[ad_1]
PResident Trump signed a decree on Wednesday to defend US national security against Chinese cyber-espionage. Citing his powers under the emergency law on international economic powers, the president gave the Commerce Department 150 days to develop methods of applying new rules to US companies wishing to trade with qualified "foreign opponents". "unacceptable risk" to US national security.
Although not specifically named in the order of the president, the Chinese communist telecommunications company Huawei and some 70 affiliates should be on Commerce's risk list.
The Trump administration previously banned the US government and its contractors from using Huawei products for various reasons. The Justice Ministry has launched criminal proceedings against a Huawei executive, the company and several of its numerous subsidiaries for stealing trade secrets, as well as misleading banks to violate US sanctions against Iran. The Government further alleges that Huawei allegedly stole trade secrets from US companies and competitors. Overall, it is generally believed that Huawei uses economic espionage.
Not surprisingly, in 2012, the House Intelligence Committee reported that Huawei and ZTE (China's second-largest telecommunications company) were facilitating cyber espionage and should be banned from partnering and trading with US companies. .
Given this congressional story, and in a rare case of bipartisanship in Washington, Democrats such as US Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) Hailed the president's executive order as a "necessary step," due to the law in communist China companies must "act as a state agent".
Crucially, this threat of cyber espionage stems from the potential of "backdoor" technologies embedded in Huawei products and, therefore, used as a tool for intelligence gathering and cyberware by the Chinese; and he urged the United States to urge its allies not to join Huawei in developing their 5G infrastructure.
Huawei is fighting for the return
In light of President Trump's executive order, Huawei continues to maintain the innocence of all allegations. The company even went to a US federal court to overturn the government's previous ban on the federal government and its subcontractors who were dealing with the company.
In particular, Huawei strongly opposes the claim that their product would have been endowed with such a "back door" to help Beijing's cyber espionage in America or elsewhere. In addition, the company is furious. Chief Financial Officer, Meng Wanzhou, has been arrested in Canada under the US arrest warrant and is currently fighting extradition. Indeed, Huawei is almost as angry as the Chinese Communist government that has arrested two Canadians (although, of course, the Beijing regime swears that the two cases are unrelated).
In addition, Huawei claims that President Trump's order impedes the development of "next generation" technologies; "Will not make the United States safer or stronger"; and lead to "cheaper but more expensive alternatives" that will hurt businesses and customers and delay the implementation of 5G infrastructure in rural America.
Huawei has a point here because there will be an impact on the US economy – Huawei spends about $ 11 billion on purchases from many US companies. However, the economic damage for Huawei will be greater, because, in a poignant irony, the Chinese communist telecommunications giant can not potentially go around the 5G infrastructure in the world without "technologies". "We are ready and willing to dialogue with the US government and propose effective measures to ensure the safety of products," he said in Washington.
Liable Insurance
Fortunately, the Trump administration and the growing bipartisan consensus in Congress are not reassured, as they understand that such assurances no longer make sense once the Beijing regime orders Huawei to do otherwise – if this is not already done.
A superficial understanding of communist ideology reveals that, whatever the "market reforms" implemented, the party owns the means of production in an economy of command and control. If the Beijing regime decided to nationalize Huawei, the company would have no choice but to submit.
It is difficult to imagine that Huawei is refusing to comply with a directive on cyber espionage at the request of a communist regime that ignores international laws, treaties and standards, unless, of course, they are deliberately and deliberately violated.
Honestly, what kind of fools would accept such ludicrous assurances?
As it did in the case where it sanctioned the barbaric Iranian regime, Europe however resolutely undertakes not to "give in" to the importance of the United States to prohibit Huawei from banning their 5G infrastructure. ; and, as usual, promises to continue bending over backwards for China, its second largest trading partner. (Guess who is Europe's biggest trading partner?) Citing their fear of escalating the US-China trade war and their own economic interests, the British, German and French governments are ready to use Huawei .
Regarding the potential risks to the security interests of their own nations, as well as those of their American ally?
Speaking at the Viva Technology conference in Paris, Vincent Pang, head of Western European operations for Huawei, knowing his audience, said that "over the past 30 years, Huawei has not been able to do anything." did not have a cybersecurity problem "; and in an intriguing and ironic echo of the "open door policy," said "closed doors do not make it any better for anyone".
The "backdoors" on telecommunications products are also not used by the cyber espionage of the free peoples against the dictatorship of a communist dictator endowed with nuclear weapons.
Such a Cold War era Manichean mentality is turned upside down by nuanced diplomats and European decision makers, whose sophisticated curricula of the twentieth century include two world wars. Cue French President Emmanuel Macron:
Our perspective is not to block Huawei or a company. . . France and Europe are pragmatic and realistic. We believe in cooperation and multilateralism. At the same time, we are extremely attentive to access to state-of-the-art technology and the preservation of our national security and all safety rules. . . I think the launch of a commercial or technological war against a country is not appropriate. First, it's not the best way to defend national security; on the other hand, it's not the best way to defend the ecosystem.
First, I do not know why he brought the ecosystem into that argument. Communist China is one of the most polluted countries on the planet. But agree.
Secondly, while history is reluctant to repeat itself, if European governments only want to be concerned about "practical" economic concerns, they must remember predatory economic policies of the Beijing regime that have never stopped and are only intensifying.
And, yes, know again that a nation in peril is an impoverished nation, just like a continent. No one can be safe or prosper if Communist China has a back door to the communications of free nations.
Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available at no cost to any eligible news publisher who can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact [email protected].
Photo credit: Chesnot / Getty Images
[ad_2]
Source link