12 ms·

This is why Canada detained Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou. I'm also guessing this news is why Telus, a major Canadian telco, just dropped Huawei for its 5G rollout

by cgh 6y ago

This is why Canada detained Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou. I'm also guessing this news is why Telus, a major Canadian telco, just dropped Huawei for its 5G rollout and went with Ericsson instead. This is in line with other Canadian telcos and I believe the rest of the Five Eyes as well. Although didn't the UK flirt with Huawei for a while there?

justicezyx 6y ago
Actually, this is not the official charge on Mrs. Meng. According to wiki, the actual charge is: ``` proxies conspired "to misappropriate intellectual property", and Meng lied to HSBC bank. ``` Canada's legal agreement with US is that they work in accordance with US, for criminals that violated the laws at Canada. But there needs to be laws in Canada that are equivalent to US ones. For example, if I committed murder in US, and fled to Canada, they legally are obliged to capture and send me back to US. But if I sell limited item to Iran, and fled to Canada, then Canada are obliged to send me back, because Canada does not have a sanction on Iran. And this is why this action outraged a lot of Chinese, and worried a lot business people.
- greatjack613 6y ago
  I disagree, Huawei has a track record of IP theft, fraud, and sanctions violations. The time has come to reign them in. I know many great chinese engineers and all of them in the tech industry are enraged with how huawei treats IP. They made it very clear to me that they think the U.S is being to lenient with them, and as a proxy of the chinese government, it is time to take them down.
  - greatjack613 6y ago
    I have heard stories from friends who when they were interviewed by huawei were asked what IP they can contribute from their old company to them. If this is not indicitive of Huaweis intentions, I do not know what is. They are a threat to everything we hold dear.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - millhouse_ams 6y ago
    Sanction violation - whose sanctions and why? This is a sign of decreasing US power and the desperate attempts to keep things from changing.
- Bahamut 6y ago
  This does not look like correct analysis - the extradition treaty between the US and Canada[1] states: Article 1 Each Contracting Party agrees to extradite to the other, in the circumstances and subject to the conditions described in this Treaty, persons found in its territory who have been charged with, or convicted of, any of the offenses covered by Article 2 of this Treaty committed within the territory of the other, or outside thereof under the conditions specified in Article 3(3) of this Treaty. Article 3(3) states When the offense for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State, the executive or other appropriate authority of the requested State shall have the power to grant the extradition if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over such an offense committed in similar circumstances. [1] http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Canada%20International%20Extradition%20Treaty%20with%20the%20United%20States.pdf http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Canada%20International%20Ext...
  - billfruit 6y ago
    What exactly is Canada's locus standi on this? Is anyone sanctioned/wanted by US liable to be arrested if they land in Canada? On what charges was the Canadian warrant issued to arrest Meng?
    - nucleardog 6y ago
      Canada will only extradite for things that would be considered criminal in Canada, and only in cases where the requesting party can provide enough evidence that it could be brought to trial in Canada as well. They also will also consider every decision in the face of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides for a fundamental right to justice and security. If the extradition, or actions post-extradition, would likely violate the person’s rights then they will not be extradited. (So, e.g., will not extradite someone to face the death penalty.) There’s a general overview of the process, checkpoints, appeals, etc here: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/emla-eej/extradition.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/emla-eej/extradition.htm... Meng is being charged with fraud for lying to HSBC. It was a point of contention since the representations she made would not have been criminal in Canada (no sanctions). However the actual act of making fraudulent misrepresentations is the crime, and it's criminal in Canada as well. There's some information and a link to the actual court ruling here: https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/with-the-meng-wanzhou-decision-politicized-process-lives-only-in-chinas-imagination/ https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/with-the-meng-wanzhou-de...
- nucleardog 6y ago
  She was arrested for the fraud involved in lying to HSBC. Fraud is also against Canadian law. Not sure what there is to be worried or outraged about here.
  - adventured 6y ago
