7 ms·

Not related to this package delivery drama, but the way we are observing the live demolition of the world largest networking equipment maker and second largest

• JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > The illusion of the rule of law Rule of law has always been national. International politics are anarchic. Huawei quite clearly broke the laws of the United States (e.g. with respect to Iran), repeatedly and wilfully.
  • dmurray 7y ago
    Importing goods to Iran really isn't a violation of US laws, any more than, say, a twenty year old Huawei employee having a beer in Beijing or driving at 120 mph on a German autobahn. The rule of law is indeed national, and legally the US has very little jurisdiction outside its borders. Extralegally, of course, it has plenty of powers to arrest, kill or torture those it doesn't like.
    • chibg10 7y ago
      The allegations against Huawei aren't that it "imported goods into Iran." The allegations are that it imported American goods into Iran, which is clearly a violation of US export laws. If such laws didn't apply to third-party distributors of American goods, then the only effect of US sanctions would be have foreign distributors exporting American goods rather than American ones. Huawei appears to have known this as well seeing as Meng Wanzhou had fraudently misrepresented the relevant transactions to the banks it was working with. There was nothing extralegal about Meng Wanzhou's arrest.
      • DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        The allegation is not quite that Huawei imported American goods into Iran. The accusation is that Huawei misled a non-American bank, HSBC, about its relationship with Skycom, a company that is accused of importing some American office computers into Iran. The US alleges that Huawei essentially controls Skycom, and that it hid this from HSBC, a British bank. Since HSBC does business in the US, it would not be allowed to give loans to Huawei. You can start to see how far-reaching American sanctions are. A British bank is being told that it cannot do business with a Chinese company, because that Chinese company allegedly controls a Hong Kong company that imported small numbers of American goods into Iran. As I understand it, these sorts of extensive secondary sanctions are not normal, and are a sore point between the US and many countries, including some of its allies (such as France and Germany). I would be very interested to know what gives the US any jurisdiction to demand the arrest of a foreign executive on foreign territory, for acts committed on foreign territory. Whatever the legal justification, though, this is a very unusual and aggressive step, and one that is transparently motivated by political considerations in the ongoing trade war.
        • JumpCrisscross 7y ago
          > what gives the US any jurisdiction to demand the arrest of a foreign executive on foreign territory, for acts committed on foreign territory She violated American laws with American products using U.S. dollars for years. She then travelled to an American ally. This is a stupid counter argument.
          • DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
            Where does the US have jurisdiction? This is a legitimate question. What legal right does the US government have to enforce US laws on a foreigner who isn't in the US, for actions taken outside the US and which were not illegal in the country the person resides in? I'd legitimately like to know what sort of legal argument is used to justify this, because it sounds like a massive overreach by the United States. Regardless, arresting the CFO of a major corporation - the daughter of the CEO - in such a manner is an extremely aggressive act.
  • tepidandroid 7y ago
    Huawei may have broken the law with respect to violating U.S's sanctions on Iran. These are still unproven allegations as of yet. Meanwhile, Société Générale, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, JP Morgan have provably done exactly that. Yet there is only one C-suite level executive who is currently being held personally, criminally liable for corporate actions. I guarantee you won't be seeing Jamie Dimon threatened with prison time for JP Morgan's 87 violations of Iranian sanctions and Weapons of Mass Destruction sanctions, anytime soon. Laws which are enforced selectively lack credibility.
    • JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      Very simply, sanctions evasion is enforced differently from other domains. In any case, China is a terrible foil for the rule of law. Meng will get a fair trial in America. Nobody from anywhere would get the same in China.
      • Bendingo 7y ago
        > Meng will get a fair trial in America. Your faith is US justice is admirable and patriotic. Do you believe Assange would also get a fair trial in USA ?
        • Scoundreller 7y ago
          Fairer than in China!
        • JumpCrisscross 7y ago
          > Do you believe Assange would also get a fair trial in USA ? No. I don’t believe secret courts can be fair courts. Meng, however, is being charged through normal channels by a prosecutor who must make a case in the regular court system. The charges and decisions will be made in the open. (There is a decent chance, due to the difficulty of admitting large swaths of evidence, that she could win.)
  • codedokode 7y ago
    > Huawei quite clearly broke the laws Was it proven in court or we should just believe everything US administration says?
  • Bendingo 7y ago
    Since when does the US set laws for Huawei? The attitude that the whole world must obey US laws is being increasingly rejected. And not before time.
