BEIJING, CHINA – NOVEMBER 05: A worker stands in the window of a Huawei store in a commercial area on November 5, 2024 in Beijing, China. Later this week China’s government is expected to announce new fiscal measures aimed at boosting economic growth and consumer spending in the worlds second largest economy. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)
Getty Images
The great John Malone was there in the early days of cable television. Which is why his memoir, Born to Be Wired, is so insightful. But also depressing.
From Malone readers learn about the myriad hurdles local politicians erected to cable companies as they sought to offer viewing options beyond ABC, CBS and NBC. Malone recalls how “companies spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising, presentations, and expensive dinners to woo a city.” This put local politicians in a lucrative position. Malone remembers the “extras” they would demand from would-be cable providers. Beyond simple “cash under the table,” they would ask “Can you plant trees in the city green? Can you build a small municipal building?”
Shenzhen-based executives of Huawei would no doubt understand Malone’s laments intimately. Which means Malone would understand what Huawei’s critics don’t.
Take a recent Washington Post op-ed by StrategEast Center for a New Economy president Anatoly Motkin. Describing “the lengths to which China is willing to go to protect its control of digital infrastructure worldwide,” Motkin cited Huawei’s alleged use of “soccer tickets, luxury trips and cash to buy support from legislators just as the European Union was debating whether to limit the use of its technology in 5G networks.”
As opposed to revealing anything nefarious about Huawei, Motkin’s piece was most effective for the think tanker exposing his innocence to how long-fingered politicians are not just in Europe, but around the world. Put another way, Motkin’s piece amounted to the thinker yelling at the proverbial scoreboard for reflecting reality. Think about it.
Huawei is in how many countries? By all accounts, it’s 170+. As opposed to criticizing Huawei, Motkin should be criticizing the power of legislators that makes business expansion so needlessly costly. Though they wrap their time in office as “public service,” what we see from Malone’s memoirs alongside Motkin’s allegations is the disappointing lengths the enterprising are forced to go to so that they can meet, and in the case of Huawei and TCI (the cable company that Malone led), lead the needs of customers.
Unfortunately, Motkin’s attempt to blame Huawei for the venal ways of politicians wasn’t his only mistake in the op-ed. He adds that Huawei provides “telecommunications infrastructure at prices 30 to 40 percent cheaper than Western competitors, and it is all funded by the Chinese government.” Where to begin?
While sources in telecom are explicit that Huawei is not as inexpensive as Motkin imagines, let’s assume for fun that they are. What a great thing for Huawei’s global customer base. To the extent that Huawei offers discounts, the savings accrue to the shareholders of Huawei’s “Western” customers, not to mention that those same customers subsequently enjoy savings that they can direct either to shareholders or to other, “Western” goods and services providers.
What about the notion that the discounts “are funded by the Chinese government”? If so, as in even if what Motkin asserts is true, it’s evident he hasn’t stopped to ask how the “Chinese government” can allegedly pay for discounts offered by Chinese corporations. Does Motkin think “China” gets the money from Pluto? If not, the only conclusion is that any giving by the “Chinese government” to Chinese corporations is an effect of taking from same.
Translated, China’s alleged “industrial policy” is paid for by Chinese corporations. Think how much richer, and effective they would be minus the Chinese government in their pockets. By extension, think how much more effective they would be minus the hands of “Western governments” in their pockets.