Thread: US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Wonder how Sabang and foobars Huawei phones are going.

You don't do much reading, do you? Or is it the understanding that fails?

Originally Posted by OhOh

"Where does deepening economic conflict between the US and China leave the rest of the world?

How the Walmart shelves would be filled in, once the ships stop sailing?

(and how about all the shipping and port industries?)

Originally Posted by OhOh

The US-China conflict challenges the world

Martin Wolf: US allies need to work together and uphold a multilateral trading system

Tue, May 21, 2019, 17:21
Martin Wolf

"Where does deepening economic conflict between the US and China leave the rest of the world, especially historic allies of the US? In normal circumstances, the latter would stand beside it. The EU, after all, shares many of its concerns about Chinese behaviour. Yet these are not normal circumstances. Under Donald Trump, the US has become a rogue superpower, hostile, among many other things, to the fundamental norms of a trading system based on multilateral agreement and binding rules. Indeed, US allies, too, are a target of the wave of bilateral bullying.So what are American allies to do as the US and China battle? This is not just about Mr Trump. His focus on bilateral trade balances may even be relatively manageable. Worse, a large proportion of Americans shares a deepening hostility not just to China’s behaviour, but to the fact of a rising China.

We are also seeing a big shift in conservative thinking. In 2005, Robert Zoellick, deputy secretary of state, argued that China should “become a responsible stakeholder” in the international system. Recently, Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, has indicated a different perspective. Foreign affairs specialist Walter Russell Mead describes Mr Pompeo’s animating idea as follows: “Where liberal internationalists believe the goal of American global engagement should be to promote the emergence of a world order in which international institutions increasingly supplant nation-states as the chief actors in global politics, conservative internationalists believe American engagement should be guided by a narrower focus on specific US interests.” In brief, the US no longer sees why it should be a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system. Its concept is, instead, that of 19th century power politics, in which the strong dictate to the weak.

This is relevant to trade, too. It is a canard that the trading system was based on the notion that international institutions should supplant nation states. The system was built on the twin ideas that states should make multilateral agreements with one another and that confidence in such agreements should be reinforced by a binding dispute settlement system. This would bring stability to the conditions of trade, on which international businesses rely.

All this is now at risk. The spread of the tariff war and the decision to limit the access to US technology of Huawei, China’s only world-leading advanced technology manufacturer, seem aimed at keeping China in permanent inferiority. That is certainly how the Chinese view it.

Protectionist US

The trade war is also turning the US into a significantly protectionist country, with weighted-average tariffs possibly soon higher than India’s. A paper from the Peterson Institute for International Economics states, that “Trump is . . . threatening tariffs on China that are not far from the average level of duties the United States imposed with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.”

Tariffs may even stay this high, because the US’s negotiating demands are too humiliating for China to accept. These levies will also lead to diversion to other suppliers. Tariffs may then spread to the latter, too: bilateralism is often a contagious disease. Contrary to Mr Trump’s protestations, the costs are also being borne by Americans, especially consumers and farm exporters. Ironically, many of the worst hit counties are in Republican control. (See charts.)

Some might conclude that the high costs mean that the conflict cannot be sustained, particularly if stock markets are disrupted. An alternative and more plausible outcome is that Mr Trump and China’s Xi Jinping are “strongmen” leaders who cannot be seen to yield. The conflict will then either remain frozen or, more likely, worsen as relations between the two superpowers become increasingly poisoned.

Where does this leave US allies? They should not support American attempts to thwart China’s rise: that would be unconscionable. They should indicate where they agree with US objectives on trade and technology and, if possible, sustain a common position on these issues, notably between the EU and Japan. They should uphold the principles of a multilateral trading system, under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation. If the US succeeds in rendering the dispute system inquorate, the other members could agree to abide by an informal mechanism instead.

Most significantly, it should be possible to sustain liberal trade, at the expense of the US and China. Anne Krueger, former first deputy managing director of the IMF, notes in a column that, by its own foolish decision to reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the US suffers from WTO legal discrimination against its exports to members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which replaced TPP. The EU also has free trade agreements with Canada and Japan.

Go further

This is good. But they can go further. Countries that see the benefits of a strong trading order should turn such FTAs into a “global FTA of the willing”, in which any country willing to accept the commitments could participate. One might even envisage a future in which participants in such a global FTA would defend its members against illegal trade assaults from non-members, via co-ordinated retaliation.

