~~~
nimbius
sorry about that, I duplicate posted by accident after realizing I hadnt
whitelisted hn for cookies when switching back to firefox. dupe deleted.

but seriously, just google ITAR violations and youll find a litany of other
american companies that have been made to pay fines for violations and allowed
to continue business as normal with no sanctions, no boycotts.

[https://spacenews.com/37071us-satellite-component-maker-
fine...](https://spacenews.com/37071us-satellite-component-maker-
fined-8-million-for-itar-violations/) [https://www.strtrade.com/news-
publications-ITAR-AECA-violati...](https://www.strtrade.com/news-publications-
ITAR-AECA-violations-062314.html)

its just Huawei for some reason that sticks in the craw of DC, and has for
months now starting with senators insisting they should be boycotted, to a
defense procurement boycott that extends to DOD contractors, and eventually
the evangelism of a boycott that extends to AT&T and others.

Im genuinely curious what caused it? because the trade violation just seems
convenient.

------
AngeloAnolin
Just a bit unclear on this:

"Canada has arrested the chief financial officer of China’s Huawei
Technologies, who now faces extradition to the United States on suspicion she
violated U.S. trade sanctions against Iran."

What violation was really committed? Was it Huawei doing business with Iran,
like selling chips/devices/etc on their product line? If it (the Huawei
company) did, shouldn't everyone on the company's employ who have had a hand
on the products that were provided to Iran be arrested?

I look forward to having more factual information on this, rather than mere
speculations on the violations that were supposedly committed.

------
thecleaner
Could someone explain what laws were broken ? I can't understand what's the
matter if a foreign national does trade with Iran ? And its kind of suspicious
that Huawei, a telecom giant , is the prime target given how much lobbying is
done by telecom companies in USA.

------
forkLding
Whats the Iranian perspective? Theres a lot of Americans here, I presume there
are Iranians too?

~~~
namirez
Nothing new here! She appears to have violated the US sanctions. Many people
have ended up in prison for lesser offenses, some of whom were not even aware
of their crime. The story of John Roth is really informative. He was indicted
and jailed simply because of hiring two Iranian and Chinese students.
[https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/knoxville/press-
releases/2...](https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/knoxville/press-
releases/2012/former-university-of-tennessee-professor-john-reece-roth-begins-
serving-four-year-prison-sentence-on-convictions-of-illegally-exporting-
military-research-data)

~~~
fastball
The fact that it was a USAF drone project which he hired them for seems
salient, no?

~~~
namirez
Maybe! Probably he should have known better, but that's beside the point. One
can end up in jail by simply hiring nationals from sanctioned countries. This
case is more clearcut in comparison. She was actually involved in exporting
American technology to Iran.

~~~
fastball
Hmm. You keep forgetting the important bit. Let me help you out again.

"One can end up in jail by simply hiring nationals from sanctioned countries
_and then giving them access to documents pertaining to US military
technology_."

This doesn't just happen to any random employer or any random professor. It
happens when you are working for the DoD and you do something you shouldn't.
If you don't want to run afoul of such laws, be better informed or don't take
government contracts.

~~~
namirez
> _and then giving them access to documents pertaining to US military
> technology_

Not true! Once a technology is deemed to fall under ITAR or EAR, the export
regulations kick in. Doesn't matter if the technology belongs to the
government, a large company, a startup, or a university lab. And for obvious
reasons, sometimes people are not aware this fact.

~~~
fastball
Random technology does not fall under ITAR or EAR. They are specific
regulations that are pertinent to a very particular industry. If you are
building military defense technology, you should probably be familiar those
regulations and act accordingly.

------
flexie
It is ugly. The US and Canada is going down a rabbit hole.

The dictatorship of Iran is disgusting and dangerous but the US trades with
countries governed by equally disgusting and dangerous dictatorships such as
Saudi Arabia and China.

The US trade sanctions are imposed unilaterally and create mountains of
troubles for US allies. Most of the world oppose the trade sanctions. Such
sanctions rarely work anyways. It's a huge cost born not only by US companies
but by companies in allied countries that have to obey US sanctions in order
to avoid repercussions.

------
kelvin0
It seems to me Canada is doing this for it's southern neighbor. Wondering if
the fact that Huawei is putting a lot a pressure on American companies (by
competing with them) is part of this?

~~~
mips_avatar
The biggest Huawei competition is from Ericsson in Sweden and Nokia in
Finland. The US feels very uncomfortable having it’s civilian and military
networks serviced by Huawei because of the connections Huawei has to the
Chinese military.

------
majia
This reminds me of the Yinhe incident:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinhe_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinhe_incident)

~~~
qd6pwu4
丢掉幻想，准备斗争

~~~
throwfast1
this translates to "Lose fantasy, prepare to fight" according to google
translate.

------
dmode
I hope multiple US executives now get arrested in other countries for
supporting a US regime that breaks human rights and ignores international
everyday

------
hkt
Good for Canada - they showed a lot of spine in criticising Saudi Arabia this
summer and they're showing a lot of spine with this.