    > Not sure what there is to be worried or outraged about here. That's a CPC threat point. They frequently put things like: "if you do this, the Chinese people will be very upset," they always use strong emotional language like "outraged" or "angry" - it's non-subtle code for: we'll force the Chinese people to harm your commercial interests. Almost any time you see something about how the Chinese people are or will be outraged, that is what is really going on. The party constantly uses that tool against any foreign entity that steps out of line. It's how they have threatened & browbeat everyone from South Korea & Japan to Britain and various large corporations. It's meant to inflate the size of the opponent on the other side, because upsetting 1.4 billion people seems a lot more intimidating than upsetting a small collection of authoritarian bureaucrats in Beijing. If an airline refers to Taiwan, the CPC will say that the airline has upset or outraged the Chinese people, and then follow with subtle descriptions of the consequences. The Chinese people are typically overwhelmingly unaware of what is going on. What they mean is, the CPC is upset and will force the Chinese people to do something bad to hurt your interests if you don't get back into line with what the CPC agenda is.
    - justicezyx 6y ago
      > we'll force the Chinese people to harm your commercial interests Many years of conventional education, propaganda, modern technologies make it not a force. It's quite easy to trigger those behaviors nowadays.
  - justicezyx 6y ago
    Put everything in the context of sino-US relationship, and the propaganda exercised by both parties. But I doubt either side is surprised by these type of behaviors. These are all just minor details. The strategic shift in the sino-US relationship from collaborating to confrontation is pretty much set in course. Now it's more of the question how to avoid the disaster of the previous cold war. Given that USSR collapsed, either one will be desperate to avoid becoming the new USSR in the confrontation; and they might be doing something stupid in the last resort...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
billfruit 6y ago
How exactly does US sanctions restrict/constrain a Chinese or any other nationality company from doing business with Iran? Do China have sanctions on Iran?
- meragrin_ 6y ago
  Foreign companies must agree to those sanctions/restrictions prior to the purchase of equipment with export restrictions.
  - billfruit 6y ago
    But is it a criminal matter for which individuals will get arrested? That is, the agreement is agreed to at risk of what? But really though I doubt it is hardly enforceable, if you look to buy lot of high tech equipment is available to buy, without much of paperwork. This case seems to be about HP computers. I doubt it is normally feasibile for any one to keep track of sales and reselling world over.
    - TechBro8615 6y ago
      IANAL, but my understanding is that sanctions are generally enforced by restricting access to the US financial system (banks and such) for companies that violate them. In some cases there may be criminal repercussions as well.
  - ShorsHammer 6y ago
    Not sure if that's entirely correct. I don't remember seeing that clause the last time we bought some servers off Ebay.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      Are you in one of the countries facing export restrictions?
    - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
      Ebay has clear clauses within their TOS that the seller is responsible for making sure the purchases complies. https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-items/international-trading-policy?id=4338 https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-ite...
tpmx 6y ago
All three major Canadian telcos are going with Ericsson (and Nokia). https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bce-5g-ericsson-1.5594601 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bce-5g-ericsson-1.5594601 This is a good summary: https://www.lightreading.com/5g/goodbye-huawei-hello-ericsson-swap-out-gathers-pace/a/d-id/761438 https://www.lightreading.com/5g/goodbye-huawei-hello-ericsso... > Goodbye Huawei, hello Ericsson: Swap-out gathers pace
neonate 6y ago
> didn't the UK flirt with Huawei for a while Yes, and it looks like they're rolling it back (interesting): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/22/boris-johnson-forced-to-reduce-huaweis-role-in-uks-5g-networks https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/22/boris-joh.... I missed that story. I guess there's kinda been other things going on.
tipsysquid 6y ago
I believe it was this Marketplace podcast episode[0] that talks about the UK and their relationship with Huawei. If I can recall, the UK is tied tightly to Huawei across several industries, one including nuclear reactor/plant development that has been in on going for ages and involves packages of training lots of UK workers. The podcast goes on to say that the UK is in a tough position because to break ties with any part of Huawei could have a chain reaction of cancellations/retaliations that could be extremely costly to UK in a time of uncertainty with Brexit and now covid-19. "Damned if they do, damned if they don't" was the general sentiment. [0] https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace/what-weighs-down-gdp/ https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace/what-weighs-do...
