A European perspective on Huawei CFO's arrest

World
Europe

Editor's note: Gunter Schoech is the founder and managing director of the market research and consulting company Debrouillage. The article first appeared on the Chinese website Zhihu on December 8, 2018. It reflects the author's opinion, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On the recent incident of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou's arrest, I want to add a European perspective to the current discussions surrounding it. These are personal opinions, but when I look through our media coverage, and especially readers' reaction, I think they are shared by many people in Germany. Not all of course, but a significant proportion.

Scot Filer, CEO of Lions Gate Risk Management, enters the court registry following the bail hearing of Huawei Technologies Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou at British Columbia Superior Courts in Vancouver, British Columbia, December 11, 2018. / VCG Photo

I am not an expert on security, but I think it is fair to say that all nations have always attempted to spy on each other, and always will. Today, using telecom and Internet equipment is the ideal way to do this. We Germans, officially allies of the United States, realized at some point that we were spied upon on a grand scale by Americans and the British alike. Take a look at the controversy surrounding the U.S. National Security Agency's (NSA) and its defector Edward Snowden.

It turned out that NSA had tapped even our chancellor Angela Merkel. She denounced this action by saying "spying among friends can not at all be tolerated." Note the choice of words, which could also be read as "of course we spy on those we don't consider friends." And guess what? Later it was revealed that we Germans had been spying on French, who we consider our closest friends!

For a long time, the leading telecommunications equipment suppliers were Western ones (Nokia, Ericsson, Nortel, Siemens, Cisco, Alcatel, Lucent, etc.), but later some of them went outright bankrupt (Nortel), others had to merge (Nokia – Siemens, Alcatel – Lucent etc.), where they had to lay off hundreds of thousands of workers.

A major reason for that was that Chinese companies, including ZTE, and, most notably, Huawei, were making great progress, offering unbeatable prices for their phones.

In 2001, I joined Siemens, which was a major phone network (landline and mobile) and mobile phone manufacturer.

People leave the court registry after the B.C. Supreme Court bail hearing of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, who was released on a 10 million Canadian dollars bail in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, December 11, 2018. /VCG Photo

But they were destroyed in the end, mainly by Huawei. They were fat and complacent, doing business with state-owned monopolist German Telecom (before German Postal Service who also ran the phone lines). Later there came the de-regulation, together with the advent of Voice over IP which replaced the costly hardware switches. Huawei rose at the same time.

What was once the origin of Siemens (they started by building telegraph lines) now imploded. Other Western companies, including the American ones, continue to feel the pressure. So it seems to me that what is happening now is a protectionist strategy by the U.S., which can be found in many examples, not just in this arrest. The U.S. urged Australia (with success) and Germany (without success) to refrain from using Huawei for their 5G networks.

Trump and the US Congress banned all Chinese telecom equipment from being used by state agencies. Trump vetoed the takeover of American Qualcomm by China's Broadcom. The government probably pressured private operators to stop offering Huawei phones. "Business Week" reported on the espionage chips in server components.

However, there is no public proof of any backdoors. With one exception: About 10 years ago, the American NSA installed a backdoor called Headwater in Huawei router, as part of a larger hacking initiative to spy on Huawei's management.

Ironic, isn't it? This became known through the Snowden documents.

Another issue I want to discuss concerning this case is the question of "breaking sanctions against Iran."

Members of the media wait at an entrance to the B.C. Supreme Court after the bail hearing of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, who was released on a 10 million Canadian dollars bail, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, December 11, 2018. /VCG Photo

The U.S. withdrew unilaterally from the Iran nuclear deal. Anybody who deals with Iran in infringement of the sanctions will be punished in their business with the U.S. As the U.S. market usually is much more attractive than the Iranian market, many comply. However, politically this is blackmailing.

Any country has the right to decide who they want to do business with. The U.S. might decide not to do business with European or Chinese company XYZ, for whatever reason. But where does it get the right to dictate who others can do or not do businesses with? And how about the right to arrest somebody who goes against the U.S. will on this issue?

I am doubtful that a country (the U.S.) can impose its views on other countries across the globe, while they themselves don't want to be held accountable for anything. They pull out of the Paris climate accord, which deals with the biggest problem currently facing mankind, but the U.S. is egotistical.

They deny any legitimacy of the Den Haag tribunal for war criminals. And they know why, because of their policing actions, prisons without human rights but with torture around the world, support for dictators and rebels etc., are often on the edge of beyond what could be considered war crimes.

So the idea of punishing Meng Wanzhou, Huawei and China for breaking sanctions, because the same U.S. decided to break the Iran nuclear deal which China upholds, is laughable.

It is a ruthless pursuit of one's self-interest, which is the hallmark of Trump and his entire administration. To conclude, let me point out that "the U.S." does not exist. Let's not forget that Trump, Bolton and his administration represent anything between 35-45 percent of the population, and most of the others are very unhappy with what is going on. I hope for the least damage possible until the administration changes, but I am not very optimistic.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, contact us at opinions@cgtn.com)