Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
China warns India of 'reverse sanctions' if Huawei is blocked (reuters.com)
162 points by cik 18 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 137 comments

Buying 5G technology from a benign country like Finland or Sweden seems like a good strategy. Both these countries have no aspiration for world domination and have track records of honest business dealings. I don't think either Ericson or Nokia has ever been accused or guilty of spying or stealing technology.

They also have cooperated with GCHQ and the NSA.

Personally I think "the devil you know" mentality is better when considering that any Telecom tech could be compromised. Yeah everybody is probably spying, so you should get your gear from your strongest allies.

Would you rather have a friend or an enemy spying on you? That appears to be the only options now that technology has thoroughly penetrated every day life.

Another point not mentioned enough is that societies with free press are far more likely to find and report exploits/backdoors. In a country like the US you see this a lot. There's many cases of security researchers reporting possible government funded exploits against their own government. In a place like China reporting something like that would probably mean you disappear

> Would you rather have a friend or an enemy spying on you?

A better decision rationale would be; which of the two is more likely to use their spy-data against you?

And the answer to that is without doubt; your own local spy agency, not the one operating in another country.

In the long term, I'd not want my country's national security compromised by a morally bankrupt govt not subject to democracy.

Fundamentally much of what you think in this way is the direct product of propaganda from your own state. It would behoove you to investigate your own preconceptions and realise where you first got them.

It would behoove you to not guess at how I arrived at my beliefs and where I live and then claim I've got preconceptions.

I can see the facts of the Chinese government's authoritarianism, their persecution of their minority populations, and their international behavior just fine. In fact, they're so economically influential, that I find criticism of them is muted, and tolerance of their crap is high.

Tolerance of US crap is high from bombing civilians with drones using CIA black sites. Putting people on no fly lists for arbiratory reasons. Incarcerating minorities are some of the things that the US government does. So when US agencies say they don't like or trust Chinese tech I understand as they probably have backdoors in a lot of the western tech and when Chinese tech is used they lose the back doors. For most countries using Chinese tech vs Western tech is choosing the spying of 1 or the other.

My answer is the group that definitely has historical and real reasons to dislike you. China doesn't like the west. Never has never will.

It's better to risk being spied on by a country where you have lots of expats working in their tech industry. Having those expats greatly increases the likelihood of someone whistleblowing in your country's favor and someone objecting to abuses in your country's favor.

There are thousands upon thousands of first and second generation Indians working in the US and UK tech industries. There are hardly any working in the Chinese tech industry.

The CEO of Nokia Rajeev Suri is an India-born Singaporean citizen.

Oh, I wasn't arguing against either Nokia or Ericsson. I just think buying from Huawei/China is a terrible idea if you care about your sovereignty.

There is no honest telecom company in that sense. It’s a sensitive and strategic industry.

The question is to whom you would prefer to give this strategic advantage.

Now it looks really bad at us that we are offended from an Asian player after selling our tech to them for many years (well they didn’t had other choices either)

Obviously some 5G components aren’t critical. In that case maybe we must be more open.

What about Switzerland?

I might be wrong, but I cannot think of any prominent Swiss tech companies off the top of my head. They are way more famous for their neutral-good approach in finance, rather than in tech.

I agree with you that they are on the same level of neutral-good as Finland/Sweden when it comes to international relations in general, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logitech is Swiss-based, but they don't make 5G hardware :)

Do they have the equivalent of Ericsson (SE) or Nokia (FI)? I think these mobile phone tech companies was what was referred to.

Yep. Honest business dealings such as paying your debts, honoring contracts, enforcing the law, and not being a total unpredictable dick are what, historically, have made nations great.

Corrupt leadership can destroy that trust and hamstring an economy for decades, even centuries.

Although not Ericsson, Bofors had developed some bad habits to help sales.


Its hard to say what makes nations great. The sovereign will always honor their commitments, until they don't :) Because how far back are we willing to go? Most states/kingdoms in Europe have always been at war and there is a long history of reneging under economic strain. (especially wars)

When an entity does not honour their commitments, the money starts going to another entity that appears more trustworthy.