- chrisjc 6y ago
  If HN keeps recommending all these amazing podcasts that I've never heard of, I'm not going to have enough time in day to get through them... Thanks for the recommendation!
- threeseed 6y ago
  UK is a unique situation as well as because of Brexit. It's looking certain that they are going to crash out of the EU single market without an agreement and without replacement trade agreements in place with other countries. Now recently China punished Australia by cutting trade as a result of Australia pushing for the COVID-19 investigation. Which given how sensitive they about Huawei and their need to teach the world a lesson gives an indication of how severe their response is likely to be. UK can hardly afford to impact trading relationships with their number 2, 3, 4 and 5 partners all at the same time as they are dealing with a pretty incompetent COVID-19 response.
- 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
  A lot of competitive practices in business are considered fair game, even when outside the scope of offering a better product or service. Leaning on lobbying, or, relying on tariffs, for example. The line that must not be crossed is when one side of the business is actually a government entity and in particular, of a foreign government, and the other is e genuine private business. In those cases, incentives are too far out of alignment for a deal that is good for both sides to be had.
dirtyid 6y ago
People are getting caught up in legal arguments and pointless minutiae, when this is just cut throat geopolitics. Broadly, Meng was extradited/arrested because US DoJ decided to start taking Chinese hostages after their Huawei campaign failed (new DoJ initiative month before her arrest specifically targets Chinese nationals for extradition for economic crimes). In terms of norms, individuals especially foreign billionaires don't get arrested for sanction busting, their companies get fined or some lackeys fall at the sword. Everyone moves on. Her arrest was an escalation of Sino-US techwar. Bonus for extraditing via Canada to further cripple Sino-Canadian relations and increase Canadian dependency on US; Canada scheduled talks with China a week after her arrest expectantly blew up. Of course her arrest is "legal" in the sense that "enhanced interrogation" is legal. The main take away is that her move was norm breaking in terms of contemporary international relations. US makes Canada take political hostage - China retaliates by arresting Canadian (alleged) spies and drug dealers to dissuade further hostage taking by US extradition partners, slaps Canada around for being a lackey. Canada gets caught between rock and hard place, plays the rule of law card. On UK and Canadian Telcos, a year later, until COVID19, only 3.5/195 (US, AU, JP, UK) countries have officially firm banned Huawei. Basically increased US pressure and new entities list had no effect. Still couldn't even get majority of FVEY on board or countries with significant US military basing. So US revised entity list to completely cut Huawei out of critical US semi components, signaled commitment to do whatever it takes to undermine Huawei. This is sufficiently crippling to Huawei that FVEY vendors can now rule out Huawei due to prospective supply issue - effectively soft banning Huawei. Only AU firm banned Huawei before US pressure and entity list. UK / CAN / NZ still has NO official position on banning Huawei. I think FVEY parties are looking to see if this is an agreeable solution that will appease US security interests or if US insists on hard ban for optics. China doesn't want the latter, they're fine with Huawei being lowkey ruled out. China can still hack FVEY with relative impunity regardless of vendor, and Huawei will get patent fees regardless. Would have been cheaper and less of a shit show if US just bought Sony Ericcson, which William Barr mulled over.
toomanybeersies 6y ago
Telcos in New Zealand (a five eyes nation) are still considering using Huawei for 5g.
dntbnmpls 6y ago
> This is why Canada detained Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou. That isn't why. Canada detained her on US orders because we are engaged in a trade war with china. No trade war, no arrest. Huawei's dealings with iran are so insignificant ( in the millions ) that nobody would waste their time on this arrest were it not for the trade war. The europeans have far greater "violations" in their dealings with iran as do japan and south korea. They all pay a fine or offer geopolitical favors. Nobody got arrested... until now. https://www.dw.com/en/credit-suisse-hit-with-record-us-fine-for-violating-sanctions-on-iran/a-5021009 https://www.dw.com/en/credit-suisse-hit-with-record-us-fine-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-9-billion-u-s-fine-in-money-laundering-case-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibk-new-york-idUSKBN2221ZB https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibk-new-york-idUSKBN2221Z... Hell even a canadian company broke sanctions. Nobody arrested, just a small fine. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20170113_33.aspx https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enfo... She is getting "special" treatment because of the trade war.

