I think china views the concept of separation of companies, the government, and the military as a western notion. The ecosystem is fundamentally different from in the US, and western observers dont seem to be aware of this.
> The ecosystem is fundamentally different from in the US, and western observers dont seem to be aware of this.
This comment misses the whole point entirely. Obviously this is not a simple issue about cultural differences. The key point is that a telecom company that is a major player in the telecom infrastructure busines and is desperately trying to control the world's telecom infrastructure is actually surreptitiously controlled by the Chinese government. This fact is not minor cultural nitpicking.
It is really not a lens issue. The world needs telecom infrastructure, and the dominant player in the next gen telecom infrastructure is actually a sockpuppet of an oppressive totalitarian nation with a worldwide imperialist agenda.
As much as American government is in bed / interests aligned with its companies? Doesn't mean USA shouldn't try to fight against Chinese, but it's absurd to claim that the difference is anything else in America, there are just s bit different rules for the game and cultural rules.
> is actually surreptitiously controlled by the Chinese government
There's not evidence for that. It's a private company. It's not a state-owned enterprise, and doesn't function like one.
> This fact is not minor cultural nitpicking.
No, but it is part of a campaign to demonize China and Chinese companies. Many people in the US foreign policy establishment are worried about the existence of a peer-level competitor, and cannot accept that the US is no longer the sole superpower in the world. That's the fundamental issue here. It's why there's such a huge disconnect between all the fear about Huawei and the utter lack of evidence of backdoors in their equipment. This isn't about Huawei. It's about people in the US government trying to head off China as a competitor.
> > is actually surreptitiously controlled by the Chinese government
>There's not evidence for that. It's a private company. It's not a state-owned enterprise, and doesn't function like one.
What about the LA Times article?
>A study by professors Christopher Balding and Donald Clarke published April 17, 2019, argues Huawei is effectively state-owned because it is 99% owned by a "trade union committee." Trade unions in China are controlled by the government.
It's owned by the employees, through a mechanism that involves their trade union, with Ren Zhengfei (the founder and CEO) having veto power over decisions. The argument that this indirectly means the government controls the company is pretty tendentious.
I've seen it before, but I couldn't find any specific evidence. The tenor of the report is generally characterized by the following passage:
> Huawei’s failure to provide further detailed information explaining how it is formally regulated, controlled, or otherwise managed by the Chinese government undermines the company’s repeated assertions that it is not inappropriately influenced by the Chinese government.
In my book, that translates roughly to, "We have no evidence that Huawei is controlled by the Chinese state, but we're going to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt." That's typical of the US government's approach towards Huawei so far. They refuse to provide evidence of backdoors, but keep insisting they're there.
That's easy to say, but having read through the parts of the report that address whether Huawei is controlled by the Chinese government, I haven't seen any evidence. Above, I quoted a typical passage to you. You can see that it doesn't present evidence.
At this point, if there is evidence in the report, it would be easiest if you would to cite it.
Anyone who is interested in learning about this should just go check out the report for themselves. Your selected quote is a bit odd, Huawei can’t explain how it is regulated?
> Anyone who is interested in learning about this should just go check out the report for themselves.
Indeed. It is telling, however, that you keep saying the report is full of evidence on every page, but won't actually mention any piece of evidence. I find that very typical of the political campaign against Huawei in the US.
> I think china views the concept of separation of companies, the government, and the military as a western notion.
"China" views it that way. All 1.4 billion chinese do?
> The ecosystem is fundamentally different from in the US
This is simply not true. The history of US began as a government created to protect US business interests. The first major act of congress was a tariff to protect american companies. Every war we fought against the native americans, chinese, middle easterners, south americans, mexicans, etc were to further the interests of US companies. Whether you are talking about railroad companies in the 1800s or US oil companies in the 20th century. Maybe you might want to read up on where the term banana republics came from?
> and western observers dont seem to be aware of this.
Actually western observers are aware of it because it was the "west" which helped china industrialize. Do you want to know what country china modeled itself after to modernize its economy? The 1800s US. Which is the modeled followed by south korea, japan and taiwan as well.
Pretty much every major world economy works the same exact way - collusion between state + companies + military.
The only difference between US and china is that the US is the inheritor of the european colonial word order and hence is leading the "western/white" bloc. China has no bloc ( at least yet ) so is going alone at it.
The separation of companies, government and military is a western notion - one that no western power practices. Which wasn't lost on the chinese, south koreans, japanese, taiwanese, etc.
Great points all around but I've got a nitpick about the second to last paragraph. In fact, China is not going it alone. It is something like 9 unique nations that have within the last few hundred years gone through considerable change in political control. Only in approximately the last 70 years have most been forced to coalesce by the CCP.
Alternatively, the primary difference between the USA and PRC is not that the US necessarily has more global influence, but that the PRC does not pretend to value the autonomy of its citizens.
