The Coming 5G, Huawei, Spying And Control Of Networks Operating 'Devices Of Tomorrow'

U.S. Deal with China Saves Huawei, Threatens America

by Gordon G. Chang

• This is the worst possible time in what is called the "cold tech war" to give relief to Huawei. Huawei is vulnerable to American measures for only a short period, so this is the time for the Trump administration to exert leverage.
  
  
• [W]hen it comes to harm, we haven't seen anything yet. Beijing will undoubtedly use Huawei to control the networks operating the devices of tomorrow, remotely manipulating everything hooked up to the Internet of Things -- in other words, just about everything.
  
  
• So far, the U.S. has had little success in persuading other countries not to buy low-cost (subsidized) Huawei equipment for their 5G networks (the fifth generation of wireless communication). The Philippines, a treaty partner of the United States, has decided to buy 5G Huawei gear, and Italy, another ally, is almost certainly going to make the same decision soon.
  
  
• The Trump administration, by crippling Huawei, can make up for the failure to convince other countries to shun its equipment... Huawei cannot market its phones without Google's Android operating system.... Outside China, Huawei's phones would be commercially unmarketable because they would not be able to connect to the Google Play Store.
  
  
• So, if the Trump administration is going to move against Huawei as a national security threat, it has to do so now. Beijing is now stalling, hoping to buy time for Huawei.
  
  

American and Chinese trade negotiators, meeting Tuesday and Wednesday in Shanghai, are cooking up an interim deal that is deeply injurious to U.S. national security.

There is growing pessimism that Washington and Beijing can reach a comprehensive agreement, given the fundamental differences over, among other things, industrial policy, intellectual property protection, and restrictions on foreign investment.

Nonetheless, this would be a fundamentally bad deal for America because it would help Huawei, the world's largest networking-equipment manufacturer and second-largest smartphone maker. The company, an across-the-board bad actor, undermines vital U.S. national security interests.

How so? Think of two words: stealing and spying.

Since just about the moment it was formed in 1987, Huawei has been implicated in stealing technology, from Cisco Systems and others. The theft was so pervasive that Huawei drove out foreign competition, killing off, most notably, Canada's Nortel Networks.

Then there is spying. China's spy agencies have used the company's servers, incorporated in networks around the world, to surreptitiously take data. Beijing, for instance, from 2012 to 2017, nightly downloaded information from the headquarters of the African Union.

Spying will become even more damaging when Beijing powers its artificial intelligence systems with data filched from around the planet through backdoors embedded in Huawei equipment. China's National Intelligence Law, enacted in 2017, actually requires Chinese parties like Huawei to spy if requested by a relevant Chinese authority.

Furthermore, when it comes to harm, we haven't seen anything yet. Beijing will undoubtedly use Huawei to control the networks operating the devices of tomorrow, remotely manipulating everything hooked up to the Internet of Things -- in other words, just about everything.

So far, the U.S. has had little success in persuading other countries not to buy low-cost (subsidized) Huawei equipment for their 5G networks (the fifth generation of wireless communication). The Philippines, a treaty partner of the United States, has decided to buy 5G Huawei gear, and Italy, another ally, is almost certainly going to make the same decision soon.

So, if the Trump administration is going to move against Huawei as a national security threat, it has to do so now. Beijing is now stalling, hoping to buy time for Huawei.

There is also something fundamentally wrong with the interim deal reported by the Wall Street Journal. That arrangement boosts America's sale of primary products, a badge of a basic economy, at the cost of ceding high-tech leadership. As Weichert added, "Beijing wants nothing more than for America's national trade profile to resemble that of a developing Third World economy, like Argentina's or Brazil's."

BDS Movement: What's The Point?

Always -- and Especially Now -- the Jews!

Bill Murchison

The topic, superficially, is the international campaign to delegitimize Israel: the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which last week the U.S. House -- Nancy Pelosi's House -- slammed and condemned by an overwhelming margin.

