Adams hits back at Greens, Huawei responds to US Congressional report
"It's the knee-jerk reaction to Japanese car imports all over again. They beat their US counterparts on cost and quality, and Huawei is doing the same."
Featured commentCommunications and IT Minister Amy Adams has hit back at the Green Party, which last night called on the government to review Huawei's participation in its Ultrafast Broadband and Rural Broadband Initiative projects after a damning US Congress Intelligence Committee report.
“The Green Party is painting a very misleading view of the situation," Ms Adams says.
"The fact is that Huawei is involved in telecommunications in more than 100 countries and hundreds of millions of people use their technology.
“It is incorrect to suggest that the government is not active in regards to minimising potential cyber threats. However, I am not prepared to have a public discussion about our security strategies. It has been a long-standing tradition that governments do not comment on intelligence matters or individual companies.
“However, it is important to make clear that the government takes network security seriously and is committed to working with operators and suppliers to protect the integrity and confidentiality of New Zealand’s telecommunications networks.”
Labour's David Cunliffe, standing in for regular ICT spokeswoman Clare Curran, who is in the US, says key questions remained: Why was Huawei blocked from bidding on Australia's National Broadband Network, and why has the New Zealand government not followed suit?
A full independent inquiry should be held, he says.
Huawei responds
Meanwhile, Huawei NZ has forwarded NBR ONLINE a statement in response to the Intelligence Committee report.
In short, it says the committee failed to produce evidence to back up its claims (see full statement below)
Huawei also received a degree of backing from Telecommunications Users Association head Paul Brislen.
"I'm seeing mostly economic warfare mixed in with some good ole yellow peril and a smattering of technophobia," he says.
"Huawei has been trying to get in to the top US telcos for some time and hasn’t yet landed a major contract. Having said that, it is one of the biggest providers of equipment to the tier 2 market in the US.
"Globally, Huawei is used by 45 of the top 50 telcos, according to CNN, and has driven down the cost of equipment in most parts of the world considerably," the Tuanz boss told NBR.
"Locally, Huawei is helping build the UFB and is behind the 2Degrees Mobile network so we are faced with a choice of either switching off 2D (or banning it from any and all government contracts) and kicking Huawei out of the UFB build (and banning ZTE from entering) on the say-so of a US congressional panel which seems to have little proof of anything or just getting on with our lives. I would recommend the latter.
"At one time or another almost all the major network builders have faced this kind of pressure – Alcatel was fined for bribing officials, Lucent had ties with senior US officials, Nokia-Siemens is being sued in Iran for building backdoor access into its mobile network.
"The choice is not whether we allow them to spy on us or not, but who we allow to spy."
RAW DATA: Huawei statement
Statement regarding HPSCI’s report
The United States is a country ruled by law, where all charges and allegations should be based on solid evidence and facts. The report conducted by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (the Committee), which took 11 months to complete, failed to provide clear information or evidence to substantiate the legitimacy of the committee’s concerns.
We had hoped to ensure that the investigation would be fact-based and objective in its review of our business activities and the global issue of cyber-security. Over the past 11 months, Huawei has cooperated with the committee in an open and transparent manner, and engaged in good faith interaction: our top management team carried out multiple rounds of face-to-face communication with the committee members in Washington DC, Hong Kong, and Shenzhen; we opened our R&D area, training center, and manufacturing center to the committee and offered a wealth of documentation, including the list of members of the board of birectors and the supervisory board over the past 10 years, and the annual sales data since our establishment in 1987; we also made the list of our shareholding employees, the shares they hold, as well as information about our funding resources and financial operations available to the committee. We adopted a transparent approach in providing this information to ensure the results are fact-based and unbiased, hoping the committee’s objective review of our business activities and the global cyber security issue can clarify the misperception of Huawei.
However, despite our best effort, the committee appears to have been committed to a predetermined outcome.