Hostility between the US and China is a threat to global peace and prosperity. Outsiders cannot halt this conflict. But they are not helpless. If the big powers stand outside the multilateral trading system, others can step in. They are, in aggregate, huge players. They should dare to act as such. – "

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2019

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/...orld-1.3899823

Countries should see the benefits of exporting to the US, where their goods and IP are protected and they can sell equally with anyone else; or grovelling to try and deal with Chinastan, where their rights are consistently abused, their positions hampered by local favouritism and their IP regularly stolen.

^Who knows better than righteous (please no names here) what's right and what's wrong?

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

free pictures of uncle Xi

His daughter is tasty;

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

great new Chinese O.S. complete

You prefer the google undeletable bloated offerings?

Who will need an Apple?

Watching the game from the 15th floor by Huawei:

^ If he dips again he will find another 5 handsets. Can he tell the difference between an original and fake Iphone?

Originally Posted by OhOh

You may wish to consult the list of signatories to the Berne Convention prior to regurgitating bollocks:

https://copyrighthouse.org/countries-berne-conventionisii

You may also like to take advice from knowledgable organisations, one of which available at this link;

It may assist you in stopping being viewed, by some, as an uneducated racist.

https://www.chinalawblog.com/2016/09...ck-part-3.html

Alternatively blithely continue to believe all countries have and administer their laws identically.

Or contact a Chinese law company with experience in this field of dark swamps, golden dragons and pregnant unicorns.

Note how our little chinky brown noser is triggered with an indignant denial.

Originally Posted by OhOh

You prefer the google undeletable bloated offerings?

Google nick all your data to work out what ads they can sell.

Chinastan nicks all your data to work out to which "re-education camp" you are going to be assigned.

Or of course, if you are foreigner, any data detailing proprietary technology that can be stolen and used to flood the world with cheap copies of your hard work.

Originally Posted by OhOh

^ If he dips again he will find another 5 handsets. Can he tell the difference between an original and fake Iphone?

The fake iphone manufactured en masse in a Shenzen sweat shop using designs stolen from Apple?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The fake iphone manufactured en masse in a Shenzen sweat shop using designs stolen from Apple?

Perfectly good Knock off iPhone 4s can be bought for a couple hundred yuan.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Google nick all your data to work out what ads they can sell.

Google is also, as we've recently seen, controlled by the US government.
There has been suspicions since two decades back that they cooperate with NSA and even that their startup was initiated by NSA.
They just knows too much about us and they want to know more all the time..

Originally Posted by Cujo

Perfectly good Knock off iPhone 4s can be bought for a couple hundred yuan.

Pretty good knock off anything can be bought if you've saved yourself all that R&D money by simply nicking the blueprints.

Originally Posted by lom

Google is also, as we've recently seen, controlled by the US government.
There has been suspicions since two decades back that they cooperate with NSA and even that their startup was initiated by NSA.
They just knows too much about us and they want to know more all the time..

indeed, and let's not forget Facebook, look who was the seeding VC when that project started, a Pentagon startup fund for drones and killing machines

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

if you've saved yourself all that R&D money by simply nicking the blueprints.

Or have unlimited funding, core code and protection provided by a certain regime's spy agencies.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Or have unlimited funding, core code and protection provided by a certain regime's spy agencies.

Oh here we go again "What about....."

You feeble minded chinky sychophant.

Four great alternatives in case you were thinking of buying the Huawei StateSpyPhone P30 Pro


https://www.cnet.com/news/the-huawei...native-phones/

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Four great alternatives in case you were thinking of buying the Huawei StateSpyPhone P30 Pro

They are not spying much, if they were then they wouldn't been given 90 extra days of spying before being banned.
They are actually spying so little that Trump has said that it depends on trade deal negotiations if they can continue to spy or not.

And with that you know exactly what all this is about, right Harry?

Harry doesn't have a clue on anything IT outside his MS security bulletin !!!

Originally Posted by lom

Trump has said that it depends on trade deal negotiations if they can continue to spy or not.

I must have missed that, do you have a link?

^

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/24/t...ban/index.html

You don't bargain if it is about espionage, right?