Article 43
Monday, May 20, 2019
Bad Moon Rising Part 77 - Huawei again
Huawei and ZTE are becoming GLOBAL PLAYERS in telecommunications equipment and mobile handsets, and the U.S isn’t the only country uneasy over the security implications.
[T]he politics are palpable at a time when U.S. presidential candidates are busy sparring over China’s trading practices and invoking the “get tough” mantra.
It would be naive to think that cyber-surveillance isn’t happening, and that powerful governments wouldn’t exploit their knowledge of telecom networks to defend their interests around the world. A sobering thought, but not one that you’re likely to hear voiced in the U.S. election campaign. It’s much easier to bash China.
- Bad Moon Rising Part 52 - Huawei
Gangster Economics Against Huawei & Nordstream 2
By Caleb Maupin
New Eastern Outlook
April 4, 2019
Many Americans base their entire view of the world, and their understanding of the relationship of the United States to other countries, on the contents of a college-level “Economics 101” course. They view the world market as a land of “free competition” in which different countries and international corporations “compete.” They then believe that consumers, communities and countries vote with their “dollars” rewarding the best products and services.
In this delusional fantasy, championed by figures like as George Soros and Anne-Marie Slaughter as an ideal “-Open International Market,” the United States and western countries occupy their dominant position, simply because they are the best. The products and services offered by western financial institutions and international corporations are simply superior to those found anywhere else. This delusional fantasy goes on to present the western financial elite as somehow mentoring and assisting the world, by helping it develop and perhaps someday be more like the superior west.
The Energy Dominance Scheme
Those who argue that this western narrative is false have no greater confirmation than the recent actions of the US government. The response to Nordstream 2 pipeline and the recent crackdown on Huawei technologies confirms that the US government has no interest in free competition among international corporations.
Nordstream 2 is a natural gas pipeline that is currently under construction, scheduled to be completed later this year. It will enable Russias state-run energy corporations to sell natural gas to countries inside the European Union. The people in various EU countries favor the construction of Nordstream 2, because it will expand and ad greater convenience to their access of Russian natural gas.
However, in the United States, the Trump administration is joined by Democratic Party resistance leaders in demanding that the people of Germany and other European nations not purchase gas from Russia. They foolishly demand that the European community purchase gas from the United States, and import it across the Atlantic Ocean.
It is simple common sense to know that importing natural gas from across the planet will be far more expensive for central Europe than simply pumping it over the border from Russia. However, in a shrill atmosphere of hysteria, invoking all kinds of unrelated issues and allegations against the Russian government, the US political establishment is talking of sanctions and other means of coercing the European public into buying their gas.
While US leaders invoke human rights-based criticism of the Russian government, the hypocrisy is obvious. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a brutal autocracy that beheads and tortures, remains a top business partner of the United States in both the energy and weapons markets. The brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi has not changed this relationship, which Trump openly defended on a purely financial basis.
The goal of making money for American energy corporations and weakening Russian energy corporations, their competitors, is not even carefully concealed. The White House openly speaks of “Energy Dominance” as the basis for its policy, and speaks of how protecting the profits US-based oil and gas firms is its blatant intention.
The Anti-China Smartphone War
Are the Germans, Belgians, and other European people’s not free to vote with their “dollars” and chose where to purchase their oil and gas? Apparently, the “open international system” is not so open when geopolitical rivals of Wall Street monopolists are involved.
The same rhetoric and methods are being used to try and strong arm countries around the world, and demand that they do not purchase Huawei telecommunications technology from China. Huawei is the largest telecommunications manufacturer in the world. It is an integral part of the market-socialist model developed by Deng Xiaoping and now adjusted and advanced by Xi Jinping.
HUAWEI phones have longer battery life, better cameras, and more durable, longer lasting hardware than American made phones. All across the world, in places like India, Latin America, and various African countries, the public has selected to buy these cheaper and higher quality phones. The profits of Apple have recently dropped as Huawei’s products have become THE CHOICE of more and more consumers around the globe and within China.
However, US leaders once are demanding that people around the world do not “vote” with their dollars and pick the superior phone. If the free market logic were to apply, US leaders would simply urge American manufacturers to be more competitive. Instead, US leaders continue to demand that countries like Poland and Bulgaria stop doing business with Huawei technologies.
Within the United States, Americans have been prevented from “voting” with their dollars and purchasing the P20, a cutting edge new phone released by the Chinese manufacturer. A whole list of Chinese smartphones are now banned as a supposed NATIONAL SECURITY RISK.
US leaders allege that smartphones manufactured by Chinese corporations are a threat to national security because these entities have ties to the Chinese military and government. This claim is rather hypocritical as Apple, AT&T, Verizon, and other American telecommunications companies have not even bothered to conceal their relationship with the US intelligence agencies.