Combined with the UK's seizure of Facebook documents, it's a great week for
assertive liberal democracies. Let's hope we're setting ourselves up for a
2019 where we'll get some sunlight into all the dark places that have been
building up for the last couple of decades.

------
hsnewman
Although the propaganda from the white house says a deal was made with China
last week on tariffs, this I would consider would be seen by China as a major
escalation of the nationalist behavior of the USA. The markets will likely
respond with a sell off because the behavior of the USA is not correlating
with the statements coming out. Hold on for a scary couple of days.

------
benmmurphy
For the conspiracy theorists O2 is currently suffering a massive mobile
network outage in the UK
[[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/12/06/o2-network...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/12/06/o2-network-
customers-lose-access-4g-data/)]. Apparently it has been caused by a third
party supplier
[[https://twitter.com/O2/status/1070612301110226944](https://twitter.com/O2/status/1070612301110226944)].
Apparently, O2 uses Huawei [[http://telecoms.com/44197/huawei-wins-managed-
services-deal-...](http://telecoms.com/44197/huawei-wins-managed-services-
deal-with-o2-uk/)] but has recently been boasting about moving away from them
[can't find a reference].

But someone on twitter is claiming the third party is not Huawei.
[[https://twitter.com/NicFildes/status/1070606845881008128](https://twitter.com/NicFildes/status/1070606845881008128)]

------
squozzer
Is Ms. Meng related to Meng Hongwei?

[https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-interpol-chief-ousted-china-
to...](https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-interpol-chief-ousted-china-top-advisory-
body-063307660.html)

------
farseer
The only lesson here is: If your company has ever sold any products in Iran, I
think its safe to avoid taking any connecting flights through US, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand and possibly Britain. Fly Emirates, Qatar Airways or
Cathay Pacific.

------
gtrubetskoy
It's interesting that this happened on the same day Trump and Jinping met,
there is a possibility they both knew about this prior to the meeting. On
Monday stock market goes up on "improving China relations", on Tuesday the Dow
tanks 800 points on "no news". Chances are the sell-off was because some
people learned about it on Tuesday.

------
nickelcitymario
And y'all thought we canucks we're nice.

------
fallingfrog
So, we are willing to arrest foreign businesspeople and risk an international
crisis in order to make sure that our supply of oil is secure, but if our own
businesspeople rip off the American people to the tune of trillions of
dollars, we not only let them walk free, but we compensate them for their
losses. Interesting to see what kinds of behavior are actually punished. Shows
you who's really in charge of the government. (Exxon, Goldman Sachs, etc)

------
lukaa
Is it only coincidence that this prosecution of Huawei come just after Huawei
create best smartphone on market?

~~~
zeist
No it's due to their 5G network equipment success. Their tech is on par with
Nokia & Ericsson and the price is very competitive.

------
lukaa
Is it only coincidence that this prosecution of Huawei come just after Huawei
create best smartphone on market?

------
yes2right
this is violation of international law, what is canada doing for us a favor.
to arrest any citizen of country in canada. this is Canada looking own trouble
now. really is suck up on us political .

------
yes2right
why Canada arrested Huawei’s global chief financial officer in Vancouver, this
is not belong to Canada, really suck up to American. Canada got fuck good on
tariff and still never learn. stupid the Canadian justice. tax fair paid him
and he do job for American.

------
ry4n413
Is china still holding those Americans hostage? Victor and Cynthia Liu?

------
throw2016
This is a mockery of globalization, free markets and rule of law. It's sad for
those of us who have supported some of these values to see them mocked like
this. This is like China or Russia getting Trump's or Bill Gates daughter
arrested on some made up charge in a third country. Who will support that?

Unilateral sanctions against Iran or Cuba without the consensus of the UN is
questionable in law in the first place. What crimes have Iran or Cuba
committed? And yet these sanctions without basis by countries who count Saudi
Arabia as their closest ally are allowed to cause suffering to millions of
people for decades on end and no one cares. This is the twisted state of our
world.

It seems ultimately foolish to believe in ideals when they only apply to a
certain group of countries in their benefit, and when not will use propaganda
and their collective political and diplomatic power to harass others.

------
rqs
Weird.

Huawei made an _carefully worded_ announcement early this day and states that
they are didn't violate any related law:

\-
[https://www.zhihu.com/question/304821204](https://www.zhihu.com/question/304821204)

\-
[https://weibo.com/2557129567/H5WbTkTkj](https://weibo.com/2557129567/H5WbTkTkj)

December 1, the same day Xi and Trump met at G20. Wonder if anything goes
wrong.

Americans better find something this time, one Yinhe incident[0] is bad enough
for PR already :)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinhe_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinhe_incident)

------
crb002
I'm hoping Canada puts her on a flight to Beijing instead of involving itself.
She is acused of violating a trade embargo that Canada is not a party to.

~~~
jhall1468
That would violate US-Canadian reciprocation agreements and could dramatically
hinder relations between the countries. What your suggesting is a very small-
picture POV that will only result in hurting both countries.

------
vorticalbox
I was under the impression that unless you left the airport you're not
technically in that country.

