Huawei was implicated in the hack on the African Union. [1,2] Now, that hasn't been proven anywhere, nor have they been formally accused, but it came up when Australia dropped them for 5G.
1. https://outline.com/WfCzFe (same as , outlined)
Quoting the same article
> There’s no proof that Huawei was asked to participate or turn a blind eye to the breach, but we know that there was a breach and Huawei was the key provider
(The article mentions ZTE, that was also hardware provider, but did not put the blame on them?)
This link also mentions that the AU HQ was bugged with microphones(the compound was build by chinese subcontractors) that implies, that if attack was real, it involved more than mere cloud service and wifi provider https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-african-union-headquar...
But in general, the sources are not verifiable - the Le Monde itself, that seems to be the source, didnt mention huawei at all, the article quoted in parent comment mentions "australian national security source" https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/01/26/a-addis-ab...
And the suggestion that US spying is benign falls flat in the face of shit like this: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/28/international-cr...
We're talking about letting a company under the control of China, the country responsible for ongoing mass-scale industrial espionage at every level of our economy, build the core communications network for our country. It's insanity that it's even open for discussion.
The US may spy on other countries. Sure. Every country does. But it's what they do with the data that is important. Does the US have a social credit system ? Do they have a mass "re-education" program for people who have said anything critical of the government ? Do they do what they want without any checks and balances (journalism, courts, laws) etc ?
China, I would remind you, is a dictatorship not a democracy. And the only way it remains that way is by using data to stamp out dissension. It's a completely differently situation to the US or frankly every other Western country.
For example look at what happens to Australian citizens in China based on what they say about the government:
Yes, what China does to its own citizen is immeasurably worse than what the US (currently) does to its own citizen. But that's not really relevant, because the leader of $(Country X) is not trying to emigrate to China.
The more relevant question is: how many non-Chinese regimes were overthrown by China in the past 100 years? (In other words, "What do they do with the data?", as you asked.)
But their behaviour towards Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, Mongolia and the various neighbours in the South China Sea isn't exactly non-aggressive.
And might want to look into how they use debt to further their geopolitical aims around the world e.g. trying to build naval ports in the South Pacific. It's far more insidious and a long term threat to world stability than most people realise.
South America is littered with American interference, as is the Middle East (which is unstable precisely because of American interference), parts of Africa (Mobutu was propped up by the US, as was Museveni, Moi, PW Botha etc).
The US has destabilized vast parts of the rest of the world then complains about the same people immigrating into the US. The conflict in Nicaragua are a direct is a direct result of CIA activities there, the US reaction to refugees fleeing from a war caused by the US into the US is to build a wall.
The rest of the world hasn't been stable - it's just that their current actions break the monopoly the US has had on causing instability in the world - for the rest of the world, it's good.
The US has just been as hungry for natural resources, it's financed regime changes in Iran, Iraq (in the 50s and in the 00s), the rest of the world views the US as a net aggressor and a cause of war and death in their parts of the world.
China definitely isn't as overt as the US
You can't compare imperialist USA with China. The former is a vicious beast compared to the latter's Pooh bear.
Now when it comes to how they treat their own citizens, sure, one can't argue that the US is miles ahead by every measure. But this discussion isn't about how they treat their own citizens.
It literally is.
China removed term limits so Xi Jinping can be there for the rest of his life.
1. The party's constitution says that no position is for life. There is mandatory retirement at age 68 (Xi is currently 65)
2. The General secretary position has never had term limits. So Xi is no better or worse position than any of his predecessors. President in China is more symbolic than anything else.
Kind of like England in the 19th century. A liberal democracy at home, despot abroad.
When it matters, yes.
A dismissal of concerns about a rising external threat arising within the U.S. doesn't avert crisis: it delays it's response.
The US has a social credit system? No: The U.S. have a credit rating system. This controls the distribution of loans for Homes, to Credit Cards, and cars (considered a necessity in order to work in many parts of the U.S.)
Mass re-education? Not explicitly to my knowledge. A near counterpart may be the modern prison system. The U.S. leads all other nations in number imprisoned per 100,000. Furthering the concerns is a possible regression to Debtors Prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors%27_prison#Modern_debto...
You switch from "The U.S." to "they" for checks and balances. I'll assume "they" is "the U.S.".
Does the U.S. operate without checks and balances?
No, however by it's nature the system is also slow to react to these threats. Thus continuing to focus light on the subject ensures a continued interest in self-policing to ensure these lines are not crossed/
To contrast with view of the U.S. Externally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...
It's hard to argue with the last "defeat" in 1995 (and 15 subsequent "engagements") that the U.S. is a powerhouse. Hard-power Hegemony has it's perks. Soft-Power: The U.S. is still out-performing most other nations (with Forbes listing the U.S. as 4th in terms of soft-power influence).
