Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Will Try To Reverse ZTE Deal Via a Must-Pass Defense Bill (politico.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the checks-and-balances dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Senate leaders agreed Monday to include language in the annual defense spending bill that would reverse the Trump administration's decision to save Chinese telecommunications company ZTE after it was caught violating the terms of a 2017 penalty agreement by making illegal sales to Iran and North Korea. The language will be part of an amendment in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, a $716 billion defense policy bill, H.R. 5515 (115).

If the Senate amendment becomes law, it would automatically reinstate the seven-year prohibition until Trump has certified to Congress that ZTE has met certain conditions. It also would ban all U.S. government agencies from purchasing or leasing telecommunications equipment and/or services from ZTE, a second Chinese telecommunications firm, Huawei, or any subsidiaries or affiliates of those two companies. The amendment language "prohibits the federal government from doing business with ZTE or Huawei or other Chinese telecom companies" and puts the company back on the sanctions list and "holds ZTE accountable for violating their previous commitment," Cotton said. The senators supporting the amendment include Democratic minority leader Chuck Schumer and two Republican Senators -- Sen Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). "I and obviously every other senator believes the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for their behavior," Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) told reporters after Ross briefed senators on the department's latest ZTE action. "They're a repeat bad actor that should be put out of business. For eight years, ZTE was able to run wild and be able to become the fourth-largest telecom company in the world." If the Senate amendment becomes law, "I would expect there wouldn't be a ZTE," Cotton added.

28 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Donald Trump is letting a Chinese company sell hacked phones used as surveillance department for the Chinese government.

    The only explanation is that this is part of Trump's surrender to North Korea and China.

    1. Re:Treason by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not really since he did it to protect American jobs at Qualcomm.

      He did it to get a $500 million Chinese investment in a Trump property and some Chinese trademarks for Princess Ivanka.

      What about the past year and a half could possibly make you think Trump cares anything about "American jobs"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Treason by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know anything about Chinese trademark...

      Manifestly not. I haven't really been following the story in detail, but I do know China. Ivanka's company had been trying to get that trademark for years, and the Chinese government was dragging its feet, then denying it, repeatedly. China's protectionism extends to all parts of their economy, including trademarks. They did not want to grant that trademark to a foreign-owned business. Them suddenly granting it is rather blatantly a payoff, under the circumstances.

    3. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is true, but Don't ignore the Qualcomm angle either.

      This is the 3rd time Trump has intervened to protect Qualcomm's interests.

      Remember when they almost got bought out by Broadcomm? Yeah turns out they asked Daddy Trump to intervene and didn't tell anyone about it.(And there's about to be a shareholder lawsuit because they did not disclose that to the SEC)
      https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2018/jun/11/qualcomm-secretly-contacted-us-government/

      Qualcomm is looking to buy NXP semiconductors. The Chinese were holding up the deal and it looked all but dead on regulatory/antitrust grounds.. And oh my! All of a sudden it's happening after ZTE gets saved. What a coincidence!

    4. Re:Treason by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Informative

      Donald Trump is letting a Chinese company sell hacked phones used as surveillance department for the Chinese government.

      The only explanation is that this is part of Trump's surrender to North Korea and China.

      Is this a troll as some mod thinks (possibly Russian) or is it the simple truth? Everybody remembers that Drump got paid off promptly in the form of $500 million real estate "investment" right?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:Treason by ChromeAeonuim · · Score: 2, Informative

      Past year and a half? You don't even have to go that recent. For much longer, he's been selling Trump branded items made in other countries. American made options have always been available, not for everything but for more items than Trump sold. Of course, if American suppliers charge more, that might make him less money. You can tell someone's real character by how they act when no one is watching, and it wasn't until he began a presidential campaign in earnest that he chose to source US made items. Trump cares about Trump, not American jobs.

    6. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Things got ugly when Conservatives replaced news with hate-radio, kook-blogs and Fox News, and were filled with misguided hatred of mainstream Americans and our values. Now they cry like babies when they reap what they've sown.

    7. Re:Treason by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In a nutshell, everything he's done in the past year and a half, including taking some heat during phony summits and ignoring the hypocrisy of pussy-hurting liberals like you

      So, what you're trying to say is that you don't have a single bit of evidence that Trump cares about American jobs.

