Trump works with Xi to restart Chinese telecom giant ZTE, despite alleged Iran sanctions violations - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14914625
President Donald Trump pledged Sunday to help ZTE Corp. “get back into business, fast” after a U.S. ban crippled the Chinese technology company, offering a job-saving concession to Beijing ahead of high-stakes trade talks later this week.

“Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done!” Trump wrote on Twitter in the first of two tweets about U.S. trade relations with China. It said he and Chinese President Xi Jinping are working together on a solution for ZTE.

Shortly after Trump’s tweet a Democratic lawmaker questioned the move to help the Chinese company, given numerous warnings about ZTE’s alleged threat to U.S. national security.

ZTE suspended its main operations after the U.S. Commerce Department banned American companies from selling to the firm for seven years — as punishment for ZTE breaking an agreement reached after it was caught illegally shipping U.S. goods to Iran.

The Commerce Department, ZTE and the Chinese Embassy in Washington could not immediately be reached for comment. White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters confirmed that U.S. officials have been in contact with Beijing about ZTE. She said Trump’s tweet underscored the importance of “free, fair, balanced and mutually beneficial” relations between the United States and China on issues involving the economy, trade and investment.

Trump expects Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross “to exercise his independent judgment, consistent with applicable laws and regulations, to resolve the regulatory action involving ZTE based on its facts,” Walters said.

U.S. officials are preparing for talks in Washington with Liu He, China’s top trade official, to resolve an escalating trade dispute.

Trump’s proposed reversal will likely ease relations between the world’s two biggest economies. Washington and Beijing have proposed tens of billions of dollars in tariffs in recent weeks, fanning worries of a full-blown trade war that could hurt global supply chains and dent business investment plans. In trade talks in Beijing this month, China asked the United States to ease crushing sanctions on ZTE, one of the world’s largest telecommunications equipment makers, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

In a second tweet Sunday, Trump said past U.S. trade talks with China posed a hurdle that he predicted the two countries will overcome. “China and the United States are working well together on trade, but past negotiations have been so one sided in favor of China, for so many years, that it is hard for them to make a deal that benefits both countries,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

“But be cool, it will all work out!” he added.

It was not clear if China will accept Trump’s assertion that Beijing needs to work toward a mutually beneficial outcome.

“The U.S. should be aware that it must become more cooperative and constructive in the trade talks with China,” the China Daily, China’s official English-language newspaper, said in an editorial Monday.

“It should bear in mind that the outcomes of dialogue should be mutually beneficial and China will not accept its interests being damaged,” the newspaper said, adding that Washington must “cast away its unilateral mentality.”

The editorial did not mention ZTE.

Trump’s comments on ZTE could have a significant impact on shares of American optical components makers such as Acacia Communications Inc. and Oclaro Inc., which fell when U.S. companies were banned from exporting goods to ZTE. ZTE paid over $2.3 billion to 211 U.S. exporters in 2017, a senior ZTE official said on Friday.

The U.S. government launched an investigation into ZTE after Reuters reported in 2012 the company had signed contracts to ship hardware and software worth millions of dollars to Iran from some of the best-known U.S. technology companies. ZTE pleaded guilty last year to conspiring to violate U.S. sanctions by illegally shipping U.S. goods and technology to Iran, and entered into an agreement with the U.S. government. The ban was the result of ZTE’s failure to comply with that agreement, the Commerce Department said.

It came two months after two Republican senators introduced legislation to block the U.S. government from buying or leasing telecommunications equipment from ZTE or Huawei, citing concern the companies might use their access to spy on U.S. officials.

Without specifying companies or countries, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai recently said that “hidden ‘backdoors’ to our networks in routers, switches and other network equipment can allow hostile foreign powers to inject viruses and other malware, steal Americans’ private data, spy on U.S. businesses, and more.”

ZTE relies on U.S. companies such as Qualcomm Inc., Intel Corp. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google. American companies are estimated to provide 25-30 percent of components in ZTE’s equipment, which includes smartphones and gear to build telecommunications networks. Claire Reade, a Washington-based trade lawyer and former assistant U.S. Trade Representative for China affairs, said the ZTE ban was a shocking blow to China’s leadership and may have caused more alarm in Beijing than Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods. “Imagine how the United States would feel if China had the power to crush one of our major corporations and make it go out of business,” Reade said. “China may now have strengthened its desire to get out from under a scenario where the United States can do that again.”

