Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 175 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,271 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I know the Huawei conflict has been discussed a bit in the US elections thread but I think it deserved its own. I found this column from Dec 2018 by Jeffrey Sachs to be quite illustrative of what's going on and the real motivations behind the case.

The U.S., not China, is the real threat to international rule of law

The United States rarely arrests senior business people, U.S. or foreign, for alleged crimes committed by their companies. Corporate managers are usually arrested for their alleged personal crimes (such as embezzlement, bribery or violence) rather than their company’s alleged malfeasance. Yes, corporate managers should be held to account for their company’s malfeasance, up to and including criminal charges, but to start this practice with a leading Chinese business person – rather than the dozens of culpable U.S. CEOs and CFOs – is a stunning provocation to the Chinese government, business community and public.

Ms. Meng is charged with violating U.S. sanctions on Iran. Yet, consider her arrest in the context of the large number of companies, U.S. and non-U.S., that have violated America’s sanctions against Iran and other countries. In 2011, for example, JP Morgan Chase paid $88.3 million in fines in 2011 for violating U.S. sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Sudan. Yet Jamie Dimon wasn’t grabbed off a plane and whisked into custody.

And JP Morgan Chase was hardly alone in violating U.S. sanctions. Since 2010, the following major financial institutions paid fines for such violations: Banco do Brasil, Bank of America, Bank of Guam, Bank of Moscow, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Clearstream Banking, Commerzbank, Compass, Crédit Agricole, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, ING, Intesa Sanpaolo, National Bank of Abu Dhabi, National Bank of Pakistan, PayPal, RBS (ABN Amro), Société Générale, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Trans Pacific National Bank (now known as Beacon Business Bank), Standard Chartered and Wells Fargo.

None of the CEOs or CFOs of these sanction-busting banks were arrested and taken into custody for these violations. In all of these cases, the corporation – rather than an individual manager – was held accountable. Nor were they held accountable for the pervasive lawbreaking in the lead-up to or aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, for which the banks paid a staggering US$243 billion in fines, according to a recent tally. In light of this record, Ms. Meng’s arrest is a shocking break with practice. Yes, hold CEOs and CFOs accountable – but start at home in order to avoid hypocrisy, self-interest disguised as high principle and the risk of inciting a new global conflict.

Quite transparently, the U.S. action against Ms. Meng really seems to be part of the Trump administration’s broader attempt to undermine China’s economy by imposing tariffs, closing Western markets to Chinese high-technology exports and blocking Chinese purchases of U.S. and European technology companies. One can say, without exaggeration, that this is part of an economic war on China – and a reckless one at that.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-us-not-china-is-the-real-threat-to-international-rule-of-law/
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,075 Posts
Unfortunately, whatever the merits of the case, Canada has been the target of Chinese government terrorism. After Meng was arrested, as Canada was bound to do, China began arresting innocent Canadians in China. One has even been sentenced to death. I am not sure if the Canadians have been sent to the same concentration camps as the 1,000,000 Chinese Muslims. Nobody has rights in China.
And China has banned Canadian canola oil, worth billions of dollars, in reprisal. But it seems it is too cowardly to take on the country that ordered her arrest.

It is 100% obvious that the Chinese government controls the actions of Chinese companies that operate internationally. Just as it pressures Chinese students in Canada to do its bidding. It’s evil tendrils are everywhere.

It would have been better if Meng had never put foot in Canada. But I do hope Trudeau shows some backbone at last and tells the criminal communist Chinese government to go fuck itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,852 Posts
Only insane person will trust the Chinese
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,421 Posts
No one will trust the Chinese.
Current events and trade negotiations are not to agree with China. They are to stop Chinese growth. Preferably destroy China.

And the feeling is mutual. Current Chinese model of development is mutually exclusive with normal development of any significant country in the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,271 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The US says Huawei technology poses a security threat but so far has not released any evidence to back that claim. It seems like another fabrication of the US government.

Germany reportedly won’t exclude Huawei 5G technology — if the company follows the rules

Jochen Homann, president of the country’s telecommunications regulator, told the FT that his agency has yet to see evidence that Huawei poses a security risk. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/15/germany-reportedly-says-huawei-can-stay-in-5g-race.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,151 Posts
This is a part of war between China and USA. But I'm frightened seeing what happens in China: you can't criticize communist government there, rights of minorities are abused: christians, muslims, lgbt, full censorship in their internet, people are monitored there everywhere. So I won't support China, even if USA also made a lot of things they should be ashamed.
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,075 Posts
The US says Huawei technology poses a security threat but so far has not released any evidence to back that claim. It seems like another fabrication of the US government.
Speaking of release of evidence........as far back as 2012, Congress advised against use of Huawei products. Huawei refused to provide documents that detailed its relationship to the Chinese government. It seems like lack of transparency by Huawei.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,271 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Speaking of release of evidence........as far back as 2012, Congress advised against use of Huawei products. Huawei refused to provide documents that detailed its relationship to the Chinese government. It seems like lack of transparency by Huawei.
But where is the evidence of this? If Huawai poses really poses a security threat how come countries like Germany aren't able to see it? If the US warns other countries not to use Huawei technology because of those risks, how come they don't at least share their proof to them even by private/confidential gvt-to-gvt channels?

