U.S. FCC set to ban all U.S. sales of Huawei and ZTE equipment
reuters.com
reuters.com
Why is the default position that they are a military adversary? I mean, in what ways are they even an adversary, outside of the fact they are World #2?
Or maybe more specifically TSMC.
China regularly threatens military action against Taiwan.
I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions.
Could you provide an example of this please?
> China has made it very clear they don’t have any intention to invade.
I'm quite confused about this. Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan? I find that claim very confusing considering both their rhetoric as well as their military exercises. China even passed an "Anti-Secession Law" which explicitly states that China will attack Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't "peacefully" allow its annexation.
I find your position quite hard to square with reality.
> I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions.
I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy and actions demonstrating their aggression and belligerence towards Taiwan.
Literally anything about the conflict. Look at their posturing, or military exercises. It’s a matter or rhetorics - it’s usually described as helping Taiwan, because, well, that’s media for you.
>Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan?
Not only that - it repeatedly declared they won’t invade, and have it written down in their constitution. Also, https://www.ft.com/content/01eb9112-6363-451f-89d2-b90566d9f....
>I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy
Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy.
Could you provide an actual example of this? If the USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan as you said, providing such a specific example would be quite easy for you.
> Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy.
So you’re making the claim that the anti-secession law in which China threatens Taiwan is not official Chinese policy?
Your turn now - can you quote the law which threatens Taiwan?
How were those carriers threatening Taiwan exactly? I understand how those carriers might have threatened China, but not Taiwan. Can you find any statement by Taiwan decrying the carriers' presence? Can you find any statement from Taiwan asking the carriers to leave? I can find many statements from Taiwan decrying Chinese actions near them, but none taking issue with the US. Please find me an example of the USA threatening military action against _Taiwan_.
> Your turn now - can you quote the law which threatens Taiwan?
I already have mentioned the Anti-Secession Law multiple times, but sure I'll save you from typing "anti secession law" into Google yourself. Here's Article 8:
> Article 8 In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
> The State Council and the Central Military Commission shall decide on and execute the non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in the preceding paragraph and shall promptly report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.
https://www.refworld.org/docid/474403752.html
If you are curious as to Taiwan's position on the law, here is what they have to say:
https://www.mac.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=8A319E37A32E01...
China's law quite clearly threatens military action against Taiwan. I can't understand why you would claim otherwise. I've never even met a Taiwanese or Chinese person who has made that claim. Everyone knows the official policy of the PRC is to attack Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't allow its annexation. Your claiming otherwise makes you an interestingly unique person on the internet.
If it triggered the war, do you think it would be waged mostly on territory of continental China, or Taiwan?
To put it differently - nobody is claiming USA wants to _invade_ Taiwan. They "merely" wish there was a war _in_ Taiwan. Contrast it with Taiwanese, who generally prefer the "leave it as it is" option.
>I already have mentioned the Anti-Secession Law multiple times
Ah, indeed. Except you failed to mention it's from 2005, which in this context was ages ago. And then you quoted the part which clearly states that an invasion is pretty much out of the question - China could only do it to "protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity", which is a higher bar than most superpowers have (cf Hague Invasion Act).
> To put it differently - nobody is claiming USA wants to _invade_ Taiwan. They "merely" wish there was a war _in_ Taiwan. Contrast it with Taiwanese, who generally prefer the "leave it as it is" option.
The US sailing ships there won't "trigger" a war, _China_ will trigger a war. They are threatening a war of choice. This is 100% a choice made by China. China could simply not attack Taiwan and publicly state they never will. China could just engage with Taiwan as a separate country. But China chooses to threaten Taiwan instead.
The US is supporting Taiwan militarily to help them defend against such a Chinese invasion. They are doing so at the request of Taiwan. To say that the US is somehow "threatening" Taiwan by trying to help them to avoid a war by China is total lunacy. Frankly it makes no sense at all.
> Ah, indeed. Except you failed to mention it's from 2005, which in this context was ages ago. And then you quoted the part which clearly states that an invasion is pretty much out of the question - China could only do it to "protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity", which is a higher bar than most superpowers have (cf Hague Invasion Act).
China has never repealed this law. China engaged in military exercises surrounding Taiwan in the just the few months. This law is still official Chinese policy and all of their acts imply they still consider it in force. I've _never_ heard anyone Chinese are Taiwanese say that this law no longer applies. Neither those who are for war or against it or for unification or against it. Frankly I think you're either being willfully obtuse or just arguing in bad faith.
