The Huawei threat: More stark than ever
Published: Sunday, Jan. 6, 2013, 9:03 p.m.
If Washington needs further reason to deny China's Huawei Technologies direct entry to the U.S. market, it need look no further than Reuters reports documenting how it's among Chinese firms serving as “a backdoor for Iran to obtain embargoed U.S. computer equipment” — which can aid Iran's development of nuclear weapons.
Reuters' latest such report says Hong Kong-registered Huawei “partner” Skycom Tech Co. Ltd. offered Hewlett-Packard computer equipment to Mobile Telecommunication Co. of Iran. That's despite sanctions forbidding such a sale.
That deal didn't go through. But it does fit a pattern that has prompted investigations by the Commerce and Justice departments and some U.S. tech companies.
The House Intelligence Committee says Huawei has failed to “provide evidence to support its claims that it complies with all international sanctions or U.S. export laws.” Add Huawei's ties to China's People's Liberation Army, heavy state subsidies and potential for intellectual-property theft, cyber espionage and cyber attacks on U.S. infrastructure and the Huawei threat is more stark than ever.
Other Chinese companies also have shown willingness to help Iran evade high-tech equipment sanctions. And Skycom is not the only Huawei “partner” to offer embargoed U.S. products to Iran's telecommunications industry.
Such deals degrade the effectiveness of sanctions critical to denying Iran the bomb it so badly wants, forming a loophole that America and its allies must close.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- More ObamaCare fallout: Medicare disadvantage
- The Thursday wrap
- Accord in Geneva: Smelly side deals, too
- Corrections reinvention
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- ‘Merit selection’ for judges? No thank you
- Liquor myths: Union assumptions don’t hold water
- Operation Santa Claus: Sustenance for all
- Dear Steelers: Perhaps “postseason” is but a quaint notion after all. Yours, Old Man River.
- Selling GM stock: A $10 billion public hook