I'm not sure what kind of timelines you have in mind, but the above is clear if you look at the past few hundred of years of European history. Wars, in particular, have been funded by honoured business commitments.

>When an entity does not honour their commitments, the money starts going to another entity that appears more trustworthy.

Sure, but when in crises, people heavily favor the short term gains of reneging or violating an agreement over the loss of potential future opportunities.

Also using your logic, Chinese companies appear to be quite a bit trustworthy since businesses and individuals continue to do repeat business in China, continue to open up new businesses in China/sign new contracts etc, etc, etc. As you can imagine, the real-world is a lot more complex.

>I'm not sure what kind of timelines you have in mind, but the above is clear if you look at the past few hundred of years of European history. Wars, in particular, have been funded by honoured business commitments.

I'm talking about things like the confiscation of wealth/property, as happened under Edward I or Phillip IV, or the Stuart period (where the crown sold off lands to fund wars, and did not honor agreements for borrowed funds) for e.g.

Certainly nation states with their constitutions and laws have helped stem this unilateral 'dictatorial' approach to governance, but I think that its a bit too early to say that nation states will always be rational actors. Certainly the US, for e.g. has violated a lot of treaties that were signed with the native americans.

>Nokia has ever been accused or guilty of spying

Which Nokia timeline are you talking about? The current Nokia HMD which outsources to China and was found to have Chinese botnet in them ?

You seem to misremember what that scandal was about, or maybe you read a particularly hysterical article that misrepresented the situation.

Nokia had accidentally enabled an option intended for phones sold in China with a China Telecom contract. To verify that they were eligible for use with the contract, the phones would connect to China Telecom servers on first use. For the phones that had that option incorrectly enabled, the request failed (because they weren't in China Telecom's database) and was retried relatively frequently. Based on this behavior, the initial report assumed the worst, but in the end it was misconfigured telemetry.

You can call it spyware if you want, but no botnet was involved.

Always ignore intention. Either a device sent data to china (etc) or it didn't. Otherwise you're concerning yourself more with PR than the technical aspect. I don't care why the process allowed exfiltration of data.

Intention matters if you want to know the reason behind the technical details, and whether a similar incident is likely to happen again in the future.

In this case, Nokia likely won't reintroduce an obfuscated version of the leak to evade detection, because it wasn't intentional. On the other hand, it's certainly possible they'll configure a phone for the wrong carrier again, since the configuration process apparently involves passing a bunch of carrier-specific feature flags at build time.

>Sorry we sent your private data, we did not mean it. Can we still be friends?

All telemetry is spyware. Sending telemetry from European users to China is a glorious fuck-up. They deserve to get hurt for that.

There are very few Indian companies operating in China anyway.

India should block Huawei now even more. Just like in the case with US, China has more to lose that India.

Edit: in case there was any confusion, when I said "US" above I was referring to US-China not US-India.

India has $60 billion trade surplus with US it is not same relationship when with China, India has $60 billion deficit.

India is not that important for US, it is useful, Yes. Strategically important? Absolutely NOT!

Edit: To Provide Context, there is low scale tit-for-tat going between US and India regarding trade. https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/15/economy/india-tariffs-us-trum...

For 2018 the India goods trade surplus with the US was $21 billion ($33.5b in US exports to India; $54.3b in India exports to the US).

US exports to India climbed from $21b to $33b over the prior two years (2017 & 2018). That's a nice increase of $12b or 57%; their exports to the US increased by $8b over that same time frame.

To put that into context, US exports to India will match US exports to France this year approximately, so it's already a serious export market for the US (and 50%+ larger than US exports to Italy, which is the 8th largest economy). Importantly, India has serious economic growth and a likely high long-term growth trajectory, whereas most of the top 20 economies have had very little or zero growth the past decade plus. If you're the US and you're seeking export growth, India is one of the best options.