US phones are no more a “military” or “intelligence” threat than Chinese phones are. To expect the Chinese Communist Party, which essentially created Huawei Technologies, to not maintain a relationship with this telecom giant is a ridicules demand.
Not Gentlemanly Business but Gangsterism
More than the “free competition” and “open” international system they advocate, American leaders, seem to be embracing the economic philosophy of Mafia gangsters. Much like criminals operating a protection racquet, US leaders claim that certain countries around the world are their “turf."They demand that their competitors be locked out, and scramble to impose consequences on those who would get in their way.
US leaders are themselves discrediting the very ideology they have spread across the world. They are revealing that in truth, “free competition” is a delusion and that governments tend to rig things in favor of their wealthy paymasters and do their bidding. The mantra of “free competition” has been utilized to restrain developing countries and potential competitors, but US leaders are happy to disregard it and protect the global “turf” of the Wall Street and Silicon Valley monopolies.
The truth is that the richest of the rich in the United States did not acquire their wealth by mere personal sacrifice and brilliance, and the western world did not acquire its place in the world through gentlemanly business practices.
In the 21st Century, countries across the world have rejected these free market delusions and utilized their own governments to construct state-controlled economies to eliminate poverty and raise living standards. Huawei, like Russia’s Gazprom and Rosneft, are the result of economic innovations, in which post-Cold War governments took action to control the economy on behalf of the population.
Unlike so many of the working class people in western countries, the populations of Russia and China have not been left behind in the process of building up these super-corporations. As the two Eurasian superpowers emerged in the 20th century, not due to free markets, but due to socialist central planning, millions were lifted from poverty.
Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine New Eastern OutlookӔ.
SOURCE
---
Huawei Runs Into More Roadblocks
By Mehedi Hassan
Thurrott
May 24, 2019
After the US government BLACKLISTED Huawei, the companys been FACING A LOT OF PROBLEMS. And now, it’s getting some more roadblocks in the industry.
Nikkei is REPORTING that Huawei has faced a couple of new bans following the US government ban. The Wi-F Alliance has temporarily restricted Huaweis membership, which means it will no longer be able to have a say on the standards for wireless technology.
Elsewhere, the SD Association, which is known for developing the standards of the SD Card, has also removed Huawei as one of its members That means Huawei will also no longer be able to participate in discussions for the future of SD Card standards.
And lastly, JEDEC, which sets semiconductor standards, no longer has Huawei as one of its members. Huawei has apparently withdrawn its membership from the JEDEC, which includes companies like Qualcomm and Samsung Semiconductor. Qualcomm and others have already stopped supplying chips to Huawei following the US Government ban, so that’s not a surprise either.
Huawei will continue to be able to use these standards, but they simply wont be able to have a say in the future of these standards. It remains unknown whether the US government will reverse its decision to ban Huawei, but this could severely affect the relationship between the Chinese and the American tech industries. As Nikkei noted, the continued trade tension between the US and China could lead to Chinese tech companies not relying too much on the US going forward and working on their own standards instead.
SOURCE
---
Microsoft Pulls Huawei Server Products, Laptop Following US Ban
By Mehedi Hassan
Thurrott
May 23, 2018
In the ongoing trade battle between China and the United States, Huawei was blacklisted by the US government, forcing US companies to stop doing business with the company. Although the US government gave Huawei and its partners some breathing room, companies like Google, Intel, and Qualcomm have already stopped working with Huawei.
And now, Microsoft is also joining the bandwagon. Bloomberg is reporting that Microsoft has pulled Huaweis server products for its Azure Stack technology. MicrosoftҒs product catalog page that lists Azure Stack HCI solutions from companies like ASUS and others no longer includes Huaweis offerings. The publication tried to reach out to Microsoft to discuss what the company is planning to do with its business with Huawei, but couldnҒt get a comment.
Earlier on Tuesday, Microsoft stopped selling one of Huaweis flagship laptops, the MateBook X Pro. The companyҒs online store no longer has the product listing for the Huawei laptop. That could suggest Microsoft will eventually ban Huaweis Windows license as long as the company is blacklisted by the US government.
Microsoft remains tight-lipped about its actions with Huawei going forward, and it’s not clear whether the company will end its business with Huawei, including pulling Huaweis Windows license. Google has already pulled Huawei’s Android license, which is a much bigger threat to the company’s entire business since it relies heavily on its Android phones - and if companies like Microsoft follow through, Huawei could be in even more trouble.