That's how Julian Assange evaded arrest.

~~~
goodcanadian
Not so. The airport is definitely the territory of the country in which it
resides. You do not have to clear immigration to be subject to that nation's
laws.

------
jussij
I have no doubt this has a lot to do with two super powers trying very hard to
flex their muscles, both trying to project a position of strength.

However, I don't think China was helping it's cause when a month ago it
decided to arrest the Interpol chief, only to have that chief released a few
hours latter.

Throw in that mix a crazy Putin itching for war in the Ukraine and we have
three boys all trying very hard to take control the playground.

------
cauldron
Expecting in couple months, there would be an American executive's nationally
televised confession and contrition.

------
justinzollars
Goodbye Vancouver real estate?

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
The Chinese buy real estate in Vancouver to avoid the Chinese government, not
the US. Canada does not have an extradition treaty with China.

------
dude3
Probably related to this:
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-
us-c...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-
canada-46352336). Trump brought it up at the g20

------
tu7001
This is disgusting, I know what is the brand of my new mobile phone:-D

------
xttblog
加拿大还是一个主权国家吗？

~~~
mips_avatar
加拿大很好

------
m00nlight
Is Canada becoming little brother of US?

~~~
Sacho
What do you mean by "becoming"? The extradition treaty that the US most likely
invoked in this case has been in force for almost 50 years.

[https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/traites/en_traites-
ext-c...](https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/traites/en_traites-ext-can-
usa4.html)

~~~
m00nlight
So many double standard to the legal system from US & Canada.

[http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1130954.shtml](http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1130954.shtml)

------
qd6pwu4
Shameless, hypocrite countries

------
Silmarilion
I think that's totally fine. Only the US can spy on their own citizens, plus
on the entire world.

------
emptyfile
No problem USA! Go back on the Iran deal, go back on the Paris climate deal,
go back on TPP.

Just don't expect that anyone believes you anymore.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
You think THIS proves the US is not a trustworthy nation? Why choose to ignore
the last 100+ years of the US's backstory and focus on this rather minor
setback to make such a bold statement? I would imagine any amount of trust we
had left was entirely exhausted more than 40 years ago, during the Nixon shock
[0] and Exorbitant privilege [1].

Surely, you realize the US earns its status on the global stage via its
violent & powerful military, and the PetroDollar? It is foolish to suggest
that the US expects other nations to possess any pretense of trust.

You don't have to believe me, because after all I'm just some dumb American.
But you may want to take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself who is
being the true "American" here.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege)

~~~
chopin
Trust is lost in buckets, and earned in drops. The US will learn this the hard
way. There's never been a discussion about a European army, now it crops up,
for example.

Even if the next administration is deemed trustworthy what's with the one
coming after that?

~~~
gonvaled
AND pushing for international clearing in Euros, which is much more damaging
for the interests of the US.

------
bobdylan425
tesr

------
chenpengcheng
Intern camp.

------
mips_avatar
China has a long history of disregarding United Nations and US sanctions.
During the second Iraq war they defied UN sanctions by selling anti-aircraft
defense systems to Iraq directly endangering US and coalition fighters.

Edit: verb tense.

[https://books.google.com/books?id=grGMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT221&lpg=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=grGMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT221&lpg=PT221&dq=chinese+military+burying+fiber+optic+cables+iraq&source=bl&ots=Lke2jW4l_v&sig=fSORayYCs1bfvetAty4Cs3jBBUE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjI8fKmn4rfAhVIvFkKHeyOC_sQ6AEwC3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=chinese%20military%20burying%20fiber%20optic%20cables%20iraq&f=false)

~~~
qd6pwu4
Keep in mind that US sanctions against foreign companies doing business with
Iran are opposed by:

The United Nations International Court of Justice, which ordered the US to
withdraw sanctions, to which the US responded by pulling out of international
agreements.

The European Union, which has attempted to block its companies from complying
with US sanctions.

With that said, the US is free to sanction anyone for its own interests,
that's its right as a sovereign state. It is also its right as a sovereign
state to refuse market access and trade to any company that violates its
sanctions.

But arresting foreign nationals in other countries for violating US sanctions?
That's the equivalent of Russia arresting American business executives and
extraditing them to China for violating Chinese sanctions against Taiwan - and
yes, there are sanctions against Taiwan, which are regularly ignored by the
US, of course. This is a massive escalation and will undoubtedly cause a major
international crisis. Stay tuned.

Source:[https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/a3hied/huawei_de...](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/a3hied/huawei_deputy_chairwoman_arrested_by_canada_at_us/)

~~~
mips_avatar
I mean you’re right that the UN has a lot of realpolitik, and you need to take
those decisions with a grain of salt. But the rulings you are referring to are
an instance where the US took a different ideological stance to the EU as to
the best course of action to deal with Iran (which nobody wants to have
intercontinental ballistic missiles, but really doesn’t want it to have
nuclear weapons).

The example I gave and what it looks like Meng did at Huawei are examples of
the Chinese government actively supporting weapons programs in hostile
regions. I very much feel that she should stand trial for the deception she
did constructing these shell companies to sell US export controlled items to
Iran.

