Slashdot Mirror


Trump Strikes Deal With China's ZTE on Sanctions (usatoday.com)

The Trump administration struck a deal Thursday with a Chinese telecom that will allow it to do business with U.S. companies even though it violated sanctions. From a report: China's ZTE will pay a $1 billion penalty and will embed a U.S. appointed compliance team, terms that are similar to those President Trump discussed last month when he revealed that Chinese leaders had asked him to look into the matter. "At about 6 a.m. this morning, we executed a definitive agreement with ZTE," Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told CNBC in an interview Thursday. "And that brings to a conclusion this phase of the development with them." Trump asked the Commerce Department to investigate the restrictions on ZTE in April following a request from Chinese President Xi Jinping. Commerce imposed a seven-year ban after the company sold American-made products to Iran, a violation of U.S. sanctions.

34 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. So now we know how much it costs! by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    [Pinky finger to corner of mouth] Only $1 Beeelllyon to sell out national security and do away with trade sanctions.

    Not really that much in today's markets.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By the way the examples I brought up you didn't give a shit about when they happened.

      They never happened. Stop watching fake news that has been proved to be false and have defended themselves in court as "just entertainment". You get some seriously messed up ideas of reality that way.

    2. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by Dare+nMc · · Score: 4, Informative

      ZTE illegally sold US-made goods in Iran and North Korea, making hundreds of millions from Iran alone. ZTE then promised to punish 7 people caught directly violating these US laws, instead it gave them bonuses.

      The espionage claims resulted in US government employees being prevented from using their phones, and is completely separate from these actions.

    3. Re:So now we know how much it costs! by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      You want to know what's funniest about the whole Uranium one conspiracy theory?

      Not one ounce of Uranium has been mined in the US since the 1980's. I don't know the exact date they stopped but it was a LONG time ago. You want to know what's even funnier?

      If every nuclear power plant stays open for the next 30 years they won't need to mine uranium for another 30 years.

      Not much of a conspiracy.

  2. ZTE got away with it, and others will too by It's+the+tripnaut! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It certainly pays to have friends in high places.

    ZTE will easily recoup the $1B just by the fact that its share price will certainly jump up with this news alone. Essentially, ZTE will have suffered very little penalties after all the transgressions it has done against the US. This sets a precedent that many other foreign companies with good ties to their government will surely follow.

    1. Re:ZTE got away with it, and others will too by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It certainly pays to have friends in high places.

      ZTE will easily recoup the $1B just by the fact that its share price will certainly jump up with this news alone. Essentially, ZTE will have suffered very little penalties after all the transgressions it has done against the US. This sets a precedent that many other foreign companies with good ties to their government will surely follow.

      Well, they had China give Trump a few hundred million in business deals, so you need a mechanism for giving the Trump businesses money.

    2. Re:ZTE got away with it, and others will too by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 2

      Maybe if they'd own a lot of their own stock, but from what I can see that doesn't seem to be the case (all of their stock is held by 3 entities, two of which are Chinese government ones and collectively own 51% of the company). As for little in terms of penalties, they still have to pay a billion in fines, put 400 million into escrow, completely replace the board and upper management along with having to put up with a U.S sanctions compliance team for the foreseeable future.

      Obviously a lot less severe than the original sanctions, which essentially amounted to a corporate death sentence as pretty much everything they make has critical components made by U.S companies, but I wouldn't jump on the Trump hate bandwagon quite that hard. If he got some trade or security-related concessions (like backing the U.S in talks with North Korea) out of the Chinese in return it may even have been completely worth giving ZTE a stay of execution like this.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's the case, just that it's not out of question. However I do suspect this was more likely the condition for the trade deficit related concessions Trump got out of China not too long ago.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
  3. Open for business by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The message seems pretty clear: laws don't matter if you pay enough money.

    This is essentially an open invitation for other businesses to bribe the Trump administration. Just pay the right "fine" to the right department, and any violation of those pesky rules will just be forgiven. Either Trump will start negotiating on your behalf, or he'll just pardon the liable people. Either way, "consequences" will be left for those poor people who lack the business skill to blatantly ignore morality.

    ...Where's Martin Luther gone off to now?

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Open for business by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      They're called "fines".. what a novel idea. The fact that he got ZTE to admit any wrongdoing at all is pretty remarkable.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    2. Re:Open for business by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

      Seems you've been blissfully unaware that in the US, committing mass fraud to the tune of billions and paying a fraction of that in fines has been the standard business model for over 20 years. This is nothing new, Trump is just making it globalized. The rule of law has been supplanted by rule of "who has the most money"

    3. Re:Open for business by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In case you missed the news, Hillary isn't our president, and neither is Obama any more. I complained plenty when the Democrats were in charge, but now it's the Republicans who are undermining the Constitution, so they get the complaints.

