Huawei and the arrest of Wanzhou Meng
Of concern for several reasons:
Lake recaps “the arrest in Canada of Wanzhou Meng, Huawei’s chief financial officer . . . on what appears to be Huawei’s evasion of U.S. sanctions against Iran.” Then Lake quickly cuts to the chase: “These are serious allegations, but U.S. intelligence agencies have an even greater concern: that China’s largest telecom company will allow the Chinese state to monitor the electronic communications of anyone using Huawei technology.”
Lake recounts how earlier this year U.S. spy agencies urged Americans not to use Huawei phones; how Australia banned Huawei from assisting the development of its 5G wireless network; and, how in October, Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) warned Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, that joint intelligence activities with the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand may be curtailed if Canada allows Huawei to aid in the construction or maintenance of his nation’s 5G wireless network.
Further, he informs readers how, in 2012, the House Intelligence Committee released a “comprehensive report on Huawei and ZTE” that determined: “Inserting malicious hardware or software implants into Chinese-manufactured telecommunications components and systems headed for U.S. customers could allow Beijing to shut down or degrade critical national security systems in a time of crisis or war.”
I would say that China is more to be feared than Russia these days, but neither country is our friend—which is an understatement. In the Cold War things were more clear and we were more aware. Plus, the internet did not exist, and the internet, the expansion of international trade, and modern telecommunications in general have opened up a whole new world of spying and/or influence possibilities.
What I find really interesting is that Trump and his advisors did not know it was going to happen. The arrest certainly raises questions during this critical period on tariff negotiations. I have read in different places that the arrest might have been another “attack” on Trump by the Deep State. I thought that before I read those comments.
China’s threat to our national security has long been known. It’s actions in a number of areas conclusively demonstrates that it’s Communist ideology is still the dominant paradigm within China.
Those who assert that economic considerations dominate China’s actions, goals and thinking are engaged in wishful thinking. China has and is using capitalism and Western investment in China’s industrialization to first gain economic parity with and then economically surpass the U.S.
It has for decades been using it’s increasing economic might to develop the advanced military technology needed to intimidate the US into submission. Does anyone imagine that a leftist/democrat administration would ‘blink first’ in a future confrontation that risked nuclear war?
China envisions and is committed to replacing the US as the world’s preeminent superpower. Xi’s silk “belt and road initiative” is a strategic step in preparation toward that goal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative#/media/File%3AOne-belt-one-road.svg
The concerns about Chinese hacking in the supply chain are not hypothetical.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies
The problem as I see it with saying this was a deep state plot against Trump are all the moving parts that would have had to be involved.
The warrant for Meng was apparently issued on August 22 and she (and the Chinese gov’t no doubt) was aware of that and therefore had been avoiding the US despite her son going to college here. This apparently was why she was going through Vancouver on the way to Mexico. Which is the second problem with the deep state plot. How would they have planned this out to have her come to Canada on that night so they could arrest her? And how high up was the knowledge that she had a warrant out on her? Very high I hope.
I’ve still not got a real good feel for why the Canadians went along with this because she obviously didn’t think they would arrest her hence her connection through Canada.
My Chinese born wife just got back after 10 days in China. It was part business and part catching up with family and friends.
I recall her coming back from a similar trip about 5 years ago. At that time the Xi anti-corruption push was just getting started, and most Chinese assumed it was just another round of rhetoric – there would be some token action taken and then the normal corruption would gradually resume, as it always has. They don’t think that any more.
My wife belongs to a few WeChat groups (Chinese all use WeChat to connect with mostly their old school groups) and she says folks have totally self-censored. China is clamping down.
She told me of one of her old friends who is now a dentist. She said the lady just “goes to work, comes home and shuts out the world, and plans on which country to visit for vacation”. IOW, most just withdraw into their own little world because it’s safer and easier that way.
Seems China can never find a balance. Anyone who has read of the first 10 years of the PRC knows that the Communist Party cleaned up much of the petty corruption. The price, though, was a total clamping down on any deviation from the Party line. And we know where that ended up.
Interestingly, my wife got a chance to talk to a 12-13 year old daughter of a friend, and asked her what she knew of the Cultural Revolution. The school books now define those years as the ‘Party Searching’ period. She knew nothing of the death and destruction and of causes.
My wife and I conclude that all the US has to do is get its own house in some reasonable order (like basic rule of law, which lack of drives my wife crazy) and that China, amazing to my wife, is going down a path that will be her own undoing. China has been here before.
Most Americans, from what I can tell, have little idea how repressive, brutal and authoritarian China is. It’s not as far gone as North Korea, but China is closer to the Norks than to us, when it comes to human rights.
http://www.ishr.org/countries/peoples-republic-of-china/systematic-torture-in-the-peoples-republic-of-china/
My wife and I conclude that all the US has to do is get its own house in some reasonable order…
Mel Williams: Thanks for commenting!
America’s problems are obvious and serious. We headed towards some unpleasant reckoning without a doubt. But name another major country doing better.
The US mostly has to stop doing stupid stuff and it will right itself, though it will be painful. I’m a good deal less sure about Europe.
Putin’s Russia is circling the drain, though they will continue to be dangerous.
The Chinese leaders IMO are riding the tiger. As long as they can keep delivering continued economic improvements to the people, they will remain in power. But if that falters, all bets are off.
They have done well as with their odd compromise between command control and market economy. But to throw in another animal metaphor — I’m not sure how long they can keep making the elephant dance.
Tim Broberg on December 10, 2018 at 5:15 pm at 5:15 pm said:
The concerns about Chinese hacking in the supply chain are not hypothetical.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies
* * *
The detective work in tracking down the chips was interesting, but finding them in the first place was strictly fortuitous: nobody, apparently, was really looking for gremlins.
This was, to me, the most chilling statement in the Bloomberg report, because you can’t fix this level of stupid:
“Over the decades, the security of the supply chain became an article of faith despite repeated warnings by Western officials. A belief formed that China was unlikely to jeopardize its position as workshop to the world by letting its spies meddle in its factories. That left the decision about where to build commercial systems resting largely on where capacity was greatest and cheapest. “You end up with a classic Satan’s bargain,” one former U.S. official says. “You can have less supply than you want and guarantee it’s secure, or you can have the supply you need, but there will be risk. Every organization has accepted the second proposition.” “