      Noted.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re: Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, you're saying that the 500 million dollar deal doesn't exist or is a lefty story?

      That's... Interesting, considering the national review is confirming it and the NR is one of the more conservative places on the internet.

      But if you want to just strawman and ignore real events as lefty propeganda, I think you're doing a disservice to yourself.

    9. Re:Treason by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What exactly did Trump surrender to North Korea?

      Legitimacy for a bloodthirsty despot. Next question?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    10. Re:Treason by Tough+Love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand the legitimacy thing.

      You do not understand the legitimacy thing because you do not understand the freedom thing or the rule of law thing. You want to give the despot money, and ignore the teachings of history that appeasement never works? Good thing nobody cares what you think.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    11. Re:Treason by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Even if it's for the wrong reasons, Trump's decision is the right one.

      It's in the US's interests to do a good trade deal with China. There are many mutual benefits. However, destroying a huge company like ZTE and putting hundreds of thousands of Chinese out of work is unlikely to help secure such a deal.

      The crime is breaking sanctions. Sanctions that Trump may have already decided to end (it's not clear ATM what was agreed at the Kim/Trump meeting). The punishment is arbitrary, it's not calculated to offset some loss or restore something that has been taken. And cancelling it probably nets the US a nice chunk of cash, because if ZTE simply died it wouldn't be paying that fine that it is now committed to clearing.

      Plus it would have screwed all the US ZTE customers who would be left without support.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Treason by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Trump talked tough on NK, which Kim took advantage of to demonstrate that it was all just bluster and ultimately there was little the US could do because of China and the fact that NK had a viable nuclear deterrent.

      Kim was able to use that as a bargaining chip when opening a dialogue with South Korea and the US. De-nuclearization suits NK, because it will include US nuclear weapons in the area too.

      Kim quickly made concessions and progress with SK, which put pressure on Trump to not waste the opportunity. So Trump went to that meeting ready to make big concessions - end the wargames, de-nuclearize, and start opening up NK's economy with sanctions relief. Kim has boosted himself to the level of international statesman, praised by the POTUS and with a path towards a post-dictatorship life that isn't rotting in jail or hanging from a noose.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Treason by N1AK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So far Trump has told the members of NATO to meet their financial obligations or lose the backing of the WH. However,he had no intention of every forsaking US support in NATO. His statement was considered rude in the international diplomatic circle jerk club. The US is not suppose to say mean things about it's "allies".

      This doesn't relate to American jobs let alone that he cares about it. You and the orange narcissist in chief may find it amusing to burn good will by needlessly insulting allies, or even dismissing with air quotes the idea they are allies, in your own little circle jerks. However it hasn't achieved anything yet except to damage relationships that are also in your interest. Those countries you imply are false allies are the same ones who have lost one thousand lives and had over ten thousand more soldiers injured in Afghanistan in the NATO response to an attack on the US.

      The depressing part of so much of Trump's support is that it comes for actions he takes that achieve only harm to America in the end but appeal to a certain demographic because the fact it annoys someone else or that it is done in a way that seems powerful. The hard to believe part is the groups that have defined themselves on fighting the very things he does who are lining up to do his bidding; the likes of the religious conservatives who would be trying to have anyone but a Republican removed from office for 10% of his immoral behaviour, the fiscal conservatives sticking their fingers in their ears while he explodes the debt, the free market supporters ignoring his clear disdain for their beliefs.

    14. Re:Treason by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      In a nutshell, everything he's done in the past year and a half, including taking some heat during phony summits and ignoring the hypocrisy of pussy-hurting liberals like you

      Even the Koch brothers are against Trump at this point. Think about what that implies, and they're no liberals.

      He's destroyed jobs and the middle/lower class in an effort to funnel yet more money to the small circle of his friends. Just take his campaign trail promise on coal. Even with solar panel tariffs destroying installer jobs coal has had no resurgence, as everyone but Trump expected. So now he wants to subsidize coal. Does he care about all the solar panel related jobs he's destroyed? Not a whit, but his coal stock owning buddies sure are happy. And the list goes on and on from there. Everything Trump does or supports either directly profits his business holdings or those of his close and supportive circle of family and friends. Anyone else benefitting is by mere happenstance.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    15. Re:Treason by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > So no our 'allies' did not send troops to Afghanistan for us or our interests

      Canadian soldiers were wounded and died in Afghanistan because our ally - The United States - Was attacked.

