China's ambassador threatened Faroese prime minister to sign Huawei 5G deal | Hacker News Reader

China's ambassador threatened Faroese prime minister to sign Huawei 5G deal

berlingske.dk

232 pointsjensgk79 comments

So can we all finally agree, that Huawei stating it has no ties to the Chinese government, was a lie after all?

This false claim by Huawei, is one of the most important reasons why Huawei isn‘t already banned here in Germany.[1]

And while we are at it, we should also ban US companies from providing critical infrastructure like this in Germany (and Europe). After Snowden, its clear that hardware from US vendors like Cisco should be seen as potentially compromised.[2]

1) https://www.businessinsider.de/trumps-huawei-verbot-ist-rein... 2) https://www.infoworld.com/article/2608141/snowden--the-nsa-p...

Based on news reports in other countries it's a pretty consistent stance for Chinese diplomats to make the claim that if Huawei is allowed to compete in a free market manner it will be beneficial to trade relationship or if Huawei is banned for security reason it will damage trade relationship with China. The article did provide a background for such security concern from Danish defense ministry.

It's still entirely in the realm of possibility that the Chinese diplomat in question asked for unfair non-market advantage, but I find it quite unnecessary because Huawei's technology is already competitive on its own, why spend political capital for such minute economic gains? A more probable story, as has already happened in many other countries, is that local ISP chooses Huawei based on price and competitiveness and is blocked by government on security grounds, then Chinese diplomats step in to remove that block based on other stick and carrots.

For China Huawei’s trade with any country is meaningless from an economic standpoint. It’s in no way worth the kind of political capital their spending on it’s defense.

They either care for intelligence gathering or political reasons. Politically it could be anything from ideology to corruption and backroom politics. But, again the economic angle is hardly worth the effort when their risking a major backlash.

Meaning while Trump is trying to make other country buy more Boeing planes?

It sends a signal that the Chinese government will defend businesses based on China, which is valuable in itself. It could inspire more Chinese people to setup businesses in China and not migrate to the west, it could encourage businesses in other countries to compete with Chinese businesses on merit and not with threats by their governments etc.

If I recall, this is similar to how the US agreed to let China into the WTO back in ‘99.

Basically, China agreed to license CDMA from Qualcomm, despite already deploying GSM. Once China started paying, the US dropped its objections.

So I think it’s quite normal for politicians to advocate for their nation’s companies.

That's an interesting claim. Do you have any sources to back that up?

That was for CDMA2000, and to avoid paying more for 3G ( as well as 4G ), they developed TDS-CDMA and TDD-LTE.

Just as a point of logic: even if we are 100% sure that there is no funny business going on with ownership of Huawei (which we don't know), we should just assume the govt interferes because the incentives to do so are strong and the mechanisms do so already exist (presumably, Huawei has a "red machine").

Believing the Chinese govt don't interfere is attributing some fairly superhuman levels of self-control to the govt...even in a system with controls over govt, that would be unlikely...in a system with no controls, it is a little ludicrous.

How these phone systems work is that Huawei has access to them to send updates and can remote in. Same with American or European telecom manufactures. In case of a war or conflict the Chinese government can order Huawei to shut down systems they have installed in foreign countries anytime. So while it might be an economic objective to sell more Huawei systems there is a security angle to that for every Huawei phone system running that it can be shut down remotely or sent a bad update that shuts it down. Which would be magic if a country aligns with the United States against China in some sort of conflict even if that country never goes into battle it will still be punished by China in a way that will take millions of dollars and probably months to recover from.

So what you are saying is that components of the 5G network have their management interfaces connected to the internet and some kind of auto-update on that downloads updates from Chinese servers?

I’m not entirely convinced of your expertise.

Pretty much, I can't find the reference article now but this article below is good for just about anything that is going to be remotely managed by China:

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3038655/chin...

There would be a management network to vpn into and a server for storing images on. It would require planning but he’s right.

Nothing in China is unrelated to the governement.

The social credit system for businesses is there just for this.