by cgh 6y ago

justicezyx 6y ago

Actually, this is not the official charge on Mrs. Meng. According to wiki, the actual charge is: ``` proxies conspired "to misappropriate intellectual property", and Meng lied to HSBC bank. ``` Canada's legal agreement with US is that they work in accordance with US, for criminals that violated the laws at Canada. But there needs to be laws in Canada that are equivalent to US ones. For example, if I committed murder in US, and fled to Canada, they legally are obliged to capture and send me back to US. But if I sell limited item to Iran, and fled to Canada, then Canada are obliged to send me back, because Canada does not have a sanction on Iran. And this is why this action outraged a lot of Chinese, and worried a lot business people.

greatjack613 6y ago
I disagree, Huawei has a track record of IP theft, fraud, and sanctions violations. The time has come to reign them in. I know many great chinese engineers and all of them in the tech industry are enraged with how huawei treats IP. They made it very clear to me that they think the U.S is being to lenient with them, and as a proxy of the chinese government, it is time to take them down.
- greatjack613 6y ago
  I have heard stories from friends who when they were interviewed by huawei were asked what IP they can contribute from their old company to them. If this is not indicitive of Huaweis intentions, I do not know what is. They are a threat to everything we hold dear.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- millhouse_ams 6y ago
  Sanction violation - whose sanctions and why? This is a sign of decreasing US power and the desperate attempts to keep things from changing.
Bahamut 6y ago
This does not look like correct analysis - the extradition treaty between the US and Canada[1] states: Article 1 Each Contracting Party agrees to extradite to the other, in the circumstances and subject to the conditions described in this Treaty, persons found in its territory who have been charged with, or convicted of, any of the offenses covered by Article 2 of this Treaty committed within the territory of the other, or outside thereof under the conditions specified in Article 3(3) of this Treaty. Article 3(3) states When the offense for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State, the executive or other appropriate authority of the requested State shall have the power to grant the extradition if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over such an offense committed in similar circumstances. [1] http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Canada%20International%20Extradition%20Treaty%20with%20the%20United%20States.pdf http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Canada%20International%20Ext...
- billfruit 6y ago
  What exactly is Canada's locus standi on this? Is anyone sanctioned/wanted by US liable to be arrested if they land in Canada? On what charges was the Canadian warrant issued to arrest Meng?
  - nucleardog 6y ago
    Canada will only extradite for things that would be considered criminal in Canada, and only in cases where the requesting party can provide enough evidence that it could be brought to trial in Canada as well. They also will also consider every decision in the face of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides for a fundamental right to justice and security. If the extradition, or actions post-extradition, would likely violate the person’s rights then they will not be extradited. (So, e.g., will not extradite someone to face the death penalty.) There’s a general overview of the process, checkpoints, appeals, etc here: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/emla-eej/extradition.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/emla-eej/extradition.htm... Meng is being charged with fraud for lying to HSBC. It was a point of contention since the representations she made would not have been criminal in Canada (no sanctions). However the actual act of making fraudulent misrepresentations is the crime, and it's criminal in Canada as well. There's some information and a link to the actual court ruling here: https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/with-the-meng-wanzhou-decision-politicized-process-lives-only-in-chinas-imagination/ https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/with-the-meng-wanzhou-de...
nucleardog 6y ago
She was arrested for the fraud involved in lying to HSBC. Fraud is also against Canadian law. Not sure what there is to be worried or outraged about here.
- adventured 6y ago
  > Not sure what there is to be worried or outraged about here. That's a CPC threat point. They frequently put things like: "if you do this, the Chinese people will be very upset," they always use strong emotional language like "outraged" or "angry" - it's non-subtle code for: we'll force the Chinese people to harm your commercial interests. Almost any time you see something about how the Chinese people are or will be outraged, that is what is really going on. The party constantly uses that tool against any foreign entity that steps out of line. It's how they have threatened & browbeat everyone from South Korea & Japan to Britain and various large corporations. It's meant to inflate the size of the opponent on the other side, because upsetting 1.4 billion people seems a lot more intimidating than upsetting a small collection of authoritarian bureaucrats in Beijing. If an airline refers to Taiwan, the CPC will say that the airline has upset or outraged the Chinese people, and then follow with subtle descriptions of the consequences. The Chinese people are typically overwhelmingly unaware of what is going on. What they mean is, the CPC is upset and will force the Chinese people to do something bad to hurt your interests if you don't get back into line with what the CPC agenda is.
  - justicezyx 6y ago
    > we'll force the Chinese people to harm your commercial interests Many years of conventional education, propaganda, modern technologies make it not a force. It's quite easy to trigger those behaviors nowadays.
- justicezyx 6y ago
  Put everything in the context of sino-US relationship, and the propaganda exercised by both parties. But I doubt either side is surprised by these type of behaviors. These are all just minor details. The strategic shift in the sino-US relationship from collaborating to confrontation is pretty much set in course. Now it's more of the question how to avoid the disaster of the previous cold war. Given that USSR collapsed, either one will be desperate to avoid becoming the new USSR in the confrontation; and they might be doing something stupid in the last resort...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

