Do the citizens of the world feel comfortable with an intrusive government, who bears undemocratic values, collecting information about them through their phone and network? If the answer is yes, then one must begin to worry about the Chinese-owned business, Huawei. This company is the largest smartphone producer, surpassing Samsung and Apple. China’s prized telecommunications equipment company has infiltrated many countries around the world. The global dominance Huawei has asserted has put them on the radar of American and other foreign governments because Huawei is required to provide information to the Communist Party of China. With the availability of Huawei products in a country, there is potential for the information the company collects on citizens, governmental practices, military personnel, and other facets of society to be at the immediate disposal of the Chinese government. Therefore, there are legal concerns that need to be addressed globally.
Currently, in America, Huawei is on the Entity List for numerous criminal charges that threaten national security. The charges include the following: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), theft of trade secrets conspiracy, and many more. Recently, two Huawei subsidiaries were charged with 10 counts of theft of trade secrets conspiracy, attempted theft of trade secrets, and obstruction of justice. The Department of Defense imposed charges which continue to evaluate the integrity of Huawei. This assessment is justified because with Huawei in the U.S. they would be interconnected with American military systems and trade secrets that could be damaging if they were relayed back to China. In fact, in 2020, the UK Defense Committee found evidence of collusion between Huawei and the Chinese government. Although Huawei denied the UK’s claims of them receiving government subsidies, it is damaging to their reputation nonetheless.
Huawei’s knack for attempting to skirt the law and provide information to their government has led to numerous cases. Not only is Huawei colluding with the Chinese Communist Party, but they are also collaborating with North Korea. In 2019, evidence surfaced that Huawei was assisting North Korea in cultivating their commercial wireless network, a country in isolation due to international sanctions. Another notable case being the accusations of intellectual property theft. In Optis v. Huawei, it was ruled that “Huawei willfully infringed four patents owned by PanOptis alleged to be essential to mobile cellular standards.”
Furthermore, in attempting to sue the U.S. government and six cabinet officials in 2019, Huawei has tried to use the law to its advantage. Huawei was not expected to win their cases because they made baseless legal claims. Firstly, Huawei insisted that the U.S.’s Bill of Attainder against them was unconstitutional. A Bill of Attainder intentionally “singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.” In effect, this means that the U.S. government will not make business deals with Huawei. Secondly, Huawei argued that Section 889 violates their “opportunity to be heard” in a court; however, “there’s no due process right to be heard by Congress before it passes a law affecting you.” Their last claim is that Section 889 violates the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution because, in their eyes, a law attacking one company is more of an executive ruling than anything else. Huawei’s dubious legal arguments make this case more of a facade than one based on facts. To many, it is clear that Huawei is attempting to show the U.S. in a negative light in using the Constitution against them. However, America’s decision to ban the company holds true because of the national security threat Huawei presents by reporting information back to the CCP.
On the other hand, some experts assert that there is no solid evidence that Huawei poses a threat to America. Banning Huawei in the U.S. may incentivize U.S. companies to move production overseas so they are not subjected to restrictions. Others may also claim that the U.S. is in turn forcing Huawei to become more self-sufficient and stop relying on U.S. companies. To address these points, it is important to note that the U.S. restraints on China are not causing them to develop their own products even further; they are engaging in production with or without the U.S.’s support. Characterizing Huawei as an enemy is one way that the U.S. government is going on the offensive with the Chinese government.
Additionally, America is not the only country to ban Huawei for the same concerns over protecting information. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, and the UK have all banned Huawei to some degree. Many other countries including Argentina, Italy, France, Spain, and Russia are considering banning the company as well. This shows that Huawei is beyond the scope of being a pawn in the U.S. trade war with China because this company presents a global threat to countries that use it due to the influence of the CCP. However, some do not have a choice to work with Huawei or not.
Brazil is one example of a country that wants to advance technologically without Huawei but has not successfully challenged China legally. In December of 2020, Brazil was considering legal ways to ban Huawei; however, the monetary costs to switch from Huawei equipment to another would be significantly burdensome. Even though the Brazilian government fears the Chinese presence in their country, they were unable to eradicate China’s grip on their economy and technology sector. Presently, Brazil and many other countries continue to employ Huawei within their countries, furthering China’s influence, despite U.S. firms trying to persuade them to ban the company.
Huawei’s legal accusations are paired with their humanitarian allegations. The company has been suspected of playing a role in the persecution of Uyghurs in China. Huawei tested software that could have the ability to trigger the “Uyghurs alarm” when one was recognized. Tommy Zwicky, Huawei’s Vice President of Communications, resigned after creating this facial recognition that would be used to detain Uyghurs. Huawei technology has the potential to be utilized in oppressive ways even against their own citizens.
Currently, Huawei has inquired to speak with President Biden; however, Biden is anticipated to continue the hardline against them. Ren Zhengfei–the CEO of Huawei–is more than open to discuss options for Huawei in the U.S. because as he said, “the U.S. wants to have economic growth and China wants to have economic growth as well.” Zhengfei insists that with an American and Huawei partnership there can be expanded benefits for both. At what cost still needs to be evaluated. Foreseeing the antagonism against Huawei, Zhengfei concedes that it is unlikely that the sanctions will be removed against the company. It is important to note that even without America’s support, Huawei continues to dominate the global market and there is seemingly no end to its growth. Most recently, Huawei is expected to start charging patent fees to Samsung and Apple on every phone sold when Huawei’s 5G patents are used. Huawei is currently leading the world in the most 5G patents. Not selling their products or services in countries like America would allow the company to recoup money that they are losing. In total, they are expected to make between $1.2 and $1.3 billion by the end of 2021. Since 5G patents hold so much significance, it is crucial for America to reach that level as well.
China continues to pose a national security threat to the U.S. and many other countries. Huawei is the means by which the Chinese government has the ability to collect information on these countries. The U.S. and foreign governments charging Huawei are proof of that. This discounts the argument that this is a witch hunt solely between the U.S. and China. In order for the global economy to thrive, China must be willing to play by the rules. For example, becoming more transparent and not reporting national security secrets to their government. Prosperity can only be achieved when there is global competition but not at the cost of infringing on a nation’s rights.