Just observe how Apple has changed since that launched.

> And while we are at it, we should also ban US companies from providing critical infrastructure like this in Germany (and Europe). After Snowden, its clear that hardware from US vendors like Cisco should be seen as potentially compromised.[2]

Genuine question - What are the big European network infra equipment makers? You only ever hear of US and Chinese companies like Cisco and Huawei operating in this space.

Ericsson, Nokia

Ericsson and Nokia Networks, especially in the mobile/5g space.

Alcatel is a competitor to Cisco. Most of the Cal State University system runs on Alcatel after some Cisco shenanigans.

Others mention Alcatel, Ericsson, Nokia. How much of their equipment is made in China? How hard would it be to compromise the manufacturing process or loading of firmware to include backdoors?

Much (all?) of former Alcatel/Nokia gear is not made in China. A backdoor is highly unlikely.

I don’t know of any US company making LTE or 5g hardware. I think it is mostly European. Much of the the networking hardware is US but much of all networking is Broadcom based now.

Ericsson, they had or still has the best stuff. But just like any big companies, management likes to kill the company for their own good. Early 2010s when Huawei becomes a threat to their business ( that was before Huawei was even known by general public ), stocks and earning were down, they finally woke up.

But today they are still much more expensive than Huawei, AND their bet on Intel 10nm Custom Foundry didn't help.

Again, blame Intel.

I don't agree with you that US vendors should be seen as potentially compromised. But I strongly support that European vendors should be used in Europe. It would be a disaster if Cisco is the only choice. We need at least a healthy rival.

Ha. Prism anyone? C’mon. Have you ever wondered why the only Chinese smartphone vendors who are allowed to sell phones in the US are the ones who agree to implement Qualcomm chipsets?

Sure but the comment looks like it was more about enterprise networking. Both Europe and the US have good companies to choose from and we’ll be worse off if they mutually block each other out. We’re better off if European and US companies request the option to audit the code.

I attended a talk by a successful Chinese entrepreneur who sold his company after only three years. We asked him why he sold it so early. He said there is no pure businesses (especially when you become big) in China . There are only “political businesses”. Everyone has to work with the government and plays dirty in order to survive. So he wanted out.

To be honest, as a Chinese, I don’t believe the claim that Huawei has no government ties. But I don’t think it’s what Huawei wants.

It depends how you define government tie. If it is about corruption, yes and maybe. Government are the biggest buyer in many cases, they have development funds to sponsor companies. Sometimes, having a good relationship with some officials may give you business or whatever. Companies in China won't be independent. They will be asked to help local economy. The government needs them to help reducing poverty for example, even big companies like Huawei they will need to send people to rural areas to help poor area to develop. They cannot just give money, they actually have to find solution for a village to develop. Having a good relationship with the government is essential for all big businesses around the world. Government is the biggest customer for Huawei after all.

China’s ability to fire the CEO of Cathay Pacific shows how irrelevant it is to ask who technically owns Huawei. What matters is whether the state has effective control, not legal control, and we know the answer to that for any company in or even near China.

- By Someone

> So can we all finally agree, that Huawei stating it has no ties to the Chinese government, was a lie after all?

Even if it was it's like saying Boeing has no ties to the US government. Yeah right.

Yes because China and US have the same value system. Both countries are interchangeable even though one has extensive history of practicing free speech while the other locks their citizens up for speaking up.

I think his point is that there's no point in discussing whether or not there are ties, but rather the degree of ties.

Just like there is a degree of difference between China and the US, and it's not as different as you may have been taught to believe.

"And while we are at it, we should also ban US companies from providing critical infrastructure like this in Germany (and Europe). After Snowden, its clear that hardware from US vendors like Cisco should be seen as potentially compromised"

The relationship between the US and Europe for many reasons is different, most specifically, the US will not use 'Cisco spying' to steal German companies IP, or to otherwise screw up Germany.'

In the bigger picture, the US provides the first and last line of defence to Europe. Putin is actively trying to 'pull a Crimea' in the Baltic states and only US led activities are keeping them out. That's the top of the iceberg.