US never repealed the Hague Invasion Act. Would you say they are threatening Europe? Or do you know someone who says this law no longer applies?
>avoid a war
What war? Neither Taiwan nor China want any kind of military conflict, and they have coexisted peacefully for many decades, including during the KMT regime. There is only one party that would (greatly) benefit from a war there.
>Frankly I think you're either being wilfully obtuse or just arguing in bad faith.
It's called cognitive dissonance. I've just shown you you're using completely different criteria for China and other countries.
Or maybe they should have had a programme to subsidize the cost of Cisco kit to make sure they couldn't get a foothold in the data centre in the first place.
I recall they did some big dog-and-pony show where they got GCHQ to do some audits, but it always seemed like the result was pre-cooked. There was a specific, obviously politically-infused outcome planned from day 1, and no amount of audits, disclosures, or compliance guarantees would ever make them politically acceptable for the US.
Sort of makes me think of the Iraqi WMD inspections, or the Iranian nuclear deal.
Then those companies cannot compete globally.
Then the US ends up with the shittier products on the market because it's that or nothing.
This is why the US generally tries to engage in free trade: It's better in the long term. The fact the same isn't happening here will just mean US citizens don't get better, faster, cheaper mobile networks. Everyone else will. And that will stifle other areas of the US economy too.
If China wants to self harm for political reasons, that's their loss. Don't copy them.
The US generally engages in free trade only when it's better for US in the long term.
Google isn’t banned in China, it just isn’t operating there, because it would need to obey the law.
That, btw, is another aspect of this problem - American companies like Cisco have been shown to plant backdoors, while the “subservient” Huawei hadn’t.
That’s not true though. American companies will, on a regular basis, publicly criticise proposed and actual US government policies, and fund third party groups (lobby groups, think-tanks, etc) which do the same. Tell me, how often do Huawei and ZTE publicly criticise proposed and actual Chinese government policies? How much money do they give to groups which publicly criticise the Chinese government? Their failure to do those things is a very real way in which they demonstrate government subservience but Western companies do not.
Tell me, why are there backdoors in American telco equipment, but not in Chinese? Are those manufacturers planting them _against_ their government will? :-)
Can you commie-explain that?
1) These routers do not provide any kind of content filtering features 2) My particular terminal was in bridge mode 3) It's happening rarely on random websites
So, if they MITM random SSL sessions with home equipment I can imagine what they do with business infrastructure.
If criticism really doesn’t matter, why does the Chinese government show so little tolerance for it? Are they thin-skinned?
And, how do you know there are no backdoors in Chinese telco equipment? Even if none have been publicised, that doesn’t mean none exist.
That’s a very good question. I’m guessing it’s cultural, and it’s somewhat similar to what you see in Japan or Korea. And yeah, it’s unfortunate.
Also notice how you don’t hear about this problem in context of other countries. Same as you don’t hear about someone who spent four years in prison for merely talking to police when it happens in USA, but you would if it happened in China. Or how everyone in the west knows about Tiananmen, but very few heard about Gwangju Uprising.
As for the backdoors - there have been audits, eg by GHCQ, and hadn’t found nothing suspicious. So sure, we can suspect something might have been missed, but for now the score is pretty clear: numerous documented backdoors in infrastructure from US companies, none from Chinese.
The Japanese and South Korean governments show vastly greater tolerance for public criticism than the Chinese government does. In Tokyo, if one stands on a street corner holding up a sign saying "Fumio Kishida should be sacked"–odds are, you'll just be ignored. In Seoul, one might stand there with a sign saying "Impeach Yoon Suk-yeol" – likewise, people will most likely just ignore you. Try standing on a street corner in Beijing holding up a sign saying "Xi Jinping should be sacked"–how many minutes will pass before you are arrested?
So, it isn't East Asian culture in general. It isn't even Chinese culture, because in Taiwan you would not be arrested just for holding up a sign saying "Impeach Tsai Ing-wen". On the other hand, in North Korea, you'd probably be executed for a sign saying "Impeach Kim Jung-un". The thing that North Korea and China have in common, is both are Marxist-Leninist dictatorships. So, isn't the real explanation here, not national culture, but rather Marxism-Leninism? Xi Jinping's intolerance for criticism has a lot in common with that of Leonid Brezhnev.
> Or how everyone in the west knows about Tiananmen, but very few heard about Gwangju Uprising.