The primary benefit to maintaining a good, equitable economic relationship with India, is that they're likely to have a very large economy in the near future. Even though they will remain poor per capita for a long time, they're almost guaranteed to become the world's third largest economy behind the US and China in the next few decades.

In terms of economic output they passed France this year and will soon pass the UK (within 6-12 months if they haven't already). That puts them #5 behind Germany, which they'll plausibly pass in six or seven years. 20 years from now when they have a $8 or $10 trillion economy, as an American, I'd prefer that the US have a reasonable economic relationship with India that benefits both sides. In the future they will probably be a very important market for the US, so you should try to take care of the relationship today.


You can't post nationalistic slurs to HN. We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines.


The downvotes may be for being off-topic. The thread is discussing the China-India relationship and not so much the India-US relationship.

>> Just like in the case of US, China has more to lose that India.

Could be or not, I interpreted the OP as he is commenting how US is losing a trade disagreement with India. Again, on second read it was ambiguous enough. It was not an intentional tangent.

I mean there's over a billion Indians, I'm sure there's some variance in what a billion people are and are not interested in hearing.

India is not that important for US, it is useful, Yes. Strategically important? Absolutely NOT!

India is extremely strategically important - there's a reason the US goverment now constantly talks about the "Indo-Pacific". It's likely the worlds most populous country, and has a rapidly growing economy.



Tit-for-tat. From my scarce knowledge of game-theory and world-politics it is generally accepted as the default move in these types of situations.

But well, if India sees Huawei as security threat, shouldn't they have a quite good justification for blocking them? It's not that they are outright punishing Huawei for just existing, but that there is, in their opinion, a real cause for them to fear Huawei of spying their networks behalf of Chinese government?

Although the real reason would be a lot more nuanced as usual with politics. But to me it seems a bit unfair. Russia and China (and others, sure) have effectively blocked many foreign companies in different sectors in their respective countries because of security reasons, so why India isn't allowed to do the same thing?

Honestly things like phones and their networks should be built and maintained in their home nations

and email hosting. Email hosting is a big deal.

Works well on games.

Only problem is trade isn’t a game.

Or, to put it another way, you have no idea when your opponent will stop playing this game and start playing another one.

Game theory is about decision making. If you reject game theory, you reject rational decision making being possible. Note that game theory is still useful in the context of making good decisions against irrational decision makers. Your "put another way" is merely pointing out that often in real world scenarios the game's rules are often part of the unknown information

Everything involving decisions is a game. Trade is a game

I think "game theory" applies to more situations than the name might imply..

If the technology is great, every country will use it without questioning its source, but Chinese tech has never been so innovative, always copying and pasting with a bit of modifications. If you are forcing a country to use your technology, then there's something wrong.

I believe this is incorrect in this case. Huawei is ahead of competitors in the 5G space.

If advanced spying technologies are included they are ahead

Way, waaaaay ahead

That is because everyone else is working on 6G!

Considering the sheer volume of mobile devices in asia, and China in particular, this wouldn't surprise me. However, I was under the impression that "5g" doesn't actually mean anything. As in there is no technical definition or standard that Huawei could be ahead of. Are we just talking about general mobile technologies or have things changed wrt 5G?

> However, I was under the impression that "5g" doesn't actually mean anything. As in there is no technical definition or standard that Huawei could be ahead of. Are we just talking about general mobile technologies or have things changed wrt 5G?

I believe most people mean 5G NR (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR) when they talk about 5G, the same way 4G usually means LTE.

Ah, I didn't know this was a thing. Thanks mate.

I understand where you are coming from ( the always copying and pasting bit) but Huawei leads the 5G patents by a decent margin [1] , Complete article [2]

1: https://files.lbr.cloud/254270/conversions/figure_4_4-full.j...

2: https://www.iam-media.com/who-leading-5g-patent-race

There are many Chinese companies doing copy pasting. but in general China is innovative today. You just don’t hear much about what they are building and doing as much as you would hear from EU and US.

So basically, the big companies own the government in their county.

There has long been suspicion that Huawei is actually owned and controlled by the PLA. Not that it really makes much difference even if that were true (China would protect it even if it were a completely private enterprise).