    • throwaway2048 7y ago
      they set the law for companies that want to do business in and with the USA, anything else would just lead to ridiculous shell games where corporations could break laws with impunity by farming it out to "completely independent foreign companies". Its fine if Huawei doesn't want to follow US law, but they shouldn't expect to do business with Americans or American companies either.
      • codedokode 7y ago
        The allegations have not been proven in court yet, but US is already disrupting Huawei's business and US companies are cancelling the contracts. That's not how law works.
      • repolfx 7y ago
        These aren't American companies. America's actual position is something more like this: "If you do business in any way with any Americans at any point, regardless of who you are or where you're based, then you will be thrown in jail the moment we can get your hands on you, if you do business with anyone on this list, or with anyone who does not implement our rules either" See how companies like ARM are being forced to stop doing business with Huawei despite not being American companies. It's massive overreach.
  • mengqing 7y ago
    what are you smoking. Even if Huawei broke US laws (unproven, no evidence, no court proceedings), who gave US the right to divert other people's packages in a foreign country? Are you saying that I can simply divert you mail because I think you broke my laws?
• coldshower 7y ago
  we are observing the live demolition of the world largest networking equipment maker and second largest smartphone maker (by number) in the name of trade war Can we explore this fascinating statement further? This the narrative of whom? If this is likely, will China jump in and rescue Huawei?
• coliveira 7y ago
  What they're doing to Huawei will have nefarious consequences to the US. Who can ever trust a country that can use this kind of tactics to destroy a comercial competitor?
  • hueving 7y ago
    China's tactics aren't really any better (allow blatant IP theft). I suppose the only real difference was that this wasn't well-known in advance. It's like the Joker's statement about people losing their shit when something happens unannounced but being orderly when much worse is announced in advance.
    • 1ta 7y ago
      China is priced in. US was not. US forgets how much of its prosperity is due to economic freedom/liberty. US is quickly becoming just another country.
    • Mirioron 7y ago
      We already don't trust China though. That's the difference.
      • dis-sys 7y ago
        Who are "we" here? Readers of hacker news, or your family which you may or may not have the right to represent?
    • DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      China hasn't taken any actions comparable to this. This would be like shutting down Apple's production lines in China with no warning - essentially a coup de grace to a major tech company.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • friedman23 7y ago
    > What they're doing to Huawei will have nefarious consequences to the US And what consequences do you imagine there will be?
• 99_00 7y ago
  Blacklisting Huawei is for national security reasons not because of the trade war. Because of the trade war the US has stopped turning a blind eye to misdeeds from China and state backed Chinese companies.
  • tinus_hn 7y ago
    It’s just a bargaining chip. If China meets some of Trumps demands, be prepared to watch all these security reasons disappear like snow on a sunny day.
    • 99_00 7y ago
      Basing an argument on a hypothetical future event isn't very convincing. >The order, which will not name specific countries or companies, has been under consideration for more than a year but has repeatedly been delayed, the sources said, asking not to be named because the preparations remain confidential. It could be delayed again, they said. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-huawei-tech-exclusive/exclusive-trump-expected-to-sign-order-paving-way-for-u-s-telecoms-ban-on-huawei-idUSKCN1SK2P1?il=0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-huawei-tech-exc... Is it your position that Huawei is not a national security threat?
      • tinus_hn 7y ago
        https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48392021 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48392021 Huawei is probably a security threat but that isn’t new nor relevant. My position is that this is a transparent attempt to gain leverage at the negotiating table.
        • 99_00 7y ago
          The timing is certainly intentional and designed to improve the US's position on both trade and national security. There is more than one variable at play. And I agree that the black list can go away after negotiations. But only if those negotiations ensure the US feels secure in its national security.
• truth_be_told 7y ago
  Spot on! Nothing has changed from the colonial era except having been dressed up in "genteel" clothes of "rule of law as long as it is to OUR benefit". Every country is learning from this and nobody is going to trust the US anymore. It is all lies, sham and hypocrisy. The western countries have lost the lead in Wireless Mobile technology and instead of admitting it and redoubling their efforts to win back the lead, they are engaged in tearing down the company and the country who beat them.
• csomar 7y ago
  > The illusion of the rule of law, free world, globalization and the reality of control is simply frightening, and worrisome. There has never been an absolute "rule of law". The rule of law is always protected and uphold by the government military. Otherwise, what to prevent your neighbour from killing you and taking your assets. There must be someone more powerful and armed than him. The government uses the "power of law" idea to make people happy and mentally stable. But it'll use power when need be. The US bombed japan with nuclear weapons and will redo it again to protect its interests.