      I know it's shocking, but it is actually possible to criticize an authority without caring what party they represent. It's called "having strong principles", and it appears to be an utterly foreign concept to this administration. I don't necessarily agree with the Democrats' principles, but at least they have them.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:Open for business by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They already had admitted the wrongdoing, and said they'd make amends... then they didn't follow through. That's what triggered the last round of sanctions, adding a US business ban on top of their existing billion-dollar fine.

      In a functional administration, this wouldn't be something the White House would interfere with at all. The DOJ would make their recommendations, following any directional guidance the White House would establish in policy. That's a nice and predictable process, where one can review the law and policy before committing crimes, and know with a good degree of certainty how things will turn out.

      Now we've defenestrated the rule of law. The policy doesn't actually matter. If you think you have enough money, you can go ahead and break the laws, and just buy an ad on Fox or host a party for Kanye, and you won't need to worry about anything the DOJ says.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:Open for business by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, goody! It's time for a history lesson!

      When slavery was a major issue in the United States, the parties looked very different from what we have now. The Democrats and Republicans had a lot of dissent within the parties, on pretty much every issue except one: slavery.

      It seems weird to say it, but prior to the founding of the Republican party, political movements were more like sports teams than they are today. There was heavy anti-federalist sentiment, so people would usually support their state's party at a national level, mostly just to promote their own state's interests. Handling important issues federally was a rarity.

      Then the civil war broke out.

      The newly-formed Republican party was literally started as a one-issue party. They wanted to end slavery. They also absorbed a lot of the old Whig supporters (mostly from northern states), who wanted strong business support and social reform. When the southern Congressmen left their offices to join the Confederacy, the Republicans took over, by wide margins.

      Obviously, slavery didn't last very long. The Union won the war, leaving Republicans in charge as the heroes of social equality, which worked until the Democrats came back a decade later. That's when segregation and Jim Crow laws came in from the Democrat side, and the Republicans pushed the Whig legacy of strong business.

      The next big shift came with the Great Depression. All of that business-central policy collapsed on the Republicans, and people started leaving the party. Notably, the folks mainly concerned with social reform ended up in the Democrat camp, slowly reversing the Democrats' position on social equality. By the 1960s, with still no major opposition on that front by the Republicans, the Democrats actually ended up pushing to reverse their own segregation policies.

      That support for the civil rights movement was very unpopular among the traditional southern Democrats, so they left the Democrat party, just like the Republicans had 30 years earlier. They ended up in the Republican camp.

      In short, through the middle of the 20th century, the two major parties swapped their positions on social policy, while keeping their position on economic policy. That's pretty much the situation we have today, where the Democrats push for strong social equality and small-business economics, and the Republicans want big business and try to ignore racism entirely.

      To wit, then: Democrats have principles today, but the Democrats we have today aren't the Democrats we had when the Democrats supported slavery.

      (For clarity, I mostly align with the Whig ideas, mixed with a bit of socialism and statism... I don't really care who you are or how you were born, but if you follow the law you should have an equal opportunity for success as anyone else)

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  4. Re:So Much Winning by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And, of course, this has NOTHING to do with the new batch of Chinese trademarks that Ivanka got - on the same day he announced this.

  5. Re:So Much Winning by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "And, of course, this has NOTHING to do with the new batch of Chinese trademarks that Ivanka got - on the same day he announced this."

    The things we do for love.

  6. What does Trump get out of it? by satsuke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Trump's administration is openly pay-to-play, which begs the question, what does Trump get out of this transaction?

    Also, who will appoint the compliance team proposed? If it's Trump controlled cronies instead of competent engineering talent, what will that mean for national security going forward?

    1. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Trump's administration is openly pay-to-play, which begs the question, what does Trump get out of this transaction?

      Ivanka's trademarks in China? The funding of the Trump resort in Indonesia? I'm sure there are a few more things goin on that we don't know about yet.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trump's administration is openly pay-to-play, which begs the question, what does Trump get out of this transaction?

      China gave Trump a favorable business deal in the tune of a few hundred million dollars just before he wrote his tweet about "so many jobs lost in China, we must do something".

    3. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      China provided a $500M loan to an Indonesian development project of which the trump organization has a licensing deal with and will profit from directly:

      https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/is-china-straight-up-bribing-donald-trump-zte

      The next day trump tweets we need to save Chinese jobs. Whats it going to take for all you die hard trumpers to realize you're the ones hes fucking over worse than anyone!? The second you question you're undying devotion to him he'll sell you out like "poor" Jeff Sessions.

    4. Re:What does Trump get out of it? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trump's administration is openly pay-to-play, which begs the question, what does Trump get out of this transaction?