It's difficult for me to believe in the US as an act of faith, especially considering they have a history of shady fabrications to push their agenda.
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,075 Posts
But where is the evidence of this? If Huawai poses really poses a security threat how come countries like Germany aren't able to see it? If the US warns other countries not to use Huawei technology because of those risks, how come they don't at least share their proof to them even by private/confidential gvt-to-gvt channels?

It's difficult for me to believe in the US as an act of faith, especially considering they have a history of shady fabrications to push their agenda.
Where is the evidence that Huawei refused to provide details of its relationship to the Chinese government?

In the 2012 government report.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,271 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Where is the evidence that Huawei refused to provide details of its relationship to the Chinese government?
When someone is accused, it is the duty of the accuser to present proof/evidence to sustain their accusation, not the defendant to prove that they're innocent!

And besides, the accusation here is that Huwaei technology poses a security threat. A threat that the Trump administration has never specified or even defined in any way. They just speak in general/abstract terms with no concrete accusations or much less evidence to back up anything of what they're saying.
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,075 Posts
When someone is accused, it is the duty of the accuser to present proof/evidence to sustain their accusation, not the defendant to prove that they're innocent!

And besides, the accusation here is that Huwaei technology poses a security threat. A threat that the Trump administration has never specified or even defined in any way. They just speak in general/abstract terms with no concrete accusations or much less evidence to back up anything of what they're saying.
Accused, defendant? What are you talking about.

It is not a court of law. The US government asked Huawei for information that it wanted, before deciding whether it would do business with Huawei. The US government was the customer, not the accuser. The US government decided to shop elsewhere, when Huawei did not meet the customer’s needs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,271 Posts
Discussion Starter #12 (Edited)
Accused, defendant? What are you talking about.

It is not a court of law. The US government asked Huawei for information that it wanted, before deciding whether it would do business with Huawei. The US government was the customer, not the accuser. The US government decided to shop elsewhere, when Huawei did not meet the customer’s needs.
I think it is fairly evident but I'll repeat myself:

The US is accusing Huawei of posing a security threat and is even trying to prevent other countries from buying Huawei technology. However, so far they have presented no shred of evidence or proof to substantiate their accusation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,421 Posts
Seriously, funny drivel, trying to find legal explanation to this.
It's cold war between superpowers, with objective to destroy an opponent, plain and simple. Everyone will be bending logics, rules, laws if they can get away with that. A la guerre comme a la guerre.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,271 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Seriously, funny drivel, trying to find legal explanation to this.
It's cold war between superpowers, with objective to destroy an opponent, plain and simple. Everyone will be bending logics, rules, laws if they can get away with that. A la guerre comme a la guerre.
I actually agree with you. But the thing that impresses me is that a lot of people in the West, like BH, seem to think they countries are acting fairly and abiding every rule in the book.
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,075 Posts
I actually agree with you. But the thing that impresses me is that a lot of people in the West, like BH, seem to think they countries are acting fairly and abiding every rule in the book.
If you know what you are talking about, you will now list the ways in which Canada is breaking the rules in the book.

You might start by showing us how the Liberal Party of Canada keeps tight control on the Canadian students in Chinese universities and uses them to further its aims.

Or maybe tell us what technological secrets Canada has stolen from China.

Or even tell us how many Chinese citizens have been arbitrarily arrested in retaliation for the arrest of a Canadian citizen in China.

Do you think a government that puts 1,000,000 of its citizens in concentration camps is acting just like any other country in other aspects of its method of governing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,421 Posts
What is "Canada" in this context? There is no Canada in this. There is no Canada in any serious international politics context. Canada is an alias for US pro-xy here, there and everywhere. Except for hockey, of course.
Nothing wrong with it, actually. As I don't think that real interests of that large, scarcely populated territory in the north differ in any significant way from those of US.
 

·
RAVE ON
Joined
·
18,075 Posts
What is "Canada" in this context? There is no Canada in this. There is no Canada in any serious international politics context. Canada is an alias for US pro-xy here, there and everywhere. Except for hockey, of course.
Nothing wrong with it, actually. As I don't think that real interests of that large, scarcely populated territory in the north differ in any significant way from those of US.
I’m sorry.

But speaking of large, scarcely populated territories in the north, Canada has about 40 million people, Russia about 140 million. Yet our GDP exceeds Russia’s.
Vast oil, gas and mineral reserves, but............

Putin talks, Canadians just do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,421 Posts
I know. And with global warming soon turning those northern territories into arable land, sky is a limit..
 
1 - 20 of 175 Posts
Top