I remember the quote from the RoboCop movie of the 80s when the CEO of OCP said: "We practically are the government".

That movie was ahead of its time.

In the specific case of China its more like the Government owns the big companies. But yes, basically.

In this particular case I think it's the other way around. The government owns the company.

So it's like the US.

Other way around. Many large corporations are founded by CCP members and receive massive government funding. In China at least the business and party elite are one and the same.

Governments typically protect their big players and it makes sense. You don’t expect U.S. don’t do anything if Asia or EU put sanctions on Apple or Microsoft.

As an Indian I personally root for Huawei. If not for any other reason that Ericsson (70% just a decade ago) and co have had a monopoly for far too long.

The only jobs that Ericsson brings to India are low end back office jobs and at the most billing software. Even though it could have been one of their largest growth markets.

This could be a good opportunity to get them/Huawei to setup more cutting edge R&D (especially PHY layer), co-development and manufacturing. India should hand out some Chinese medicine to the Chinese.

High tech is a chicken and egg problem, India has all the ingredients, but apparently free market doesn't work when monopolies are involved.

China has a good relationship with Pakistan.


I wonder how that plays into it, given the recent events in Kashimir: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/india-revokes-kashmir...

If I had to guess these sanctions and warnings are never purely technological and are mostly political.

I don't know anything about this, but it seems quite surprising, given China's record of 'disappearing' millions of Muslims (and other citizens) right next door to Pakistan

People from the outside has a tendency to over estimate the unity of other groups. For a long time, the first world nations thought all the Communist countries were buddies but China had border wars with both the USSR and Vietnam. In the Islamic world, Muslim nations fought each other all the time as they still do today. In the Christian realms, the Crusades started with Western Christians sacking Constantinople and the wars of religion between the Catholics and Protestants were pretty brutal. France was at one point allied with the Turks during the period of the "Italian Wars".

It tends to be that people think first of their own welfare and then maybe of their allegiance to the groups they belong to.

China-Pak friendship is driven simply by their mutual enmity of India. Basically, enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Pakistan provides a very strategic route to the Persian Gulf for the Chinese. Even without the India-China rivalry (I hate using this term though because the relationship is quite a bit more complex than a simple rivalry), I think Pakistan would still be a valuable ally to the Chinese. During China's period of isolation, Pakistan also served as a diplomatic corridor to the other countries. Prior to the Nixon visit, China and the US met via Pakistan.

And bewilderingly enough, the US continues to give Pakistan military aid.

That is an odd one isn't it. It seems it is partly a bribe to make sure they safeguard their nukes and keep them from getting into the wrong hands, and also to ensure it doesn't harbor terrorists and militants who might interfere with America's ambitions in the region. Then India has traditionally, since Cold War times at least, been buying Soviet and Russian military technology. From that point of view, US probably wants to counter-balance it by arming Pakistan, to avoid Russia and India getting an upper hand in the region.

Also, interestingly, in the last two years their military aid has been reduced by almost half https://www.statista.com/chart/12384/us-aid-to-pakistan/. It seems the current administration is keen on reducing foreign aid across the board so maybe that's not too surprising. Though if I was China, I would notice that and make sure to "fill that void" so to speak.

I believe the default action for Huawei for such block would actually be purposefully enact the ban on itself:

Stop all sales including spare parts, revoke signing keys, block IPs of cell towers and cloud control panels from that country, stop tech support, and look how soon they will change their musik

So India just needs to pre-ask for "reverse-reverse-sanctions" from the US: Hey Mr States, we'll not use Huawei like you asked us, if you'll give us extra XXXX access to your country.

More like: “Hey India, if you don’t avoid Huawei with us, you’ll have even bigger sanctions than if you follow Chinese advice. And won’t get spied upon by the Chinese.”

