For Office Use Only Id Manufactured Structure: Fill & Download for Free

Well, because although Deng’s strategical thoughts were concentrated into one phrase called “韬光养晦”, what he said was much more than this. Otherwise, how could he be considered the core of CCP’s 2nd generation leader team?During the late 80’s and early 90’s when Eastern Europe changed dramatically and USSR collapsed, China was facing life-and-death matters regarding what to do and where to go.He developed short-term guidance to deal with specific incidents, which were “冷静观察、稳住阵脚、沉着应付”. They mean: to observe calmly, to hold our position firmly, to deal with them steadily.To answer the request of some countries and people asking China to “take over the flag”, Deng commented: “We shall never take the lead, it’s a basic national policy”. He also made a 3-forever comment right after saying the 1-never: “China will forever stand at the side of third-world countries, China will forever not seeking hegemony, China will forever not take the lead”. (Different grammar between Chinese and English, the 3 forevers are totally fine in Chinese content.)When we talk about “韬光养晦” which is what you described in your question, it’s only 1 out of the 4 words he said as one of his most critical strategical thoughts.The full version is “善于守拙, 绝不当头, 韬光养晦, 有所作为”.善于守拙: be good at protecting weaknesses.绝不当头: never take the lead.韬光养晦: to hide the shine and stay in place where it doesn’t catch attention.有所作为: to achieve something.Combining these, you would then see his true idea about what path he expected China to go in the next decades.Deng was never the president of China nor the general secretary of CCP. As the last elite of the 1st generation leaders, he was elected as the General Secretary of the Central Military Commission from 1982 to 1989.When he realized the President and GS of CCP were not capable after Tiananmen Incident, the Central Committee of CCP soon decided to promote Jiang Zemin to take over the responsibility of applying Deng’s guidance and to lead China.Jiang is probably the 2nd most hated Chinese leader after Mao Zedong, due to being strict when dealing with Falungong, the largest cult in PR China history.The main task for Jiang was to lead China through the tough international environment and try his best to develop China, which are mainly No. 1 and 3 of Deng’s guidance.He accomplished his task assigned by the party almost perfectly. During his term between 1989 and 2002, he had to face the 3 biggest insults since PR China was founded:1, The Yinhe Incident.<Yinhe> is the Chinese name for “galaxy”: it was a deep sea vessel. 7 July 1993, the <Yinhe> departed from Tianjin, going to the Middle East. It was estimated to arrive Dubai in 3 August, and then to keep going onward to Saudi and Kuwait.23 July, USA claimed they held solid evidence of Yinhe carrying ingredients for chemical weapons to Iran (yes, USA has been messing with Iran for decades). It then sent two military vessels and five helicopters to monitor the <Yinhe>.Before the <Yinhe> could arrive in the Persian Gulf, the USA stopped the <Yinhe> in international waters and demanded to board it for inspection, otherwise <Yinhe> must turn back. The <Yinhe> was detained by US military for three weeks till the crew ran out of food and water. Meanwhile, American politicians demanded that the Chinese government stop this export immediately, otherwise they’d sanction China.Besides demanding Chinese government, the US government also demanded every nation which <Yinhe> was scheduled to stop by to not allow <Yinhe> to berth.Since the Chinese government didn’t back down and allow the US military to inspect the vessel, the USA eventually agreed for the <Yinhe> to be inspected by a third-party, and allowed <Yinhe> to arrive at Saudi Arabia.28 August, US military personnel, led by Saudi authorities, began to inspect the <Yinhe>. At the beginning, they only checked several containers which they claimed containing chemical weapon ingredients, but found nothing. They then expanded the inspection range to dozens of containers, and still found nothing. Eventually they decided to open all 628 containers on the <Yinhe>, but still couldn't find what they claimed.After the inspection, the USA, Saudi Arabia, and China signed the inspection report that confirmed that there were no chemical weapon ingredients on the <Yinhe> . But later, the USA claimed that the <Yinhe> unloaded the target containers somewhere halfway or dumped them into the ocean. But this accusation wasn’t backed up by the military surveillance on the <Yinhe> .The vessel wasn’t able to go anywhere for 33 days, and it caused a huge loss to the ship line. China claimed the loss and asked for compensation, but never got a response.2, The embassy bombing.United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade - WikipediaThere is a Wikipedia page describing this, and it’s in English, so I’ll only briefly introduce the story we Chinese see:8 May 1999 Beijing Time, the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was bombed by a B2 with 3 JDAM, but luckily enough only two of them exploded. The one that penetrated the basement didn’t go off. Three journalists died due to the two explosions.China thought that it was an intentional move towards the Chinese embassy.NATO explained that it was a mistake due to an outdated map.The <Observer> thought that the bombing was deliberate because they thought that the Chinese embassy was a communication relay of Yugoslavia.In 2005, a NATO high-ranking officer said that NATO was convinced that the president of Yugoslavia was in the Chinese embassy, so it was a decapitation strike.This bombing caused massive protests in China against the USA.There was no clear explanation after all. I mean, who would believe the lame “outdated map” excuse?3, The South China Sea crash.1 April 2001, a US military EP-3 was scouting in the South China Sea region. PLAAF sent two J8II to monitor the activity.70 nautical miles southeast of Hainan