While China's position in the world today may be concerning, the U.S.'s actions can be similarly concerning for a citizen of China. This concern is only amplified countries who aren't seated in a central position of power. They lack both the external presence flouting superiority while both observing their own internal discord.
The fine line between internal politics of a Nation and external politics conflates the problem leading to confusion and a dis-ingenuous comparison.
FYI: The U.S. is not a democracy, it's a Republic. In principle this empower's the minority protecting them from the majority. In practice this is one of the largest criticism's brought out against the U.S. today with "the 1%" being a hotly debated internal strife. While the benefit can be show-cased through the recent gay-rights movement (and earlier civil-rights movements), the draw-backs are yet-unseen.
The truth is that the US is far more imperialistic and murderous than any other nation on earth, including China. Assuming you live in the US, you are blinded by living in the belly of the beast.
edit: Also, if you don't think the US uses data to stamp out dissent, you are simply ignorant. Just look up COINTELPRO, which is just one of many official anti-dissent programs. You could almost say it's the FBI's job to stamp out dissent. And that's not getting into covert information techniques, such as CIA operatives at most major news outlets, and in modern times, social media manipulation.
We just don't know the full extent of their "re-education" program but we do know Chinese Muslims and journalists are present there:
Also I am Australian not American so I'm hoping my world view is as clear and educated as yours.
Did you properly learn Chinese history? 
0 - https://www.laowaicareer.com/blog/has-china-ever-invaded-ano...
The rest of the examples are also a stretch.
China has certainly not done anything on the level of invading Iraq, overthrowing the governments of Iran or Chile, or destabilizing the middle East.
China would be crazy to let US controlled companies access to their critical infrastructural. US would be crazy to let Chinese controlled companies access to their critical infrastructural.
Welcome to geopolitics.
Homo sapiens was a failed evolutionary experiment. Perhaps some on other planets do rise to the challenge of planetary organisation, but obviously we don't possess the necessary capacities.
Pardon my analogy, but that sounds like one kick in the shins being counterbalanced by a second kick in the shins.
That seems to me just like a plain description of 'business'. Of course as rule of law becomes more effective, the chances of being found out increases, and cheating/corruption declines. But it's in the very nature of business everywhere to do these things where they are able.
Now personally, I think that you are making a bit of a false equivalence, but like I said in my first post, the bar for decision making here is lower than what we can prove to each other. If we can't agree on this point, so be it. If you think your country's interests are better served by building up your communications networks with Huawei and not Cisco, or Ericsson, or whoever, that's up to you(r country). I'd like to think that most Western liberal democracies would not come to that conclusion though.
It's all about perspective. There is no vendor free of government influence. You just have to pick the least bad.
I don’t think we can even question journalistic rigor since it’s hard to believe their editors care.
Imagine your mother in a dispute with a neighbor, and you question your mother right in front of the neighbor. No, not all competitors are equal. The consequences of choosing one over the other is more than who will do the dishes tonight.
> Yet ironically, it’s the U.S. and the U.K. — and more recently Australia — that have laws in place that can in fact compel a company to turn over data, or force a company to install backdoors.
Indeed, western national security politics is schizoprenic and hypocritical and can't be taken seriously.
Instead of worrying specifically so much about Huawei, put funding towards developing secure communications technologies that render backdoors in communications backbones obsolete. This would also protect your own citizens against your own overreaching intelligence services.
>Only this week, the U.S. said it doesn’t need to show proof, citing the company’s ability to be "leveraged by the Chinese government."
This is actually a valid argument. The leverage is all that is needed for there to be a real threat.
However, it is also another reason responsible countries, which could include the US if it wants to be one <cough>, should not allow the creation of laws that would give them analogous leverage over equipment makers in their own countries.
In other words, no back doors, and no "it's not a back door because we call it something different" back doors either, or else the US does not get to make this argument against Huawei.
I wonder if the cost of local manufacture would just be too high for the economics to work (edit: it would certainly help create jobs anyway)
For example, in the rather interesting Israeli case, purchase of the F-35 was conditioned on Israel being able to replace the avionics, which are probably the part most vulnerable to unnoticeable tampering.
I know that technically telecom networks are privately owned, but they've become a vital utility to the public at this point, and should be treated as such imo.
The best way of avoiding conflict is to have deep rooted commercial interactions such that there is too much to lose from falling out with your neighbours. It has worked in Europe with the EU. Trump seems intent on destroying the existing deeply interwoven supply chains involved in technology today. No US chips in Chinese products and vica versa. Seems like preparations for conflict.
It's the Five Eyes alliance countries as well as the EU and handfuls of other countries. Even if the NSA had backdoors in all of the equipment I would be much happier it be the US using the data than China.
At least in US you have courts and journalists which will hold the government to account.