The US needs strong developing countries to manufacture its stuff. Vietnam is still pretty small. India has more familiar industrial relations and government model.

on a serious note. what are the chances of this whole debacle thing causing a full scale warfare ? given the animosity between the 2 neighboring countries India and China. then you factor in US backing India. Then add Russia + china in the mix. This whole sanction and tariff thing can't continue without one side completely asserting dominance over the other. & US will not leave it's position willingly.

We are already very close to "full scale warfare", just of the economic kind. There is likely not going to be the war you are referring to between two superpowers in today's environment.

Russia and India are each other’s closest allies.


China has a history of pegging its currency to the US dollar. Is there precedent for pegging tariffs to the yuan?

Well the US government labelled China a "Currency Manipulator" a couple of days back. Doesnt mean much, but it will add to the trade war between the two

> warning there could be consequences for Indian firms operating in China

What Indian firms even operate in China? What firms from any country other than China have a meaningful presence there?

I guess the threat is meaningful if you include firms doing any business in China, but by restricting exports or imposing tariffs they are shooting themselves in the foot as well.

I see people already noticing the timing.

In other news: https://www.dawn.com/news/1498428/china-says-india-move-on-k...

In an ideal world one should not be spied on by anyone else, but in this particular case I think India would be more ok (so to speak) of being spied on by the US than by China, the reason being that India has an ongoing and still open border dispute with China, while its relations with the US are a little more benign. Granted, I'm not from India and I've never visited the country, maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can correct me if I'm wrong.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20629406.

You'd need to have been living on a different planet to think that the US is benign. Relatively benign to their own citizens but far and away the most globally antagonistic country over the last 50 years. The list of wars and interventions, arms dealing, extradition etc would be far beyond anything China has done.

No government is beyond over stepping it's boundaries but unfortunately non US citizens do not have a constitution to protect them from the US government.

China is threatening the US global trade dominance and the US is reacting in exactly the same way incumbents usually do and unfortunately trade wars between major powers have been historical quite bloody.


You listed Indonesia. Let me show you what USA did in the past: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/th...

No. I do not trust USA.

>> The good the US has done is also radically beyond any good that China has done.

"Dear members of the jury, I know what you are thinking: well it looks like this guy did napalm little children in Vietnam, and did sell weapon to terrorists, and did support violent dictators. But I urge you to take a second look at my client; consider all the occasions where he DIDN'T murder women and children, that ought to count for something! And there are also instances where he DIDN'T support some dictators and terrorists. Also he gives to charity. I rest my case."

The top 25 destinations for US arms also includes: Saudi Arabia - by far the highest, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Morocco, Turkey, Afghanistan. All of these ahead of the UK in 2018. Also Indonesia. The USA is far and away the world's largest arms dealer.


The wars China has been involved in don't include most of the places you claim. Korea, Vietnam, Tibet - that's about it since the post-WW2 revolution.


USA on the other hand has quite some list.


> Last time I checked, for 70 years the US has overwhelmingly acted as a defender of liberal democracies, not an antagonist.

There is so much wrong with this statement. Let's take a look at some of your great examples.

> Iran (theocracy)

Do you know anything about American and British led operations to overthrow the Iranian government in the 1950s?


They overthrew a democratically elected government in order to install one more friendly to Western oil interests. Does that sound like a government that is the "protector of liberal democracies"?

> Cuba (dictatorship)

So the popular revolution against the military dictator Fulgencio Batista ended up with a pretty authoritarian government. We can argue on the legitimacy of the communist government, but let's talk about the government before that.

If the US was a "protector of liberal democracies" and likes to be "in conflict" with dictators, why didn't they care much about the government before the communist one? Oh yeah, because American companies owned 70% of the island and Batista was put into power by the US themselves.

> Venezuela (dictatorship)

Oh, Venezuela. This is a great topic. The US has been wanting to topple the democratically elected government since it's inception.

Here's a quote summarizing the sentiment of the people before 1999, when Hugo Chavez was elected.

