CHINESE companies have started to win first place in global markets. Huawei has just overtaken Sweden’s Ericsson to become the world’s largest telecoms-equipment-maker. Even though many foreigners still cannot pronounce its name (some call it “Hawaii”, and the firm has even produced a video teaching people to say hwah-way), Huawei is becoming an increasingly powerful global player, capable of going head-to-head with the best in intensely competitive markets. It follows Haier（海尔）, which is already the leading white-goods-maker; now Lenovo （联想）is challenging Hewlett-Packard as the world’s biggest PC-maker. Plenty more will follow (see article).
Huawei, a private
firm, is a standard-bearer in China’s long march into Western markets. Its
founder, Ren Zhengfei, who served as an engineer in the People’s Liberation
Army (PLA), at first struggled to win customers even in China. But his company
followed Mao’s strategy of using the countryside to encircle and capture the
cities, and it has moved on to win foreign markets too: in Europe it is
involved in over half of the superfast 4G telecoms networks that have been
announced, and it has become a strong competitor in mobile phones (see article). The
company is now a $32-billion business empire with 140,000 employees, and
customers in 140 countries. It commands respect by delivering high-quality
telecoms equipment at low prices.
They did it Huawei
 |
It is a view that
some governments are taking seriously. Earlier this year Australia blocked
Huawei’s participation in a scheme to build a national broadband network in the
country. The company has also faced opposition to its commercial expansion in
India. And in America, where Huawei’s attempts to grow have often been stymied,
a congressional committee that focuses on intelligence matters is putting the
firm under a microscope; suspicions have been aggravated by a recent spate of
cyber-attacks attributed to Chinese hackers.
Western
governments are also suspicious of the subsidies, low-interest loans and
generous export credits lavished on favoured champions, including Huawei. The
European Commission is considering opening an investigation. Some people
suppose that the Chinese government is helping Huawei win overseas contracts so
that spies can exploit its networks to snoop on ever more of the world’s
electronic traffic.
Arguments against
imports always need to be viewed with caution, since they will be used by
protectionists to keep emerging rivals out. Still, it is reasonable to worry
about security in telecoms: recent reports have pointed to the efforts of
Chinese state-sponsored hackers to vacuum up valuable Western commercial
secrets on a massive scale. Western intelligence agencies are also alert to the
risks of eavesdropping and cyber-attacks because they themselves are practitioners
(a prime example being the Stuxnet virus, aimed at Iran’s nuclear programme).
As for Huawei, a firm that controls a network’s creation and management is
ideally placed to sneak in malware and sneak out sensitive data. Even though it
is a private company with an awful lot to lose if it were caught spying, the
power of the state in China’s version of capitalism means the West is right to
be vigilant.
But banning Huawei
from bidding for commercial contracts is wrongheaded, for two reasons. One is
that the economic benefit of competition from China in general and Huawei in
particular is huge. It boosts growth and thus wellbeing. Huawei’s cheap but
effective equipment helped make Africa’s mobile-telecoms revolution possible.
Distrust and
verify
The other reason
for not banning Huawei is the dirty little secret that its foreign rivals
strangely neglect to mention: just about everybody makes telecoms equipment in
China these days. Chinese manufacturers and designers have become an integral
part of the global telecoms supply chain. Blocking Huawei (or its rival Chinese
telecoms giant, ZTE) while allowing gear from, say, Alcatel-Lucent or Ericsson
on a network may make politicians feel good. But it is no guarantee of
security. Huawei’s competitors have a vested interest in hyping concerns about
it, while disguising their own reliance on Chinese subcontractors and on
subsidies.
The answer is to
insist on greater scrutiny all round, not just of Chinese firms. Governments
should be crystal-clear about what conditions telecoms firms need to meet to
win business—something America’s secretive security-review process does not do
today. They should also do more to ensure that equipment is secure, no matter
who makes it. That means demanding to know where hardware components and
software come from, and requiring intrusive random inspections of code and
equipment. America has no effective system of supply-chain checks. In Britain,
by contrast, where BT is a big customer, Huawei has established a unit (run in
close co-operation with GCHQ, Britain’s signals-intelligence agency) with
security-cleared personnel, including former employees of GCHQ, who vet gear
from China before it is installed. Such scrutiny will drive up costs, but these
pale in comparison with those imposed by bans on Chinese firms, which diminish
competition and push up prices.
Huawei can also
help allay foreigners’ fears. The company’s opaque ownership structure and
secretive culture have damaged its reputation. It needs to be far more open.
One way to achieve this would be for the closely held firm to seek a listing on
a global stockmarket—if not in America, then at least in Hong Kong. Greater
openness would also help clarify the real threat that Chinese firms such as
Huawei pose to America and other countries: that they are starting to
out-innovate the home-grown competition.
原文链接：http://www.economist.com/node/21559922
Huawei pledges commitment to Australia following NBN exclusion
11/04/2013 | Telecoms.com
Chinese infrastructure vendor Huawei and the Australian government appear to have settled their differences as Huawei reaffirmed its commitment to the Australian market this week.
The firm’s chairwoman Sun Yafang met with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Beijing on Wednesday and told her that Huawei is looking forward to playing a role in promoting business and educational opportunities between China and Australia.
In March last year, it was reported that Huawei was told not to bid for any contracts relating to Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN) project, reportedly due to security concerns harboured by the government over Huawei.
At the time, Gillard said that the decision to exclude Huawei was “prudent”. Although she did not refer to the Chinese vendor by name, she said that the Government was obliged to do its “utmost to protect [the NBN’s] integrity and that of the information carried on it.”
Now though, Huawei says it is working with Australia’s ICT industry and has established a local board of directors in Australia, which it claims has been a great success for the local business. Huawei Australia has grown from a company 20 staff in 2004 to over 700 staff today, the firm said, over 85 per cent of which are locals.
“Huawei is committed to forging long-term business, community and education partnerships that will benefit the Australian people and the economy,” said Sun.