There might not have been a House vote at all but for the sudden hullabaloo, duly encouraged by the president, over the way-out politics of the four female House members known as "the Squad." Two of the Squad's members are Muslim; none of the four has anything complimentary to say about Israel. House leaders, at this fraught moment, found it necessary -- or at the very least, useful -- to come out against BDS and its suspicious odor of anti-Semitism.

Boycotting Israel, selling off shares in companies that trade with Israel, applying economic or political sanctions to Israel -- what's the point here?

Superficially, to reintroduce the word, the point is to kick the Israelis out of the West Bank, grant Palestinians full citizenship rights in Israel itself and welcome back all who claim to have been dispossessed of their homes and land by the formation of Israel in 1948 -- all of which, duly enacted, would finish off Israel as a nation. In the name of what? Justice? Fairness? The healing of open sores and wounds?

That would the rhetorical side of it, the noise to cover the real agenda -- which, as seems obvious and painful, is to give the West, and its ancient civilization, a swift kick in the pants.

The world (much of it) is impatient to be rid of the West, with its ideals of reason, tolerance, liberty under law and, not least, supernatural religion of the sort that binds together all the foregoing principles. Get rid of the West and, one fine day, we can go back to stomping on each other with no God watching or caring -- certainly not intervening.

The boycott-divestment campaign has about it, yes, the taint of anti-Semitism, meaning hatred of or contempt for Jews. But what is the meaning of that hatred, that contempt? 

It seems more than discrete hatred of a discrete people. It resembles the wish to be rid of the God they serve. Secular Judaism -- indifferent, if not hostile, to the Law and the Prophets -- is hard to get one's arms around. It cannot, in any case, conceal, hard as secular Jews may try, the history of the people God led into the Promised Land under Abraham and then delivered from bondage in Egypt under Moses.

The foundation stones of Greece, Rome and, yes -- forever -- ancient Israel bear the impressive weight of the beliefs and customs and practices we know as Western. From the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob proceed our earliest lessons in the blessings of justice, mercy, honor and human dignity. Not to wish the Jews to prosper -- even such Jews as fail to understand their Jewishness -- is to wish the West no good.

Which, by the way, is the root problem here. Too many Western spokesmen for Enlightened Opinion sympathize strongly with the West's critics and foes. They don't awaken without feeling guilty for our culture's imputed sins: racism, sexism, colonialism, you name it. We're awful! We ought, apparently, to turn over the business of modern life to nations that wouldn't know the Ten Commandments from a grocery list, far less the Lord's Prayer or the Eucharistic canon.

Thus, the Jews -- and secondarily, the Christians -- catch it in the neck as representatives of selfishness and oppression -- servants of a dated deity with marginal connection to modern life. We really up-to-date folks, with our "woke" consciences -- we don't want the idea going any further that burning bushes and desert prophets have relevance to human challenges of the sort foretold by Genesis. Aren't we our own religion; our own prophets; our own, in a sense, gods?

The Jews won't ever make it with those who prefer Facebook's outlook to the Torah's. At least for now, they've still got their country.

Deal Or No-Deal Brexit?

Deal or No-Deal, Brexit Dooms the Euro

Tom Luongo

Deal or No-Deal, when it comes to Brexit, the euro is toast. Markets, however, believe the fantasy of its survival. As we approach the end of July the euro clings to support at $1.11, mere pips away from a technical breakdown.

That breakdown will trigger a wave of asset liquidation and another round of negative headlines emanating from troubled German banks.

With 10 Downing St. now saying No-Deal is acceptable, the hard line negotiating tactics of the European Union have hit a rocky shore.

Because it looks like Boris Johnson is ready to give as good as he gets.

I’ve been saying this for a long time. The EU is not a tough nut to crack. They have no leverage in these Brexit negotiations. 

What they had was a stacked deck of British officials negotiating with Brussels on Brussels’ terms.

It’s not a negotiation if both sides agree on terms. It’s a surrender. 

The only negotiation that went on during May’s administration was with the British people on accepting the horrific treaty written by German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff and rubber-stamped by May.

Today Britain looks different, at least on the surface. The market is punishing them for entertaining No-Deal. 