SOURCE
---
Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain
Infrastructure & Technology
Whitehouse
May 15, 2019
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that foreign adversaries are increasingly creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology and services, which store and communicate vast amounts of sensitive information, facilitate the digital economy, and support critical infrastructure and vital emergency services, in order to commit malicious cyber-enabled actions, including economic and industrial espionage against the United States and its people. I further find that the unrestricted acquisition or use in the United States of information and communications technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of foreign adversaries augments the ability of foreign adversaries to create and exploit vulnerabilities in information and communications technology or services, with potentially catastrophic effects, and thereby constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. This threat exists both in the case of individual acquisitions or uses of such technology or services, and when acquisitions or uses of such technologies are considered as a class. Although maintaining an open investment climate in information and communications technology, and in the United States economy more generally, is important for the overall growth and prosperity of the United States, such openness must be balanced by the need to protect our country against critical national security threats. To deal with this threat, additional steps are required to protect the security, integrity, and reliability of information and communications technology and services provided and used in the United States. In light of these findings, I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to this threat.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Implementation. (a) The following actions are prohibited: any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology or service (transaction) by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, where the transaction involves any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest (including through an interest in a contract for the provision of the technology or service), where the transaction was initiated, is pending, or will be completed after the date of this order, and where the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, the Administrator of General Services, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and, as appropriate, the heads of other executive departments and agencies (agencies), has determined that:
(i) the transaction involves information and communications technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied, by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary; and
(ii) the transaction:
(A) poses an undue risk of sabotage to or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology or services in the United States;
(B) poses an undue risk of catastrophic effects on the security or resiliency of United States critical infrastructure or the digital economy of the United States; or
(C) otherwise poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.
(b) The Secretary, in consultation with the heads of other agencies as appropriate, may at the Secretarys discretion design or negotiate measures to mitigate concerns identified under section 1(a) of this order. Such measures may serve as a precondition to the approval of a transaction or of a class of transactions that would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this order.
(c) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.
Sec. 2. Authorities. (a) The Secretary, in consultation with, or upon referral of a particular transaction from, the heads of other agencies as appropriate, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including directing the timing and manner of the cessation of transactions prohibited pursuant to section 1 of this order, adopting appropriate rules and regulations, and employing all other powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to implement this order. All agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
(b) Rules and regulations issued pursuant to this order may, among other things, determine that particular countries or persons are foreign adversaries for the purposes of this order; identify persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of foreign adversaries for the purposes of this order; identify particular technologies or countries with respect to which transactions involving information and communications technology or services warrant particular scrutiny under the provisions of this order; establish procedures to license transactions otherwise prohibited pursuant to this order; establish criteria, consistent with section 1 of this order, by which particular technologies or particular participants in the market for information and communications technology or services may be recognized as categorically included in or as categorically excluded from the prohibitions established by this order; and identify a mechanism and relevant factors for the negotiation of agreements to mitigate concerns raised in connection with subsection 1(a) of this order. Within 150 days of the date of this order, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, the Administrator of General Services, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and, as appropriate, the heads of other agencies, shall publish rules or regulations implementing the authorities delegated to the Secretary by this order.
(c) The Secretary may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of the authorities conferred on the Secretary pursuant to this section within the Department of Commerce.
Sec. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a)the term ғentity means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(b)the term ԓforeign adversary means any foreign government or foreign non-government person engaged in a long‑term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons;
(c)the term ԓinformation and communications technology or services means any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information or data processing, storage, retrieval, or communication by electronic means, including transmission, storage, and display;
(d)the term ԓperson means an individual or entity; and
(e)the term ԓUnited States person means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
Sec. 4. Recurring and Final Reports to the Congress. The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 5. Assessments and Reports. (a) The Director of National Intelligence shall continue to assess threats to the United States and its people from information and communications technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary. The Director of National Intelligence shall produce periodic written assessments of these threats in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies, and shall provide these assessments to the President, the Secretary for the SecretaryԒs use in connection with his responsibilities pursuant to this order, and the heads of other agencies as appropriate. An initial assessment shall be completed within 40 days of the date of this order, and further assessments shall be completed at least annually, and shall include analysis of:
(i) threats enabled by information and communications technologies or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary; and
(ii) threats to the United States Government, United States critical infrastructure, and United States entities from information and communications technologies or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the influence of a foreign adversary.
(b)The Secretary of Homeland Security shall continue to assess and identify entities, hardware, software, and services that present vulnerabilities in the United States and that pose the greatest potential consequences to the national security of the United States.The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with sector-specific agencies and coordinating councils as appropriate, shall produce a written assessment within 80 days of the date of this order, and annually thereafter.This assessment shall include an evaluation of hardware, software, or services that are relied upon by multiple information and communications technology or service providers, including the communication services relied upon by critical infrastructure entities identified pursuant to section 9 of Executive Order 13636 of February 12, 2013 (Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity).
(c) Within 1 year of the date of this order, and annually thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation as appropriate with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, shall assess and report to the President whether the actions taken by the Secretary pursuant to this order are sufficient and continue to be necessary to mitigate the risks identified in, and pursuant to, this order.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 15, 2019.
SOURCE
READ LESS...
Page 1 of 1 pages