      $500million

      May 8th: Trump announces sanctions on ZTE.
      May 9th: ZTE announces it will shutdown phone business.
      May 11th: $500m investment from China http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/...
      May 13th: Trump tweets concern about Chinese jobs lost with ZTE, confirms he spoke to Xi, and tells the commerce department to "get it done".

  7. Secret part of the dealio... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    ZTE has to embed NSA spyware into their US-market devices... or maybe all of their devices.

    1. Re:Secret part of the dealio... by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      ZTE has to embed NSA spyware into their US-market devices... or maybe all of their devices.

      Don't be daft. Trump is in this for personal gain not to prop up the NSA: https://www.huffingtonpost.co....

  8. Re:So Much Winning by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Informative
  9. Re:So Much Winning by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That isn't what whataboutism is, comrade. But nice try on trying to discount the entire concept by misusing it.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  10. Re:So Much Winning by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2, Informative

    From your own link. "Coincidence? Well, probably".

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  11. Re:So Much Winning by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    WOW. If that's your take-away from that, maybe we should just drop an anvil on you to get your attention.

  12. Now how about a deal for Carrier? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh wait, they got one. Massive tax subsidies for the owners and the jobs still got shipped to Mexico. And _still_ his poll numbers don't budge.

    Show up to your primaries people. If we're ever going to fix this mess that's where we're gonna do it. And yes. that means registering for the Democratic party if that's what it takes to vote in their primary. The Dems aren't blameless, but they're not so far gone that they couldn't be made into a pro-working class party again.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  13. infrastructure expertise by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 2

    Have you seen America's crumbling infrastructure? How about China's country spanning high speed rail network? If you wanted to fix up your infrastructure, say build a wall maybe, who would you ask to help? China made a pretty good wall back in the day, imagine what they could do now with all that home grown advanced technology they have been developing.

    Mexico was never going to pay for it, but maybe China will, it would certainly help the trade balance too.

  14. Is being unpredictable his strategy? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    I think lots of countries don't know what to make of the current situation. When you put someone in charge of a country who has no prior political experience, I think the more established politicians are just trying to figure out what's going through his mind.

    I don't think he's totally incompetent, having at least dealt with running a business, and hopefully he's listening to someone in his administration who has had some experience in international trade negotiations. But I do think someone needs to telegraph the fact that trade policy isn't the same as lowballing a property/business owner on an offer, or paying a local politician a bribe, or dealing with some construction union boss. Because if that's the experience he's drawing from, the results he's expecting aren't going to come about.

    One thing I worry about is national politics getting as openly corrupt as local politics. Local businessmen don't even try to hide it -- it's pretty much out in the open that the mayor or city council or town supervisor will do whatever a business owner wants for the right amount of cash in a paper bag. National politics is still a little veiled -- you have the veneer of lobbyists, etc.

    1. Re:Is being unpredictable his strategy? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      As a negotiation tactic, the goal isn't to kill the other side, the goal is to let them realize you can kill them. From a game-theory perspective, you don't actually want to use your big weapon, because once you use it, you have no more threats. Again we can see the same principle from a cold-war perspective: Russia (or America) can say, "If you do that, I will use nukes," and influence America. But if Russia ever used nukes, then they have no more influence over America's actions.

      So the threat of action is more powerful than the actual action.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Is being unpredictable his strategy? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's not in the least bit incompetent. He is doing the thing he knows how to do best: Enrich himself through corruption. ZTE had nothing to do about politics. https://www.huffingtonpost.co....

      5 days. That's all it took. 5 days from May 9th where Trump helped kill ZTE, to getting a major investment from the Chinese, to Trump helping bail ZTE out tweeting about his concern for Chinese jobs.

    3. Re:Is being unpredictable his strategy? by lorinc · · Score: 2

      I know your domestic politics is none of our concern, but seen from the rest of the world, a president that tweets he can pardon himself looks pretty damn ridiculous and is not really a good negotiation signal...

  15. Re:So Much Winning by truckaxle · · Score: 2

    Nice whatboutism

    This isn't whatboutism but correlation fella!

  16. War with Canada but Buddy with China by LostInTaiwan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    WTF!!!!!

    We are in multiple trade wars with multiple democratic allies of ours. Allies that share our democratic ideals, share our common defense, and are not actively trying to undermine our global economic and military leadership position. Yet, we are openly helping authoritarian countries that violated our sanctions, aim their missiles at us, rams our ship and planes. Let's not kid ourselves. In authoritarian states, all large companies are organs of the state, subject to the bidding of the government. Helping companies in China is no different than helping the Chinese government itself. ZTE is a prime example.

    Do evangelicals know that China actively suppressed the Christian faith and all non state-organized religion in China? Doesn't Fox News cover this topic?