In Order To Limit Lenovo, the US, UK and Australia Abuse Security Standards

At a time when efforts are being put into anti-dumping and issues with international subsidiaries, friction arises in the security sector. According to Australian media, the U.K., Australia and other countries’ intelligence organizations have stopped using Lenovo PCs.

Actually this really isn’t news, just a public announcement of a known secret. For a long time now, a new interest in economics has been advancing information technology enterprises at a rapid rate. China’s competitive power has allowed it to surpass some developed countries’ similar enterprises. According to international practice and WTO standards, developed countries can implement measures to appropriately protect their enterprises, but currently more than a couple countries abuse this standard, using “security” as an excuse to build trade barriers and an argument for these measures lacking in fairness and persuasiveness. Due to the existence of these “security barriers,” Lenovo, along with other Chinese electronic companies, have not been able to enter important English-speaking countries’ markets because of regulations set by their respective governments.

Restrictions on Chinese enterprises by the U.K. and U.S. have not made a lasting impression on the Chinese market; the potential negative impact on Lenovo is not excessive. Lenovo has already become the largest PC manufacturer in the world and is working to expand more overseas. Lenovo’s lack of product specialization, spread of bad publicity and resulting discussions about it, as well as foreign restrictions on Lenovo products, are obstacles that cannot be taken lightly. Furthermore, China faces obstacles in more than just the PC industry. In 2012, the U.S., for no reason, announced that products made by Huawei and Zhongxing were threats to U.S. security. The announcement was made at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, where soon after they destroyed equipment made by these manufacturers.

Not to mention, in recent years the unfair treatment of Chinese companies by the U.S. and other countries has become more obvious. On one hand they defend free trade principles, while on the other they keep formulating regulations to prohibit the use of Chinese products. At the beginning of this year the U.S. Congress passed the “Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013,” which included limits on various U.S. government departments’ purchase of information technology systems made by Chinese companies, so as to prevent the U.S. from issuing export permits of commercial satellites to China. This causes many obstacles for Huawei, Zhongxing and other Chinese companies and violates the WTO’s “Government’s Purchase Contract.” Although this contract allows its members to protect local companies by issuing restrictions on foreign competitors, it can only be issued at the instance of a definite threat to the security of those local companies. However, the U.S. has invoked this law to restrict all Chinese companies, an obvious violation of WTO discrimination and fairness principles.

Ever since the financial crisis, the U.S. has often used “national security” as an excuse to set restrictions on Chinese technology companies, inhibiting U.S.-China trade relations and creating a bad example for other industries and countries. American technological superiority is obvious, but Chinese tech products are now being made in facilities where work conditions are regulated. However, the core of technology standards are set by the U.S. and other developed countries. The United States’ accusation that China is threatening U.S. information security is obviously not in the public’s best interest. Only Americans use scandals and gossip as sufficient evidence to prove threats to national security. Other countries will sooner or later have equal production capabilities as the U.S. At present, its own domestic communications products, systems and services could be a threat to its own national security.

Economics can be used to establish new relations between countries. Working together is the basis for a profitable relationship, whereas falling into a trade wars can create possible inestimable losses for both countries. These last few years the U.S. has surpassed China in electronics manufacturing, communications, photovoltaic cell production and other areas — but the competitiveness of Chinese companies is by no means declining, while the U.S. has made no major leap forward in these areas. In the international technology market, the division of labor between the U.S. and China should be complementary and work reasonably together, so as to benefit both countries.