billfruit 6y ago

How exactly does US sanctions restrict/constrain a Chinese or any other nationality company from doing business with Iran? Do China have sanctions on Iran?

meragrin_ 6y ago
Foreign companies must agree to those sanctions/restrictions prior to the purchase of equipment with export restrictions.
- billfruit 6y ago
  But is it a criminal matter for which individuals will get arrested? That is, the agreement is agreed to at risk of what? But really though I doubt it is hardly enforceable, if you look to buy lot of high tech equipment is available to buy, without much of paperwork. This case seems to be about HP computers. I doubt it is normally feasibile for any one to keep track of sales and reselling world over.
  - TechBro8615 6y ago
    IANAL, but my understanding is that sanctions are generally enforced by restricting access to the US financial system (banks and such) for companies that violate them. In some cases there may be criminal repercussions as well.
- ShorsHammer 6y ago
  Not sure if that's entirely correct. I don't remember seeing that clause the last time we bought some servers off Ebay.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    Are you in one of the countries facing export restrictions?
  - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
    Ebay has clear clauses within their TOS that the seller is responsible for making sure the purchases complies. https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-items/international-trading-policy?id=4338 https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-ite...

tpmx 6y ago

All three major Canadian telcos are going with Ericsson (and Nokia). https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bce-5g-ericsson-1.5594601 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bce-5g-ericsson-1.5594601 This is a good summary: https://www.lightreading.com/5g/goodbye-huawei-hello-ericsson-swap-out-gathers-pace/a/d-id/761438 https://www.lightreading.com/5g/goodbye-huawei-hello-ericsso... > Goodbye Huawei, hello Ericsson: Swap-out gathers pace

neonate 6y ago

> didn't the UK flirt with Huawei for a while Yes, and it looks like they're rolling it back (interesting): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/22/boris-johnson-forced-to-reduce-huaweis-role-in-uks-5g-networks https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/22/boris-joh.... I missed that story. I guess there's kinda been other things going on.

tipsysquid 6y ago

I believe it was this Marketplace podcast episode[0] that talks about the UK and their relationship with Huawei. If I can recall, the UK is tied tightly to Huawei across several industries, one including nuclear reactor/plant development that has been in on going for ages and involves packages of training lots of UK workers. The podcast goes on to say that the UK is in a tough position because to break ties with any part of Huawei could have a chain reaction of cancellations/retaliations that could be extremely costly to UK in a time of uncertainty with Brexit and now covid-19. "Damned if they do, damned if they don't" was the general sentiment. [0] https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace/what-weighs-down-gdp/ https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace/what-weighs-do...