Even though ZTE was probably “foolish” in not understanding the consequences of violating a Commerce Department monitoring agreement, she said the episode makes it less likely that China will make concessions on U.S. demands that it stop subsidizing efforts to develop its own advanced technology, she said.

Other experts said Trump’s policy reversal was unprecedented.

“This is a fascinating development in a highly unusual case that has gone from a sanctions and export control case to a geopolitical one,” said Washington lawyer Douglas Jacobson, who represents some of ZTE’s suppliers.

Trump’s announcement drew sharp criticism from a Democratic lawmaker, who said the move was jeopardizing U.S. national security.

“Our intelligence agencies have warned that ZTE technology and phones pose a major cybersecurity threat,” Rep. Adam Schiff said on Twitter. “You should care more about our national security than Chinese jobs.”

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/ ... vl-gfkvzIU

Trump seems to have holed his own sanctions policy against Iran below the waterline just days after he initiated it. What's he thinking? Will he work to protect all jobs in foreign countries that US sanctions against Iran affect?

However, Kevin Wolf, the Obama-era assistant secretary of commerce who launched the case against ZTE, told the Financial Times he was “speechless” at Trump’s tweet.

“I’m highly confident that a president has never intervened in a law-enforcement matter like this before,” Wolf told the paper. “It’s so outside the way the rules were set up.”

D.C. lawyer Douglas Jacobson, who represents ZTE suppliers, echoed this sentiment in an interview with the BBC. “There’s no legal mechanism for this. How this will play out remains to be seen,” he said. “They are not simply going to be able to resume business as usual.”

Even the White House seems slightly taken-aback by Trump’s promise. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told Politico on Sunday that the president merely expects Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to “exercise his independent judgement… to resolve the regulatory action involving ZTE based on its facts.”

http://fortune.com/2018/05/14/china-ira ... ald-trump/
#14914627
Seems like good negotiations to me. Trump wants $200 billion dollars in trade surplus concessions from China for this. Reduces our trade deficit by more than half. The benefits to ZTE won’t be a reality without these concessions imo. I don’t expect the Chinese concessions to be very public.

I think the confusion comes from expecting Trump to act based upon political ideology even though he has clearly said he will negotiate with any country based upon America’s best interest. People can’t seem to wrap their minds around that.
#14914630
One Degree wrote:Seems like good negotiations to me. Trump wants $200 billion dollars in trade surplus concessions from China for this.

What has that to do with breaking the sanctions on Iran? Ordering your Commerce Department to reverse their policy before your trade negotiations start is an unusual way to approach negotiations, I'll grant you. It seems like a pre-emptive concession. Are you in favour of the US government breaking its own sanctions, then, if it helps the balance of payments? Allowing Boeing to sell to Iran would be a good move, then, yes?
#14914631
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:What has that to do with breaking the sanctions on Iran? Ordering your Commerce Department to reverse their policy before your trade negotiations start is an unusual way to approach negotiations, I'll grant you. It seems like a pre-emptive concession. Are you in favour of the US government breaking its own sanctions, then, if it helps the balance of payments? Allowing Boeing to sell to Iran would be a good move, then, yes?


I am not smart enough to know if it is a good idea or not. Trump is a businessman more than a politician. To expect him to negotiate based upon political ideology is unrealistic when he has clearly said he won’t. I think I like the idea of removing the political smokescreen though. If your enemy is willing to pay you reparations, then some violations of your own politics are warranted with this thinking of America financial well being over political purity. I am not capable of understanding the repercussions of this ambiguity, but I welcome a different view to the hypocrisy we have always used. Shooting ourselves in the foot because of a political purity that is hypocrisy has not been beneficial to the US.
If China offers a deal that is extremely financially beneficial to us, but requires changing our views on Iran sanctions, then this is not a problem for a businessman. It is only a problem for political purists. ‘America first’ is Trump’s position.
#14914637
One Degree wrote:I am not smart enough to know if it is a good idea or not. Trump is a businessman more than a politician. To expect him to negotiate based upon political ideology is unrealistic when he has clearly said he won’t. I think I like the idea of removing the political smokescreen though.