The ranking member of the Committee stated at the hearing that the investigation by the committee “is not political jousting or trade protectionism masquerading as national security”. Unfortunately, the committee’s report not only ignored our proven track record of network security in the United States and globally, but also paid no attention to the large amount of facts that we have provided. Even before the investigation began, the chairman of the committee advocated to media that “I stand by my caution to the American business community about engaging Huawei technology until we can fully determine their motives.
The report released by the committee today employs many rumors and speculations to prove non-existent accusations. This report does not address the challenges faced by the ICT industry. Almost every ICT firm is conducting R&D, software coding and production activities globally; they share the same supply chain, and the challenges on network security are beyond a company or a country. The committee’s report completely ignored this fact. We have to suspect that the only purpose of such a report is to impede competition and obstruct Chinese ICT companies from entering the US market.
Huawei is a global Fortune 500 company owned by its employees. For the past 25 years, we have held an upstanding record. Our customers and partners are fully aware that this report cannot change the fact that the safety and integrity of Huawei's solutions are well-recognised by the industry. Currently, the integrity of Huawei's operations and the quality and security of our products are world-proven across 140 countries around the world. They are deployed by over 500 operators and our products have served almost 3 billion people worldwide. These customers know and trust Huawei and they know our commitment to their company and to their customers who rely on them for their communications service. Huawei has introduced best practices of Western management to construct standardardized and process-oriented operational management systems, including product development, supply chain management, financial management, human resources, and quality control. Huawei's annual financial reports are audited by KPMG.
The United States has become the world's largest economic entity in a short period of time due in large part to the open policy it has been implementing over the past 200 years. We believe that the United States will continue with this spirit. Huawei is no different from any start-up enterprises in Silicon Valley, and our growth and development relies very much on our entrepreneurial spirit, the commitment and hard work of our employees, as well as our unwavering dedication to innovation. Moving forward, we will continue to do the best we can to provide our customers with safe, convenient, and equal access to information and communications services.
-
Huawei is committed to being a long-term investor in the US market, to providing innovative products and service for our U.S. customers and consumers, and to being a responsible investor, tax payer and corporate citizen.
-
Huawei is a partner to the US high-tech industry. Since launching our North America operations in 2001, Huawei has purchased more than USD 30 billion in technologies and services from 280 American suppliers. This active local procurement helps create jobs in the US high tech industry and contribute to the development of local communities. Any interference and obstacles to free competition will eventually harm the entire industry chain.
-
We have been emphasizing that Huawei is committed to cooperating transparently with any and all government agencies who wish to carry out an open and impartial dialogue about our company and the products and services that have made us successful internationally.
- We, like many companies in our industry, have benefited from free and fair trade and the process of globalisation, and we will continue to push, in the United States and internationally, for open markets, cooperative innovation, and equal opportunity for all companies.
























Comments and questions22
I would place a substantial wager on the premise that nobody from Ms Adams on down has actually done due diligence on this matter. No cleanroom inspection of the gear, no code audit for backdoors and phone-home hooks. No rigorous contractual clauses spelling out that any evidence of the above is grounds for immediate termination of the whole shebang, with prejudice. That's how a CIO with security chops would approach this. Why can't we get even a modicum of professional expertise from this pathetic excuse of a government?
This was simple trade protectionism from a House of Congress, let's face it, that is not so much being run on logic, but on sharp political lines.
It's the knee jerk reaction to the Japanese car imports of the 70s and 80s all over again. They beat their US counterparts on cost and quality, and Huawei is doing the same.
Their emergence to be a huge global player is a real threat to incumbent firms, but those firms would be better off focussing on improving their game rather than running to daddy for protection in the short term. Meanwhile the Australian and US governments have consigned themselves to the second choice bidder, and by eliminating competition from the market have also increased the price they will pay.
If Chinese electronics are a concern then why not just ban all Chinese sourced electronics? Exactly.