chrisjc 6y ago
If HN keeps recommending all these amazing podcasts that I've never heard of, I'm not going to have enough time in day to get through them... Thanks for the recommendation!
threeseed 6y ago
UK is a unique situation as well as because of Brexit. It's looking certain that they are going to crash out of the EU single market without an agreement and without replacement trade agreements in place with other countries. Now recently China punished Australia by cutting trade as a result of Australia pushing for the COVID-19 investigation. Which given how sensitive they about Huawei and their need to teach the world a lesson gives an indication of how severe their response is likely to be. UK can hardly afford to impact trading relationships with their number 2, 3, 4 and 5 partners all at the same time as they are dealing with a pretty incompetent COVID-19 response.
11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
A lot of competitive practices in business are considered fair game, even when outside the scope of offering a better product or service. Leaning on lobbying, or, relying on tariffs, for example. The line that must not be crossed is when one side of the business is actually a government entity and in particular, of a foreign government, and the other is e genuine private business. In those cases, incentives are too far out of alignment for a deal that is good for both sides to be had.

dirtyid 6y ago

People are getting caught up in legal arguments and pointless minutiae, when this is just cut throat geopolitics. Broadly, Meng was extradited/arrested because US DoJ decided to start taking Chinese hostages after their Huawei campaign failed (new DoJ initiative month before her arrest specifically targets Chinese nationals for extradition for economic crimes). In terms of norms, individuals especially foreign billionaires don't get arrested for sanction busting, their companies get fined or some lackeys fall at the sword. Everyone moves on. Her arrest was an escalation of Sino-US techwar. Bonus for extraditing via Canada to further cripple Sino-Canadian relations and increase Canadian dependency on US; Canada scheduled talks with China a week after her arrest expectantly blew up. Of course her arrest is "legal" in the sense that "enhanced interrogation" is legal. The main take away is that her move was norm breaking in terms of contemporary international relations. US makes Canada take political hostage - China retaliates by arresting Canadian (alleged) spies and drug dealers to dissuade further hostage taking by US extradition partners, slaps Canada around for being a lackey. Canada gets caught between rock and hard place, plays the rule of law card. On UK and Canadian Telcos, a year later, until COVID19, only 3.5/195 (US, AU, JP, UK) countries have officially firm banned Huawei. Basically increased US pressure and new entities list had no effect. Still couldn't even get majority of FVEY on board or countries with significant US military basing. So US revised entity list to completely cut Huawei out of critical US semi components, signaled commitment to do whatever it takes to undermine Huawei. This is sufficiently crippling to Huawei that FVEY vendors can now rule out Huawei due to prospective supply issue - effectively soft banning Huawei. Only AU firm banned Huawei before US pressure and entity list. UK / CAN / NZ still has NO official position on banning Huawei. I think FVEY parties are looking to see if this is an agreeable solution that will appease US security interests or if US insists on hard ban for optics. China doesn't want the latter, they're fine with Huawei being lowkey ruled out. China can still hack FVEY with relative impunity regardless of vendor, and Huawei will get patent fees regardless. Would have been cheaper and less of a shit show if US just bought Sony Ericcson, which William Barr mulled over.

toomanybeersies 6y ago

Telcos in New Zealand (a five eyes nation) are still considering using Huawei for 5g.

dntbnmpls 6y ago

> This is why Canada detained Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou. That isn't why. Canada detained her on US orders because we are engaged in a trade war with china. No trade war, no arrest. Huawei's dealings with iran are so insignificant ( in the millions ) that nobody would waste their time on this arrest were it not for the trade war. The europeans have far greater "violations" in their dealings with iran as do japan and south korea. They all pay a fine or offer geopolitical favors. Nobody got arrested... until now. https://www.dw.com/en/credit-suisse-hit-with-record-us-fine-for-violating-sanctions-on-iran/a-5021009 https://www.dw.com/en/credit-suisse-hit-with-record-us-fine-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-9-billion-u-s-fine-in-money-laundering-case-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibk-new-york-idUSKBN2221ZB https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ibk-new-york-idUSKBN2221Z... Hell even a canadian company broke sanctions. Nobody arrested, just a small fine. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20170113_33.aspx https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enfo... She is getting "special" treatment because of the trade war.