The pound is falling out of bed today below $1.24 because Johnson looks serious about re-opening negotiations or opting for No-Deal.

But here’s the thing. The eurozone is facing a recession. I‘ve talked about Germany’s freefalling economy before. It’s not getting any better. And it won’t if a no-deal Brexit occurs.

So the forex markets are offside today. Way offside. 

Johnson came out and bypassed the Withdrawal Treaty completely saying let’s just move to Stage 2 of Brexit, the free-trade agreement. 

You never would have heard that under Theresa May.

That’s why the pound is getting crushed today. At some point, however, that move will get overdone. The EUR/GBP pair is way overbought and was looking toppy before Monday’s massacre in the pound.

What’s clear, however, is that in the short term, the pound will be allowed to collapse to assist the ‘Remain’ case. As the media focuses on the pound falling it neglects the pound is now more attractive to U.S. investors.

It’s making Trump’s offer of a free-trade deal more attractive to wobbly Tory MP’s.

The pound has been over-valued for years thanks to being slaved to the euro-zone. President Trump knows this and this is why he backs Brexit as well as both Johnson and Nigel Farage.

Nigel Farage Offers Boris Johnson A Chance To Work Together To "Smash Labour"

Mike Shedlock 

Nigel Farage wants to help Boris Johnson deliver Brexit. Boris should accept the offer gratefully.

In a Telegraph Op-Ed Nigel Farage says Boris, the country is crying out for leadership - but with my party's help, we can resolve Brexit.

The European elections were a sobering experience for the Tories. Their support fell to only 10 per cent of the vote and I already know of several large-scale Tory donors who switched to the Brexit Party overnight. Arguably, the Conservatives’ future is already in doubt. Suddenly, it is ‘do-or-die’ not just for Brexit, but for the Conservative Party as well.

Mr Johnson should realize that he is going to have to risk his longed-for position as PM to ensure Brexit is enacted properly. There is no prospect of a meaningful Brexit thanks to the views of most sitting MPs. And any attempt to prorogue Parliament will lead to the PM being brought down by his own side. The inescapable truth, therefore, is that he must hold an Autumn general election. That is his only way out. Doing so will take enormous courage. Inevitably, it will trigger a split in the Conservative Party. But the country is crying out for leadership and a resolution to the Brexit crisis.

Even on Brexit, he was very late to the cause. He will have a lot of convincing to do to persuade us that an early election will lead to a clean-break Brexit on 31 October.

If he is able to convince us, then together we would electorally smash the Labour Party, he would assume a big working majority, and he would go down as one of the great leaders in British history. All this is possible, but is Boris Johnson brave enough?

El-Erian: Game Theory Backs Boris Johnson's Hard Line

Mohamed El-Erian

In his maiden speech as prime minister on Wednesday, Boris Johnson repeated that the U.K. will “come out of the European Union on October 31st, no ifs or buts.”

Some may view this position as irresponsible -- either for prematurely tying the country’s hands in what are likely to be tricky negotiations with the EU or for forcing Johnson to break a very public and oft-repeated promise less than 100 days after assuming office. Yet, in the game theory framework I set out last December to explain why the approach of his predecessor Theresa May risked getting stuck in the muddle-middle, Johnson’s approach may offer both the EU and the U.K. a way out of an impasse that is harming both sides.

Unable to unite her Conservative Party, let alone secure a majority in Parliament, May ended up not having the political clout to shift negotiations with the EU out of a “no-war, no-peace” battle of attrition. As such, it was virtually inevitable that that the U.K. would end up forced to negotiate a series of deadline extensions with its European partners. The EU, for its part, was unable to impose an orderly Brexit on the U.K., let alone a return to the status quo ante (“remain”). Neither was it willing to force a hard Brexit.

By having run on a less ambiguous Brexit platform, and by having been elected leader of his party by an overwhelming majority, Johnson has put down a clear come-what-may marker for the EU. If he can also convey a sense of parliamentary unity behind his position, he should be able to force the EU into compromise -- that is, the EU agreeing to a multi-stage process that combines a formal Brexit on Oct. 31 with various transitional agreements to minimize the risks of a disorderly exit process.