> A sensation of insecurity became generalized throughout the population, constituting "an emerging culture of violence. . . very distinct from the culture of tolerance and peace that dominated Venezuelan society in the past." (Briceño León et al., 1997: 213). Along with unemployment, personal safety topped the problems perceived as most serious by the population. Between 1986 and 1996 the number of homicides per 10,000 inhabitants jumped from 13.4 to 56, an increase of 418 percent, with most of the victims being young males

It was a very bad time to be Venezuelan. Nowadays it is also a bad time to be Venezuelan. Why though? Do you think American sanctions and big business sabotage has nothing to do with it? To think so would be naive.

There are countless examples in every region of the entire planet where the US has done things that are not in line with the tag "protector of liberal democracy". They regularly cooperated with dictators, even brutal ones like Pinochet or Saddam Hussein. They do not care one lick about liberal democracy. It is realpolitik, plain and simple.

Now, I must state for posterity... The US is not the only country that behaves in this manner. I think any country will behave this way, because it's simply game theory. If someone's interests are in line with yours, you're going to cooperate with them.

I just think the US has so much power that it's influence is felt at a much higher presence than any other nation. So while any other country in the US's position would be performing similar actions, it's the US that's performing this actions.


The East India Company was formed in 1600. The tea and opium trades were company choices, not British government. It was the company that created the opium monopoly, the first opium war being nearly 50 years later. It was around the time of the second opium war, and the Indian rebellion, that the company was judged so out of control it was disestablished and all company assets to the state. Which led to the Indian Raj.

Which is not to excuse any of this, but please get the timeline right. :)

Seperating the East India company from the British government seems specious at best. The company was responsible for more GDP than the actual island of Britain, and was given explicit military support in their actions.

They had an ridiculous degree of autonomy for much of their existence, their own large armies and their fleet included warships. At one point loaning a huge sum of money to the state in exchange for even more autonomy.

It was only going into the 19th century that anything resembling control or oversight started to come into being. Which in no small part led to their disestablishment.

That autonomy was a choice made by the British government. The British government does not get to absolve itself of actions taken by its citizens for hundreds of years that had governmental support.

Edit: if I built a fleet of warships, flying the US flag, escorted by full US Navy warships began starting shooting wars with other countries, can the US government just go "not us, private citizens, we don't have anything to do with that"?

For the first hundred years of their existence there was an autocratic monarchy, a civil war and a dictatorial republic. Then restoration of the monarchy and the Glorious Revolution at the end of the 17th century that actually established the principle of parliamentary government and sovereignty. Not so much absolving as didn't yet exist...

The company was far more a relic of the earlier age - when the sovereign gave favour, handed letters of marque and established privateers. The East India Company and the Dutch East India Company similarly were more corporate states than companies as we might recognise them.

So even accepting your argument at face value (for the purposes of this argument), the British government has no blame for a company consisting of its citizens and based in it's capital starting wars for two centuries with military support from said government?

I might blame the monarch (Elizabeth I) for handing them the monopoly of some then unknown far flung region or spice trade at their inception in 1600. The first attempt at regulation was 1773, which would turn out to be the first of many prior to their enforced dissolution. As that Act recognised the already existing political aspects of the company, that's where I do indeed start to blame the government. They weren't conducting wars for 2 centuries with support of government, but quite independently of government until those first attempts at restriction. It still gets to be part of British history, so we can't disown it, if you follow me.

The history is incredibly complex, worthy of many books, but for the period of roughly 1600-1800 the EIC was closer to the independent Nassau privateers turned pirate than to a regulated, and at least somewhat controlled, London plc. At some point early in their existence they remodelled themselves on the VOC (Dutch EIC) model to become more state-like as the VOC was so successful. The VOC was more independent nation state until the very late 18th century too.

They both fielded armies and navies independently and distinct from Britain or the Netherlands, made and enforced treaties in their own, not national, interests, had their own systems of justice etc. Being amongst the very first stock based institutions there were no systems of oversight and control. Stocks were still traded in coffee and tea shops, despite the recently established Royal Exchange - where stockbrokers weren't allowed. It was one of those coffee shops that would eventually became the London Stock Exchange. Any regulation came much later, and slowly, and ultimately led to the disestablishment of the EIC, and the wide range of corporate and stock law.

