PerspectiveStandards Bodies Are Under Friendly Fire in the War on Huawei
In My 2019 the Trump administration placed Huawei on the Commerce Department’s “Entity List” because “there is reasonable cause to believe that Huawei has been involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.” But the decision has had unintended consequences: Because Huawei participates in international standards development organizations (SDOs) which set technical standards development worldwide, the Commerce Department’s decision has created uncertainty regarding whether and how engineers working for U.S. companies can participate in those organizations as well. But if U.S. companies do not participate in SDOs, then U.S. companies’ preferences and priorities will be overlooked, while China’s sway will only grow. Ari Schwartz argues that the United States can pursue its national security concerns with companies like Huawei via the Entity List without the need to silence American voices in vital standards development efforts.
On 14 April, six Republican senators wrote a letter voicing concern over guidance from the Trump administration that restrains U.S. technology companies from participating in international standards-setting efforts. The guidance in question dates back to May 2019, when the U.S. Department of Commerce wrote that “[t]he U.S. Government has determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that Huawei has been involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.” Ari Schwartz writes in Lawfare that as a result, the Commerce Department put Huawei and many of its subsidiaries on the “Entity List”—effectively banning those companies from receiving U.S. technology without an export license. The national security threat posed by Huawei is real. But the Entity List notice and an accompanying advisory opinion issued by the Department of Commerce have resulted in an unintended—an entirely avoidable—consequence.
He adds:
Because Huawei—and other entities identified by the Commerce Department—participates in organizations involved in technical standards development worldwide, the department has created uncertainty regarding whether and how engineers working for U.S. companies can participate in those organizations as well. New clarifying guidance must be issued to enable American companies to effectively engage in international standards-setting efforts and avoid further harm to the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. economy.
Schwartz writes that not allowing American companies and engineers participate in the deliberations of standards developments organizations (SDOs) because Huawei takes part in the deliberations is a mistake,
When it comes to developing new technologies, SDOs are the lifeblood of innovation and growth. They ensure that an idea can be used on an international scale, and lead to greater advancements and developments in various industries. The Bureau of Industry and Security’s current guidance limits the ability of U.S. companies to contribute to and develop standards for technologies that will shape the future of our world. This approach could put the United States’s technological advantage at risk and could decrease the likelihood that U.S. companies’ preferences will be incorporated in international standards. The threat addressed by the Entity List is a serious one—technology transfers to adversarial nations that represent a national security threat. However, in pursuit of this goal, the U.S. government should ensure that U.S. companies are able to engage with the SDOs where industry leaders define the next wave of technology.
Schwartz argues that the United States can pursue its national security concerns with companies like Huawei via the Entity List without the need to silence American voices in vital standards development efforts. “The potential negative consequences of the current status quo are too great to ignore. We cannot allow U.S. competitiveness to suffer while we protect our nation’s infrastructure. If we do, we will entirely cede the ability to out-innovate to China.”