There is a big difference between the Gwangju massacre and the Tiananmen massacre–the South Korean government has repeatedly publicly apologised for Gwangju. Every year, there is an official memorial day to remember the victims of Gwangju, and the government has established a national memorial to remember its victims. In the 1990s, several of the political leaders responsible for Gwangju were convicted, and one received a death sentence (that death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and then all the convicts were pardoned.) More recently, the South Korea government has established a national truth commission, for further public investigations of those responsible for the crime. Meanwhile, what has the Chinese government done to publicly apologise for the crime of Tiananmen, to commemorate its victims and punish its perpetrators?
It makes complete sense for the world to focus on wrongs for which there is a refusal to acknowledge and apologise and make amends, rather than on wrongs for which many such efforts have been made. The former is far more relevant than the later.
> numerous documented backdoors in infrastructure from US companies, none from Chinese
Even if it is true that there are zero backdoors in Huawei/ZTE equipment today, that could change tomorrow.
What a perfectly timed question: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/world/asia/china-internet.... So, you probably won't get arrested, but you'll definitely get demonetised. Maybe even banned on Weibo.
Now compare this with something more atypical: four years in prison for talking back to a police officer, https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1567515298479149057.
Note, however, that we're talking about two different things: I was talking about the culture of "keeping to themselves", which, when applied on a larger scale, goes directly against transparency, and that's what we see in China. What you're talking is mostly about how media works. Sure, in the West you can say whatever you want and nobody cares - precisely because nobody cares what you say ("majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts", https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...).
>in Taiwan you would not be arrested just for holding up a sign
Indeed, it's been over 30 years now since the end of White Terror (~20 thousands killed, ~140 thousands imprisoned).
>Meanwhile, what has the Chinese government done to publicly apologise for the crime of Tiananmen, to commemorate its victims and punish its perpetrators?
The prime minister responsible for it spent the rest of his life in house arrest. I'd say both countries handled it much better than how it's traditionally done in the West.
Still, I'm not buying it - "it" being the difference in public awareness of Tiananmen and Gwangju massacre being caused by governments apologising. But I don't have anything better than "gut feeling" at the moment.
>Even if it is true that there are zero backdoors in Huawei/ZTE equipment today, that could change tomorrow.
Everything could change tomorrow, but this excuse can be used for any arbitrary decision.
If you read the details of the case - she was chanting that the police were going to die, which goes beyond mere “talking back”; and she would not have received such a lengthy sentence if it was not for multiple prior convictions. Now, all that said, I still think her sentence is excessive-and indeed, her legal team says they will appeal it-but it seems far less outrageous than it does when presented without those details. It doesn’t have much bearing on the issue of free speech, given that making death threats is a crime in most jurisdictions, and few consider free speech to include the right to make death threats.
> Indeed, it's been over 30 years now since the end of White Terror (~20 thousands killed, ~140 thousands imprisoned).
Bad, but not as bad as Mao - and at least the current Taiwanese government openly admits that was wrong; the Chinese government censors public discussion of Mao’s crimes, and instead plasters his picture everywhere
> The prime minister responsible for it spent the rest of his life in house arrest.
Because of the massacre, or because he’d embarrassed the Party by not crushing the protests a lot sooner?
And yet people tend to ignore those details when it fits anti-Chinese propaganda.
>Mao’s crimes
Do you know what happened to the Gang of Four?
And of course there is no “public discussion”, same way you don’t have public discussion in Japan about its nazi past. Like I said, a cultural thing.
As for that prime minister - you could ask that same question regarding Gwangju. To me what matters is that he got prosecuted, which is rather shocking contrast compared to Kent State or most American massacres really - Americans tend to hold this subconscious belief that one can’t possibly prosecute its rulers.
I won't go as far as calling their products garbage.
Their mobile phones were also fantastic. At the flagship level for a while their phones were better than Samsung imo. Not sure how they compare anymore since they de-googled. I'm to firmly latched to that teat not let go just yet.
From the perspective of the global citizen, arguably the USA would present more unilateral risk. The USA wouldn’t hesitate to act in their own interests in a way that screws others over. Then again, China has even less scruples, so it’s a lose/lose situation here.
Plus I have nonzero but small legal rights and remedies to mitigate my own country's surveillance of me.
I would think banning equipment manufactured in China would be meaningful.
To determine if it's effective, you need a well-defined goal. Here's there's just a claim of "national security threats", which is as vague as it gets.
Does it fulfil the goal of removing foreign competitors from the local US market? Sure, that's pretty much all it's doing.