Hacker News Reader

Comment by product50 | Hacker News Reader

To commenters in this thread explaining that this is unfair (since almost all countries including US did it at some point of time), the main issue is that USA is powerful enough to do something about it. They can rally up support from their allies and keep Chinese companies from gaining any international adoption. Look at how they got Meng from Huawei arrested - it was almost unreal. This is how the world works today.

View on HN

> Look at how they got Meng from Huawei arrested

Via a Canadian American extradition warrant that has existed for a loooong time before the arrest, and in such a way that Meng is protected from extradition if an independent Canadian judge doesn't think the case bears weight?

Not quite sure how this is considered overreach. There's a reason that criminals fleeing to places without extradition treaties with the US is a thing.

Not an overreach but a testament to how strong US' global standing is. I bet only US could have pulled this off. No other country, despite what crimes Huawei conducted against them could have done this.

> No other country, despite what crimes Huawei conducted against them could have done this

This isn't the first person Canada has extradited. Italy, China, Netherlands and Mozambique all make an appearance in the list of people worthy enough to also have Wikipedia pages[0].

European countries regularly refuse to extradite people to the US if they think they're at risk from the death penalty there.

America may be large and powerful, but a country asking one of its closest allies to extradite someone isn't an example of that.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_extradited_fro...

And yet China is making a big deal about it, saying they are unfairly treated, No Chinese should ever be extradited. US and Western Nation coming to harm again.

If that is how the act when they are considering themselves the underdog or developing countries, imagine what they will do when they are full evolved.

Note: Of course US and many other countries aren't Sane either. But the tone used by the Chinese have never been so strong. It is as if they were back to Tsing Dynasty.

Sounds like they’ve just started to realise — like the Russians — what a geopolitical risk it is when the real power brokers in a country have large chunks of their assets in Western countries, seizable by governments. Can’t be a decent strongman if you can’t protect your people.

I believe even Lichtenstein could issue a red notice. Not sure it has much to do with the power of the US.

From my understanding, technically not a red notice, as they're used when there's no extradition treaty.

I am not sure if the phrase "They can rally up support from their allies" is not quite accurate, more like arm twisting (like when we bullied our allies to not join One Belt One Road and even our staunchest allies like Israel and South Korea jumped on board with the OBOR).

However, I agree with you, the arrest of Meng did seem unreal.

I consider myself to be very patriotic and I want my country (USA) to do whatever it takes to be truly competitive: more money for education, tax credits for primary research, etc., etc. But I don't like the thing with Huawei because it seems like we are fighting an economic fight with bullying - and not what will help us long term which is building tech excellance.

Not an American but I'm not convinced America is in the wrong here. It's reasonable to complain and act when someone is cherry-picking rules. US companies can't compete on price but can on research. When that is stolen, you fight back with whatever you have available to you. Complaints to WTO, economic force, arrests (where warranted).

I also understand the Chinese perspective. People and countries have stolen tech forever. The US has during development. Long game means steal it now and take a few knocks. People will forget soon enough but you'll have changed economic trajectory permanently.

The issue isn't really who is in the wrong, the issue is that China and America have different standards for determining what wrong means both formally and informally.

It is one thing to impose American standards on places like Pakistan with the Osama assassination, since they can't really fight back in a meaningful way. It is a big deal to assert something like that against China, who is effectively a military and economic equal of America. If Chinese leadership decides the business with Meng it is a political act, the ramifications could be quite far reaching.

I'll pile on and mention that right and wrong are poorly suited for geopolitical analysis in general, it's generally understood that relationships are shaped by power and strategic alliances over principles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relatio...

Regardless of the countries in question, most of the time it feels like "if we do it, it is right. if you do, it isn't" is what is happening. In other words, "we are always right, you are right when it suits us and not when it doesn't"

How often do countries admit they were wrong? Especially powerful nations like the U.S or China?

This just sums up the behavior of both countries.

the quantity matters, and it's very clear that China did it a lot more. Also, Meng got arrested because we are in a state of law and she broke the law, not because some despot chose to

Technically, she got arrested because the UZS is of the opinion that she broke one of their laws. I'd wager she'd get released because Trump has suggested that the move is (or could be used for) political leverage (whether that's true or not), or because Canada doesn't have the same laws and so we might not extradite.

Are you sure? The NSA runs a global surveillance program, monitoring/copying most of the internet traffic, and industrial espionage (against all non-US states & companies, allies or not) is a stated goal of this program.

I don't know how well-funded the chinese IP theft program is, but I doubt it's much larger.

Some proven cases of economic espionage by the NSA: (and these were even against allies)

https://www.economist.com/europe/2015/06/27/i-spy-you-spy

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-nsa-scandal-economic-espio...

> we are in a state of law

Laws are selectively applied all the time, juries can nullify written laws, prosecutors can make plea deals, cities can choose to not enforce federal laws, and a whole bunch of anti-terrorism laws can be used to hold people in quasi-legal detention centers. What the heck is a state of law?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com