Because this is about Chinese electronics forming the backbone of a piece of critical infrastructure. Endpoint devices are not a concern. It's the routers and switches, not the phones and tablets.
What about the US electronics? The French, Japanese, Swiss, Swedish electronics? Oh right - more expensive, not at good and arguably equally or more likely to have back doors.
Also: which of those countries plus China trust us enough/we trust to have signed a balanced free trade agreement?
L
Chinese electronics form the components of nearly all infrastructure already, no matter which brand or country tag it sports, be it Juniper, Alcatel Lucent, Cisco or Ericsson.
Huawei at least are providing their gear and source code for testing by GCHQ in UK.
But is it the same code that is in the field that is given to the GCHQ. At least they have put a mechinism inplace to try valaidate and highlight any issues.
First of all there is no evidence or any truth in this apart from biased conclusions made. Even if its router or a switch that is sold to an individual and trust me, there are plenty chinese routers/switches sold in NZ weather its private users or Buisness. The expectation is that the end user takes resposibility for protecting the router/swicth territory.
If that same router but at bigger scale is placed in a telco, that router will be behind the telco's firewall. This is no different then the telco trying to protect there network from every day hackers.
I'm a telco engineer and I find it quite offensive when these sort of statements are made. It makes me think I can't look after my own network.
but if you are from the vendor in question, then it can be bias as well
Thats exactly why my name is not anonymous.
Hayat I agree with you, Huawai, Cisco, Alcatel.... The only difference between them is how they implement their so called backdoors. Its our job as network designers and operators to secure our networks. This smells like a good old fashined trade war, expecting to see lots of ill informed huffing and puffingover the next few months!
What next?
The Greens backing up the US claims that they do not spy on New Zealanders?
Such a pathetic country NZ is - slave to American interests with the Greens now leading the charge.
So does that mean it is acceptable to assume U.S. equipment manufacturer do not use backdoor or phone-home in their codes? cisco use call home feature for licensing of their hardware, how would anyone know it only send licensing data and nothing else?
why is it acceptable to assume U.S. are good guys and ok for them to leak sensitive data?
all equipment manufacturer from any country should be treated equally, none of them should be allowed to have any form of backdoor capability to even attempt leaking any data.
Acceptable because NZ is still in cultural denial.
Witness how the US flogged NZ over the anti-nuclear stance, how the UK did nothing when the French declared trade war on NZ over the Rainbow Warrior arrests and how the Australian government stitched up Air NZ with Ansett?
And these are countries where NZ sent its youth to die in wars - what a waste.
And what has China ever done to NZ? And what has NZ ever done for China?
If it weren't for chinese, we may still have been in recession. Our youth also hasn't been in wars because of Chinese, I think thats more then anyone else has done for NZ.
Rather have a recession than the Chinese.! Thanks!
Tell that to the thousands of New Zealanders leaving for Australia each month.
this reeks of Cisco lobbying the US congress to protect their declining revenues from a more competitive Huawei
national will be turning a blind eye to this as UFB will start looking decidely shakey if Huawei have the plug pulled
I love this with the Greens - "Just a jump to the left now a Step to the Right" next their hands on their hips??? - as to their exchange rate plans well if that comes off they would really be doing the pelvic thrust to us all, especially those that can't afford the the massive resulting price increases.
we need a good old fashion tit for tat trade war. China should ban Israeli and American Technology goods and see how long this BS lasts....
Amy Adams knows nothing and is out of her depth on many levels. Sorry, but she is just not up to the job she is supposed to be doing.
but almost all, if not all the routers today are made in China. Even Cisco routers are made in China.
This is all very academic and more than a little silly given the sheer amount of ZTE/Huawei infrastructure already in place.
Based on this the govt and any commercial entities who deal in commercial sensitive trade information etc should not go near 2 Degrees, Vodafone and Telecom... sorta limits ones options somewhat doesnt it
If information is sensitive encrypt it. Simple really