OK, we'll take the approach that this is about business, and not political ideology, and we'll remove the political smokescreen.

If your enemy

Problem! You don't have 'enemies' in business. The political smokescreen has just had a junkyard of tyres added to it.

is willing to pay you reparations

Pay reparations? What reparations are these?

, then some violations of your own politics are warranted with this thinking of America financial well being over political purity. I am not capable of understanding the repercussions of this ambiguity, but I welcome a different view to the hypocrisy we have always used.

Violations of your own politics are a new, better kind of hypocrisy, then?

Shooting ourselves in the foot because of a political purity that is hypocrisy has not been beneficial to the US.

Purity is hypocrisy? George Orwell missed something, clearly.

If China offers a deal that is extremely financially beneficial to us, but requires changing our views on Iran sanctions, then this is not a problem for a businessman. It is only a problem for political purists. ‘America first’ is Trump’s position.

But it was Trump's administration that imposed the sanctions on ZTE, and on Iran. Are you saying that "America First" only became Trump's position this Sunday?

This, of course, all depends on your contention that Trump will be able to get a concession from China in return for ignoring the Iranian sanctions problem.

Still, maybe you've found the motto of the Trump administration:

President Truman: "The buck stops here"
President Trump: "Anything for a buck"
#14914644
Problem! You don't have 'enemies' in business. The political smokescreen has just had a junkyard of tyres added to it.

Ofcourse you have enemies in business. You just call them competition and different rules of engagement are used.

Pay reparations? What reparations are these?


Past trade deficits due in part to the Chinese unfair practices. The US allowed this, but Trump would not be constrained by past weakness.

Violations of your own politics are a new, better kind of hypocrisy, then?


It is not a violation of Trump’s politics. This is more of judging Trump by the very standards he rejects.
This is basically all the arguments against him. He doesn’t play by the old rules. That’s why he was elected.

Purity is hypocrisy? George Orwell missed something, clearly.


Yes, when that purity has a hypocritical basis.
But it was Trump's administration that imposed the sanctions on ZTE, and on Iran. Are you saying that "America First" only became Trump's position this Sunday?

A businessman offered a better deal on Monday has no problem rejecting Sunday’s position. This is more of judging Trump by rules he does not support.
This, of course, all depends on your contention that Trump will be able to get a concession from China in return for ignoring the Iranian sanctions problem.


As I said, Trump is just talking until he gets these concessions imo.

Still, maybe you've found the motto of the Trump administration:

President Truman: "The buck stops here"
President Trump: "Anything for a buck"

I suppose it is accurate to apply this to ‘America first’. Why do you think this is incompatible with a capitalist nation? He is just being upfront about it.

I am ‘imagining’ Trump’s thinking to fit my own narrative just like everyone else. I do believe the internal politics of other nations should not be considered in trade decisions. Only their external policies should be considered.
If Trump ends up with a better trade balance with China and a better nuclear deal with Iran, then he was right.
We don’t know yet.
#14914653
Again, what reparations are these? You seem to have made them up because you think the Chinese were unfairly selling things that the USA wanted to buy.


Your position seems to be "Trump is so amazing, that he must be helping the balance of payments, otherwise why would he do it?" You have no evidence that he's got anything from China in return, and you think it's fine if he reverses his policy from day to day.
#14914664
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Again, what reparations are these? You seem to have made them up because you think the Chinese were unfairly selling things that the USA wanted to buy.


Your position seems to be "Trump is so amazing, that he must be helping the balance of payments, otherwise why would he do it?" You have no evidence that he's got anything from China in return, and you think it's fine if he reverses his policy from day to day.


Why is it that any attempt to explain Trump’s behavior is regarded as blind acceptance of his behavior?
Where did I even say Trump was right let alone amazing? I am pointing out the ridiculousness of judging him by standards he rejects. This is a typical liberal shortcoming. If it does not match their view then it must be ignorance, racism, etc. Total absence of the obvious reality he does not share these ideological views.