I might also blame government for not seeking to constrain the company earlier than they did... I can't really blame them for not regulating something that was new and unknown, just as in the current era bitcoin has seen regulation start to come long after its success. Or the talk of regulating Facebook, or no end of others...

I'm not sure that the idea that the US is more benign than china is shared outside the US or the occidental world.


>The US has toppled brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein and kept the global peace

Those two statements directly conflict: Saddam kept things under control a lot better than the violent mess that exists in Iraq now.

Tell that to the Kurds and other persecuted minorities who were tortured and killed en masse by Saddam.

Were more Kurds killed and tortured annually under Saddam, or after the US occupation?

It was not the US that perpetrated the violence after it toppled Saddam. It was the radical elements within Iraq. They're the ones that bear responsibility.

..so what exactly are we supposed to be telling the Kurds? That the US isn't responsible for the indirect effects of occupations that were started on lies to begin with?

We wouldn't need to tell them, they know. The radical elements in Iraq who actually perpetrated the violence in pursuit of extremism are responsible for the violence.

There is a reason why Kurdistan is one of the most peaceful and developed regions in the Middle East: they act the way you must act to be a prosperous modern people. The violent radicals who squandered the post-Saddam opportunity to build a modern Iraq are to blame for the killing and the chaos.

"The US has toppled brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein and kept the global peace."

John Bolton, is that you?

The relative loss of life due to war and occurrence of war around the world since 1945 is far lower than at any other point in human history. This is directly due to the US acting as the global superpower.

The Pax Americana is a widely recognized phenomenon.

This "Whatabout WW2 deaths" has little to do with killing 180,000 Iraqi civilians over false information. This type of war mongering justification is what GP is talking about with regards to people outside the U.S. not sharing the opinion that it's benign.

They neither give the most aid in total nor in % of gross national income.

>> Most of the complaints about the US focus on comparatively small mistakes

Taking down democracy in Iran. Supporting dictators in Latin America and Africa and assisting them in hunting down democracy activists. Financing terrorism in Angola for two decades. Fabricating an incident in order to attack North Vietnam, killing 3 millions people. Supporting "Asian Hitler" Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Tacitly supporting Pakistan's genocidal attack against Bangladesh. Selling weapons to the terrorist regime of Iran, and then using the money to support terrorists in central America. Fabricating a threat in order to invade Iraq (hundreds of thousands of dead, millions displaced). Supporting terrorist groups in Syria. Waging undeclared wars in (at least) seven countries at the moment.

"Small mistakes."


First and foremost, every country looks out for themselves, and who can fault one for doing that? All this shows is that the US isn't the only country that has asymmetric foreign policies and treaties. The "me no like China" chest-thumping is purely based on emotions, unless someone has actually found an actual backdoor in the 5g chips that are being considered for purchase here.

Actually no country does that. From Africian to American to Antarctican to Asian.. no one demands ip, shuts out all foreign companies, demands to be partners and than kicks you using some version of a legal system.

That is just a simplistic caricature of what actually happens. Any company has to first accept the tax breaks and business incentives (land resources, loans, no red-tape, easier access to market etc) that the Chinese government employs to attract foreign businesses in specific markets. China has structured those incentives to benefit them - which include setting up a joint venture with a Chinese company. If the company is a state owned enterprise, your benefits might increase even further. You have to obviously transfer the IP for the factory to actually make the thing you want. China, with its communist past has their own understanding of property rights. I believe even its citizens cannot own land - everything belongs to the government. I'm not an IP law expert, so I don't know what international laws China is or isn't violating, but I don't expect China to respect US laws, without a treaty.

Like that shiny new battery factory Tesla is building in Shanghai that will produce the number one US market advantage in EV cars?

Then China will steal their IP from the factory in China and kick Tesla out of China so China's own EV Battery facilities can reap what Tesla sowed.

Would the factory be in Shanghai if it wasn't for Chinese protectionism? Or is that why they built it there?

The factory is in China because that's where the demand is and it's far more cost effective than exporting it from somewhere else.