Also the 'Cisco spying' that is done by the US, mostly in the Middle East etc. actually has a lot of security value for Europe.

Of course, Europe is way behind on many tech fronts and would be hurt badly by being cut off by America (you don't think there will be repercussions?) though Europe doesn't need anything made in China ... they need China as a customer for stuff.

There are 100 consumer related issues to be addressed between US/EU before the possibility of Cisco spying comes into question.

I agree Cisco specifically is suspect but surely there are better solutions than blackballing all American companies. I say this because Europe can force US companies to release their code to them as Microsoft does and we’d all be better for it.

A peek inside the cutthroat world of politics, only brought to you by an accidental recording of a private conversation.

I feel this information really shouldn't be hidden from the public as it's the public that is supposed to a part of a democratic system. How can we elect our officials and voice our opinions, if we are not informed of hostilities from foreign governments?

Do you think China would have even said that if they knew that each conversation is public record.

Diplomacy wouldn't really work if you couldn't be candid. And if you knew everything you said in diplomatic conversations would be public, you'd be less candid. Or you'd only work with those, who would provide you with secrecy.

For the record, we don't know whether the Faroese government let itself submit to the pressure, or whether they are now actively pursuing other avenues. But I would imagine with the leak, that it's not the former any more. The question is whether it would have been had it not been for the leak.

Do you think everything the US diplomats and presidents said can be open to the public? When US is negotiating with other countries for "the greatness of America", Trump only says pleasant words which is completely legal in both countries?

"The Faroese government had asked the court to put an injunction in place on the basis that publication of this information might damage the relationship between the Danish Commonwealth and China. On Monday this week the government then submitted a request to have the injunction remain in force."

Hm.

"Berlingske has learnt that Ambassador Feng Tie made it clear in two meetings on 11 November - first with the Faroese foreign minister, Jenis av Rana, and later the same day with the Faroese finance minister, Jørgen Niclasen, and the islands' lagmand, or prime minister, Bárður Nielsen – that if the Faroese telecoms operator Føroya Tele agreed to let Huawei build the 5G network, all doors would be open to a free trade agreement between China and the Faroese Islands.

He also stated that China would not enter into such a trade agreement if Huawei did not get the contract. According to Berlingske's information, the Chinese ambassador is said to have been »very forceful« in his statements to the Faroese top officials."

So is there currently a Free Trade Agreement between China and the Faroes?

There is not currently a Free Trade Agreement between China and the Faroese Islands. But the Faroese Islands and Greenland have been hoping for a free trade agreement with China each, outside of one Denmark proper may have with China through the EU. (Note: Neither Greenland nor the Faroese Islands are part of the EU.)

Although it is possible, that the Faroese and the Greenlandic may consider the value of the Kingdom of Denmark that they are part of more valuable in face of being pressured. China pressuring the Faroese, the US considering purchasing Greenland. Both partly the result of a Kingdom of Denmark being run on autopilot by successive Danish governments. I'd imagine both getting extra attention in Copenhagen the coming decade.

A little OT, but I'm surprised the Faroese Islands and Greenland economies would be big enough for China to care a jot - what am I missing?

Someone may be able to correct me on this, or fill in the details, but part of China's larger Belt and Road Initiative, which is presented as investments into smaller countries, is to ensure non-aligned countries (in a manner of speaking) are beholden to China.

China builds you a new airport, and suddenly you are indebted to them for decades.

As for the Faroese Islands, and in particular Greenland, they don't care so much about their economies. What they care about is their proximity to the Arctic ocean, and its potential riches. Having a foot in the door, would be a huge boon for China. Indeed, the notion of China building oil rigs and mines in Greenland has been a subject debated a lot in Denmark.

Pressuring the Faroese may be a good way to make Greenland follow suit. But there I am merely speculating. Besides, the Faroese are the ones making overtures to China, so China can counter with demands like this at no expense to themselves.

> part of China's larger Belt and Road Initiative, which is presented as investments into smaller countries, is to ensure non-aligned countries (in a manner of speaking) are beholden to China.

Not really. The most prominent case where that happened is a shiny new port they built in Sri Lanka, but which turned out to be impossible to run profitably, so the Sri Lankan government handed them the port for a 99-year lease instead of paying their debt. Now China has a port in Sri Lanka they can't run profitably either.

What the BRI is is a great opportunity for Chinese officials to earn kickbacks from Chinese companies for helping them land government contracts abroad. I assume that's what happened here: someone working for Huawei really wanted to close this deal and receive a fat bonus, so they offered the ambassador a cut for intervening on his behalf.

While this is true from an economic perspective many argue that the true value of the Sri Lankan deep water port is that it allows the Chinese military (officially this is for hunting pirates) a foothold in the Indian ocean, similar to how the US can project its power far outside its border through the use of military bases around the world. Hence it isn't a major concern how profitable the port is, or so the thinking goes.

Building and leasing an oversized commercial port is a kind of expensive plan if all they wanted was a naval base. Last I heard, the Sri Lankan government expressly forbade China from using the port for military purposes and instead moved their own base there: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sri-lanka-china-port/sri-...

So whether the primary aim was economic or military doesn't matter much, since the outcome was an expensive failure either way.

> US considering purchasing Greenland

Trump considered this.

US and Danish governments were not seriously engaged to look at the possibility of such a purchase.

That's a pretty mild threat.

I would accept that threat!

There’s nothing good in a FTA with China for a small government. They’ll get eaten alive, economically speaking.

Interestingly, in Greenland, we are forbidden from deploying Huawei equipment according to the terms of our LTE license.

Once again 100% validation that 5G and Huawei are part of the CCP's imperial designs.

We can't blame China for playing hardball, but this is proof-positive that the government is acting in concert with Huawei and that is enough to put major tariffs, bans or at least heavy scrutiny.

It's not a threat -- it's an offer. Take it or leave it.

You don't really NEED food. You could choose to eat or you could choose to die. It's up to you. Take it or leave it.

No point in playing with semantics. Fear is subjective. It is caused by ignorance of whether you might lose a wanted thing, or obtain an unwanted thing.

By your logic, we can completely rid the dictionary of the word 'threat'. Name any 'threat' today, I can convert it into an 'offer'.

Wow, coverups like this are what the death penalty is for.

Please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait to HN. We've already told you at least three times that we don't want to have to ban you again, but if you keep breaking the guidelines we will.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Now it seems everything is on the table to get huawei into other nations network.

It becomes suspicious is this really just national pride mixed with business interest, or something else...

Totally unfounded but to me reasonable speculation: it's a means of building a global surveillance network anywhere Huawei does business.

Better time than any to start building the means to operate on compromised equipment. Hopefully the NSA is on board this time around rather than pushing cringeworthy-level compromised Cisco products on the world.

It's not unfounded.

It's a fact that (a) Chinese government is dictatorial and lacks any sort of independent oversight via judiciary or media, (b) Chinese governments are heavily intertwined with companies and (c) China has a recent history of unprecedented surveillance.

Limited evidence in support of that: The Polish government recently arrested a Polish government employee and a high-ranking Huawei employee on charges of espionage.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/11/684378595/polish-police-arres...

It's also a potential weapon. Imagine the havoc you can create by shutting down another nation's critical network infrastructure, especially one that is supposed to power the next generation of technology platforms and fleets of internet-connected devices.

But what will playing that card have as a consequence? Any technology having the slightest tie to China would be banned. That's very short of economical suicide. That one could only be pulled in an all out war. It's not a credible threat. I'd go with surveillance which is already good enough to get Huawei banned. But that's true of Cisco either...

That’s an obvious concern.

What tends to happen in authoritarian countries is that obvious concerns do not get raised, which is why they tend to make occasional disastrous decisions for their long term stability (e.g. “it probably wont be a good idea to imprison all the Muslims, we might make our trading partners mad”)

Radios aren't that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com