      We stood by our friend and military ally.

  2. Corporate Death Penalty? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why allow Wells Fargo to live?

    1. Re:Corporate Death Penalty? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Let's start by punishing the bad actors that we can. Build up a body of precedent. Then use that to go after other bad actors.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  3. Re:What a bunch of dumbfucks on both sides of the. by EndlessNameless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, that is wrong.

    If someone needs a phone and doesn't get it from ZTE, they will simply buy another brand. And since every phone has a SoC, the number of SoCs sold will remain about the same.

    There is no reason at all to support ZTE. They flout US laws, and there are many, many competitors who will be happy to make phones for us while following US law.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  4. Re:U.S. megalomania strikes again by EndlessNameless · · Score: 4, Informative

    They were filing bankruptcy in the wake of the initial sanctions. The problem is not only being shut out of their 2nd-largest market. Sanctions also prohibit US companies from selling to ZTE, which restricts their ability to acquire components.

    Maybe ZTE could survive, but that is far from certain. They have strong domestic competitors in Huawei and Xiaomi, and both of those companies enjoy full access to Western suppliers and markets.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  5. Re:hard to see this passing. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    America cant have this cake and eat it too.

    Yet, Trump, his administration and supporters believe they can (and deserve it).

    ... saddled with an illiterate profiteer as its head of state, and hes doing a rather poor job of keeping the curtain closed on who actually runs America.

    Trump said he would "drain the swamp." He *never* said he wouldn't fill it back up again.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  6. Re:hard to see this passing. by currently_awake · · Score: 2

    Given that the same people are still living in the swamp, i see no evidence of draining.

  7. Possible problem by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not opposed to this in principle, but isn't it technically a bill of attainer, which, for very good reasons, is unconstitutional?

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Possible problem by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. ZTE was already caught and determined to be guilty of making illegal sales to North Korea. Trump prevented the sanctions from being imposed, but that didn't make ZTE innocent. Congress is just trying to impose the punishment that was already decided.

    2. Re:Possible problem by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      I don't agree in this case, but I like your vigilance. Any bill that grants a pardon to an individual or company seems like it also should qualify as a Bill of Attainder. Here's why: Congress could get around the Bill of Attainder clause by passing a law that makes everyone a criminal, then passing a law exempting specific individuals. It would be the equivalent of a Bill of Attainder but circumventing the constitution.

      IMHO, the telecom neutrality bill was similar to this tactic. In this case, the government coerced companies into violating the law, then exempted them. In fairness, the government and those companies should have been prosecuted. They basically pardoned themselves and their accomplices.

  8. Re:hard to see this passing. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    Yup, agreed. [ I was being sarcastic. ]

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  9. That doesn't really reverse the decision. by sabbede · · Score: 2

    It just means that Trump has to certify that they are meeting the conditions of having the sanctions lifted. Like paying that billion dollar fine. The part about the Federal government not buying their products is good. I don't know why it hasn't been a rule for a long time and applied to just about everything. The government (at any level) shouldn't be buying anything from China. Nor should anything Chinese be part of our infrastructure. That's a pretty obvious security issue.

  10. Bill of Attainder by mysidia · · Score: 2

    What's this odd amendment crap? The Executive branch has the inherent authority to decide who to prosecute or whether to prosecute or not, But the Congress does not.

    An "amendment" to a bill, Or a law Naming a specific person or company such as ZTE and stating that person or company are guilty of a crime or misdeed and/or applying a punishment to a specific company or individual is called a Bill of Attainder, And it is an Unconstitutional action for Congress to try and pass an instrument such as this (US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.").

    Congress is specifically denied the ability to pass a law naming an Individual or Corporation (such as ZTE) and imposing a punishment ---- this authority is reserved to the courts and to the executive; Congress is specifically denied the authority to find anyone guilty of anything -- that's for other branches of government to handle. So I sure hope this gets challenged appropriately.