I think China makes enough batteries already that there isn't a big worry about them stealing any IP.

Not sure why Telsa would want the battery design copied. Has anyone ever gotten to the bottom of this crazy outsourcing of ip. Is it strictly money related?

Isn't that just predatory pricing?

Hmm, what a great way to inspire confidence Huawei isn't working with the Chinese government to add spyware to everything...

"Use Huawei's products, which are not controlled by the Chinese government, or the Chinese government will sanction you".

The Chinese government is about as subtle as an atom bomb.

That's pretty much the policy for any country in the world that sees a domestic company being -in their view- unfairly blocked from doing business in another country. They tell them "if you discriminate against us, we will do the same to you".

Really? What retaliatory action did the US take on behalf of its tech companies following their blocking in China?

The US has started wars to protect foreign investment. The history of Latin America comes to mind. Some examples would be Allende, the bay of pigs invasion and Nicaraguan Contras.

The fact that the US hasn't retaliated much in the tech industry probably just demonstrates that the industry wasn't firmly enough in bed with the government when China began blocking access to google and facebook.

Referencing three American incidents from decades ago (which, although I consider Chile and Nicaragua to be among America's darkest FP moments, were all officially -- and mostly corroborated by the historical record -- undertook in the name of national security rather than commercial interests) hardly indicates this sort of tit-for-tat commercial relations between nations is the global norm.

The US's coup in Chile was done precisely to protect US business interests. That's why large companies like Anaconda were so heavily involved in the coup. The thing that all those incidents share in common is that they all started when the nations involved began nationalising or restricting US companies.

A more modern example of this sort of behavior might be the original US sanctions on Venezuela in the 2000s.

They haven't been blocked in China, they don't operate in China because they don't want to support China's censorship and authoritarian population control.

This is just false. Both Google and Facebook have been reported as seeking Chinese government authority to get re-enter the Chinese market this year, and neither Facebook, Google, or a large chunk of the rest of the Western internet is accessible in the mainland due to the Great Firewall.

As I said, the Chinese actively censor what they consider harmful content. I don't agree with them on that, but that's their position. If you abide by their laws (that is: censor what they want censored and give them access to user data, I guess), you can operate. The UK blocks The Pirate Bay and various other file sharing sites because they figure those sites don't comply with UK laws. As soon as TPB disables the sharing of copyrighted content and appeals, they'd be unblocked, because it's not a blanket ban.

The fact that Google has offices in China, offers services in China and runs conferences in China should show that they aren't blocked as a company. Dragonfly wasn't shut down by China, but by Google after they faced internal push back by employees against supporting Chinese censorship.

Not China but google Boeing, Canada and Bombardier.

Which companies were blocked by China from operating?

Google, Facebook, Twitter jump out as examples. These are completely banned from operating due to censorship. Baidu, WeChat, and Weibo are the domestic equivalents, arguably dominant only because of this protectionism. WeChat has outgrown facebook though I think and FB could not win in China now. Corps which sell products in China (as opposed to those who buy manufactured goods that are exported from China) operate only crippled subsidiaries with 51% Chinese ownership for Chinese domestic sales due to their laws.

That's not really correct, is it? Google decided not to comply with censorship laws (which I think is a good call), they weren't outright banned. There's a difference between "you must not operate in our country" and "you must not operate in our country without adhering to local laws".

Any foreign company that isn't willing to create a separate Chinese subsidiary with a Communist Party approved CEO at the helm, and who isn't willing to give up all their IP to said Communist Party.

> Huawei has carried out operations in India for a long time, and has made contributions to the development of Indian society and the economy that is clear to all,

And how is this relevant to backdoors? Just wow.

华为 'hua-wei' means 'Serve China'

"It's a cookbook, it's a cookbook!"

I don't speak Chinese, but it doesn't seem from Wiktionary like 为 has the meaning 'serve' in its sense of 'obey, assist'.

Couldn't it also be something like 'Chinese-doing'? That seems more similar to what Wikipedia says about the name:


Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact