Your link is blocked at my location, but here's some alternate ones which I will comment on.I guess all those security issues have been resolved then?*
*Possibly by a certain video being copied from Moscow to Beijing.
The other American "issues" with Huawei will be decided when trade talks are complete. This is believed to refer to US efforts to get other countries to ban Huawei telecommunications kit and the US extradition request for Meng Wanzhou (currently held in Canada awaiting an extradition hearing).“US companies can sell their equipment to Huawei. We’re talking about equipment where there’s no great national security problem with it,” the U.S. President said.
However, things are unlikely to simply go back to where they were before all this started. Huawei will continue with their efforts to decouple themselves from American suppliers so that they can never be used as a pawn in a trade war again.Trump, in his initial comments at the press conference in Osaka, said that Huawei matters would be decided at the end of the trade talks. Presumably this is a reference to efforts of his administration last month to prevent the company from selling telecommunications equipment to American network operators—Trump last month issued an executive order on the subject—and perhaps a reference to the Justice Department’s criminal prosecutions of Huawei and its chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou. The U.S. has filed an extradition request for Meng, currently held in Vancouver.
Now of course this raises the question of where this leaves those people in other countries such as the UK who were baying to ban Huawei as a "national security threat". Are they going to continue with this line if the US decides that Huawei has served its purpose as a bargaining chip in trade talks and drops their objections? How are they going to explain themselves if they change their positions?Despite the good news, any mutual trust has been broken and things are unlikely to be the same again.
America’s almost casual move to blacklist Huawei — the latest in a series of strategies in its ongoing trade battle with China — exemplifies just how dependent the company has become on the U.S. to simply function.
Huawei has taken steps to hedge its reliance on America, including the development of its own operating system to replace Android and its own backup chips, and you can expect that these projects will go into overdrive to ensure that Huawei doesn’t find itself in a similar position again in the future.
Of course, decoupling its supply chain from US partners is no easy task both in terms of software and components. It remains to be seen if Huawei could maintain its current business level — which included 59 million smartphones in the last quarter and total revenue of $107.4 billion in 2018 — with non-US components and software but this episode is a reminder that it must have a solid contingency policy in case it becomes a political chess piece again in the future.
Japanese suppliers control 90% of the global market in these materials.Tokyo is set to introduce a system to examine and approve exports of three types of high-tech materials. It will also remove South Korea from a "white list" of countries that face minimum restrictions on transfers of technology with national security implications.
(...) Removal from the "white list" means all South Korea-bound exports of advanced technologies and electronic parts that have the potential for military use will require Japanese government approval.
The South Korean government is not taking this very well, and the top levels of government in Seoul are talking about retaliation.Combined, Japanese suppliers control about 90% of the global resist and etching gas markets. The new screening process is expected to slow down exports, potentially hurting the South Korean electronics makers that buy the materials.
The real root of the issue seems to be a ruling by the South Korean Supreme Court that certain Japanese companies are liable for their use of South Korean slave labour during WWII, and the court is therefore selling off assets belonging to those companies to pay for compensation.The South Korean government held a high-level emergency meeting on Monday to discuss Japan's move. That afternoon, South Korea's trade ministry said Seoul would take necessary measures, such as filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization.
In late May, Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha had hinted at possible retaliation if Japan imposed sanctions, telling the South Korean legislature that the government "will not sit back."
The South Korean government are refusing to interfere with the court judgement despite protests from Japan.In an incident that has soured relations between the two countries, South Korea's Supreme Court has ordered Japanese industrial groups to compensate South Koreans forced to work for them during World War II. The plaintiffs are in the process of selling assets seized from the Japanese companies as part of the compensation. The sales, if they go ahead, would be damaging to the Japanese businesses.
Well now that our trusted ally and partner Japan has declared that South Korean companies are "threats to national security", surely we should all be rushing to ban everything made by Samsung, LG, and a host of other South Korean companies, shouldn't we? I mean God forbid that we would want to look hypocritical on this by ignoring it!Despite Tokyo's protests, the South Korean government has said it respects the independence of the judiciary.
Given the number of hats that were launched on three hairs when the PRC cut off rare earth exports to Japan as a political bargaining tool, our principles would surely see us criticising Japan for this measure.I mean God forbid that we would want to look hypocritical on this by ignoring it!
Say's it all.Strongly criticised by the National Cyber Security peeps, part of GCHQ.
Apologies for FT link.
Huawei Cyber Security Risks Raised in UK Government Report
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
There were no technical issues as in there was no objective evidence that the kit would be a security risk. The report notes that the government may decide to ban Huawei kit for political or diplomatic reasons, but there is nothing about the kit itself which would justify banning it.No 'technical' reason: that's alright then. Don't worry about the security issues, but I guess that was outside the committee's TORs.
'The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee have concluded that Huawei should not be barred from UK 5G and conventional telecoms networks.
'In a letter last week to the Security of State for Digital, Jeremy Wright MP [PDF], the Committee chair Norman Lamb MP claimed: "We have found no evidence from our work to suggest that the complete exclusion of Huawei from the UK's telecommunications networks would, from a technical point of view, constitute a proportionate response to the potential security threat posed by foreign suppliers." The letter was written following an inquiry by the Committee that took evidence from, among other organisations, UK mobile network operators. "Regardless of the actual security risk posed by equipment from Huawei or any other vendor, telecommunications networks are designed such that they are secure even if their individual components are not," the letter added.'
No technical reason for Huawei 5G ban, claims House of Commons Science and Technology Committee | Computing
Canada requires that all suppliers go through an independent security evaluation and has so far not found any reason to ban Huawei kit either.Representatives from Vodafone and O2 told us that they would support the establishment of similar arrangements for vendors other than Huawei, for example Nokia and Erisson. ... The Government should consult the National Cyber Security Centre on the merit of establishing equivalent cyber security evaluation centres for 5G equipment vendors other than Huawei.
No decision on this is expected before the upcoming election, partially because the revue is apparently still under way, and partially because of unrelated diplomatic considerations (e.g. the government not wanting to aggravate the Meng arrest and subsequent fall out).Canada is watching what Britain does very closely, said the third source, indicating Ottawa could take a similar decision.