China’s unfair trade practices are hardly a secret to anyone. Even Trump’s European detractors don’t deny this.
I also made it clear that I am not capable of determining if his path is the right one, but you still accuse me of blindly endorsing him. I simply find our past policies so ineffectual and hypocritical that I am willing to let him experiment with his view.
#14914702
@One Degree , your posts all assume that Trump has received a trade deal in return for forgiving ZTE for breaking Iranian sanctions. Because there's no evidence of this, I say that you seem to be assuming it because he's a businessman who carries out what "seems like good negotiations to me". That was your starting position - that Trump was negotiating well.

China’s unfair trade practices are hardly a secret to anyone

But were not necessarily what caused the US-China trade deficit. It's just been the largest year ever; what do you think is currently "unfair"? If it's their attitude to intellectual property, experts think Trump has made that less likely to be resolved in the USA's favour:

Trump’s about-face looks primed to remove two threats for the price of one, undercutting the wider U.S. case against China’s intellectual property abuses in the process. Chinese officials raised the issue at a meeting in Beijing earlier this month as one of their demands for a broader agreement, the Financial Times's Sam Fleming and Shawn Donnan report. But Trump's act "appears to pull the rug out from under those in the administration trying to pressure China to restrain its industrial policies and better protect intellectual property,” Scott Kennedy, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, tells The Post team. One potential beneficiary of Trump's move: Qualcomm, the American semiconductor maker, which had seen its bid to acquire NXP Semiconductors shelved by Chinese regulators. Bloomberg reports the Chinese have restarted that review.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... cab5de9b2a
#14914711
"Prosthetic Conscience"]@One Degree , your posts all assume that Trump has received a trade deal in return for forgiving ZTE for breaking Iranian sanctions. Because there's no evidence of this, I say that you seem to be assuming it because he's a businessman who carries out what "seems like good negotiations to me". That was your starting position - that Trump was negotiating well.


My posts did not assume this at all and I thought I made it clear it was ‘negotiations’. They may or may not be based upon concessions he is aware of and we are not.

But were not necessarily what caused the US-China trade deficit. It's just been the largest year ever; what do you think is currently "unfair"? If it's their attitude to intellectual property, experts think Trump has made that less likely to be resolved in the USA's favour:

Way out of my field to decide the best solutions. I just believe we should be as self sufficient as possible. ‘Experts’ are so consistently wrong about Trump that it is a joke. An ‘expert’ is someone who normally agrees with the status quo, or he would be called a ‘minority opinion’. This means more of what I said earlier. Insisting Trump be judged by standards of his opposition instead of his own standards. Once a view is institutionalized, it is very difficult to get people past their biased view to truly be objective. They simply don’t see Trump plays by different rules and their judgement based on the old rules is meaningless. Trump needs to be judged by his results and not by whether or not his methods are acceptable to liberal ideology. The media and experts insist upon passing judgement based on the latter
#14914717
One Degree wrote:They simply don’t see Trump plays by different rules and their judgement based on the old rules is meaningless. Trump needs to be judged by his results

This is the essential Trump. One hand gives and the other taketh away. Pay no attention to razzle-dazzle offers … wait and see what's actually delivered. Jimjam is right, this guy is the conman of the century.

Zam 8)
#14914800
One Degree wrote:I just believe we should be as self sufficient as possible.

If that's what you believe, then a trade deficit has just been free stuff for the USA. It's when the USA gets goods (or services, but in the case of China, it's nearly all goods) in return for American money, which is controlled by the American government, and they can award themselves more at will. So the USA has benefited from the exchange. But if you think the USA should be self-sufficient, you'd want less commerce with China, wouldn't you? That is, you'd want the sanctions on ZTE to remain in place.

Trump 'playing by his own rules' isn't 'objective', though. By definition it's subjective.

Meanwhile, we still see that Trump is weakening the Iranian sanctions that he ordered a few days before.
#14914885
If it weren't for the whole "ZTE is sneaking in backdoor paths for Chinese intelligence agencies", this might be a good diplomatic move that could lend him a big chip to play in negotiations. Almost, Trump.
#14914942
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:For most people, "Trump puts new sanctions on Iran, then overrides his Justice Department to forgive a Chinese company for breaking the previous sanctions" isn't that complicated.

I have to agree, "The art of the deal" strikes again.

Zam
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]