While he is better placed than his predecessor, Johnson’s all-or-nothing approach is far from obstacle-free. Indeed, we need only look back at how last spring’s European Parliament elections -- which neither side wished to contest while negotiations remained paralyzed -- failed to force resolution. Also, the British Parliament remains divided, as does the nation.

US Envoy Greenblatt: Iran Is The Core Conflict In The Region

'Iran is the core conflict in the region'

US envoy Jason Greenblatt: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the core conflict in the region. Iran is.

Jason Greenblatt, the US Special Representative for International Negotiations, told Fox News in an interview that Iran is the biggest threat to the Middle East and the core conflict in the region is no longer the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

“Iran is the core conflict in the region. I’m not sure the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ever was the core conflict in the region. It certainly is not the core conflict of the region now, and the President is working hard to figure out how to protect everybody from Iran – our allies in the region, not just Israel [but also] Saudi Arabia and the Emirates,” he said.

“The Palestinians are just as under threat from Iran as everybody else,” Greenblatt pointed out. “In fact, I would argue it’s probably Iran’s worst nightmare for success on this Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Greenblatt’s comments come amid escalating tensions between the US and Iran.

Last week, Iran test fired of a Shehab-3 medium-range ballistic missile last week. A US official told Fox News said the missile flew more than 600 miles from the southern part of the country to an area outside the capital, Tehran.

An Iranian official later insisted that his country’s ballistic missiles are defensive, and not offensive, in nature.

Other incidents in past weeks have threatened security in the Strait, through which one-fifth of all globally traded crude oil passes. Most prominently, Iranian forces shot down a US surveillance drone of the Strait of Hormuz last month, claiming it had violated Iranian airspace.

Last week, President Donald Trump said that a US ship "destroyed" an Iranian drone – a claim denied by Iran.

Massive Radiation Leak Traced To Russian Research Facility

Massive Radiation Leak Dwarfing Fukushima Traced To Russian Research Facility

A massive, unexplained cloud of radiation that swept across Europe in 2017 has been traced to one of Russia's largest nuclear facilities, according to NewScientist. 

Located between the Volga river and the Ural mountains, the leak coming from the Mayak nuclear development facility released up to 100 times the amount of radiation into the atmosphere as the Fukushima disaster. 

Italian scientists were the first to raise the alarm on 2 October, when they noticed a burst of the radioactive ruthenium-106 in the atmosphere. This was quickly corroborated by other monitoring laboratories across Europe.

Georg Steinhauser at Leibniz University Hannover in Germany says he was “stunned” when he first noticed the event. Routine surveillance detects several radiation leaks each year, mostly of extremely low levels of radionuclides used in medicine. But this event was different.

“The ruthenium-106 was one of a kind. We had never measured anything like this before,” says Steinhauser. -NewScientist

After the radioactivity was detected, the Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Security in Paris soon concluded that the most likely source of the leak was the Mayak facility - something Russian officials denied at the time, instead suggesting that the source may have been emissions from a radionuclide satellite battery burning up during re-entry. 

The team which tracked down the source of the emission ruled out a satellite because no space organizations reported missing any at the time, and the pattern of radiation in the atmosphere didn't match that of a satellite's reentry. 

The report claims that despite being so much higher than the Fukushima release, the radiation level in the Mayak incident wasn't high enough to impact human health. 

After further investigation of 1300 measurements from hundreds of monitoring stations across Europe, Steinhauser and colleagues found that radiation levels were "between 30 and 100 times higher than those measured after Fukushima." 

The leak was unusual because the release was limited to radioactive ruthenium. “If there is a reactor accident, one would expect the release of radioactive isotopes of many different elements,” says Steinhauser. Exactly why such a specific element was released remained a mystery until Steinhauser learned that an Italian nuclear research facility had ordered a consignment of cerium-144 from Mayak before the incident. “There are several indications that the release of ruthenium-106 was linked to this order,” he says. -NewScientist

"This was indeed quite alarming," said Steinhauser.