province, within China’s exclusive economy zone, the EP-3 crashed with one of the J8II. The pilot Wang Wei was able to eject himself, but wasn’t found.The damaged EP-3 landed in Lingshui airport without authorization. But the American version is that EP-3 was crashed into by a lost control J8II and was led to the airport by the other J8II.2 April, President Bush had an emergency meeting to discuss this crash. Bush said that he was uncomfortable about China’s reaction, demanded to meet the EP-3 crew without interference, and demanded China return the plane.3 April, Jiang Zemin announced that the USA was fully responsible for this incident. Chinese military planes monitoring US planes on the Chinese coast was legitimate and fit international practice. The incident was due to a sudden turning and approaching of EP-3 that violated flight rules. US diplomats met the crew in Haikou and announced all 24 people were fine.4 April, Colin Luther Powell refused to apologize and expressed his sorrow for the missing pilot. The White House said that the turning point of this incident depended on China. The Chinese foreign minister called the US ambassador and asked the US not to misjudge.….9 April, Powell first says “sorry”.…12 April, 24 crew members flew back to USA.13 April, Bush said that US military will restore the scouting activity.20 April, the US negotiation representative passed a paper requesting China to return the EP-3.25 April, Bush said again that the US military will keep on scouting.7 June, an agreement was made regarding the transportation of EP-3.3 July, the EP-3 was loaded into a Russian plane and flew back.10 August, the US decided to pay 34 thousand USD as the service fee for 24 crew members.11 August, China refused to accept it.With three humiliation incidents within Jiang’s term, he maintained maximum self-control every time: to keep calm and maintain the economic development as Deng instructed.During the 90’s, China kept a very impressive growth rate.Then it was Hu Jintao who was elected as the new national leader and the core of the 4th generation CCP team. During his 10 years of duty, 2008 was the toughest:3 January, extremely cold air swept across 20 provinces in China. By 24 February, 129 were dead, 4 missing. 1.66 million people were relocated. Direct economic losses were more than 20 billion USD and directly raised the crop prices for the whole year.14 March, Tibet riot. 18 people were stabbed or burned to death, 382 injured. 300 arsons destroyed and damaged 908 stores, 7 schools, 120 civilian houses, and 5 hospitals. 84 vehicles burned.7 April, the torch of the Beijing Olympic Games was in France, and was being assaulted by Tibetan separatists.12 May, the Wenchuan earthquake. More than 100 thousand people died, and the center of the earthquake was 120km from my hometown. The damage was beyond imagination.August, the global economic crisis. Due to the tough international environment, starting from the third quarter, the growth rate of Chinese economy began to decline at an accelerated rate. October, the import and export growth started to slow down. November and December, many factories in Yangtze delta and Zhujiang delta closed down, and many workers had to return home earlier.2008 was estimated to be a turning point for China. Many tried their best to interrupt the Beijing Olympic Games before many foreigners could be able to watch the real China:By launching the 4 trillion plan, China managed to keep growing in 2008 and 2009 despite the crisis. In 2010, China’s GDP for the first time in modern history surpassed Japan.Just five years ago in 2005, a person with an online ID called <shinny saber> posted in a forum saying he predicted China’s GDP would surpass Japan in 2030. He got laughed at and insulted so hard. Barely anyone believed his words. Those who laughed at him determined that China’s GPD could never surpass Japan. Shinny Saber died in 2013, but he saw the day when China would prove them wrong.In just eight years, China managed to increase another 1.5x over Japan.The end of Hu Jintao’s terms was also the end of “韬光养晦”. China kept growing by relying on its enormous internal market. But to keep developing, China must seek external solutions. It must begin to “有所作为”.For all the years dealing with the west, Chinese understood something: one cannot reason with the West if one has no power to fight. The West fears and respects the strong ones, and bullies the weak ones if it’s beneficial.China used to speak with subtle words to hint to others about its intentions, but that turned out to be weak from Western perspective. Now China speaks much more directly and is now considered aggressive. Though as the spokesperson in Ministry of Defense once said: “they’ll get used to it if they hear it enough times”. Hence the different attitude of Xi Jinping.There is not much of the Chinese President’s personal will involved when talking about the overall attitude of China. The CCP has an internal democratic system that is able to come up with the best solution for everything, or at least tries to.Whatever Xi does must be the will of the core CCP team, including removal of the term limits of the Chinese president. Because real power resides within the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CCP and Central Military Commission, there have been no term limits for these two positions since the beginning.[Edit in 9 July, thanks to Thomas Edward]:Soon after Xi was elected as the national leader, during a visit of the CCP history exhibition, he brought up the idea of the Chinese Dream. The content of it is “实现中华民族伟大复兴 / to achieve the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”.There are two iconic plans that can represent his, or to be more accurate the CCP’s, thought about China’s future:The belt and road initiativeIt’s not globalization, but similar in some ways, only purely economical. The BRI is a smaller globalization that focuses on Eurasia and Africa, to connect the nations along the ancient silk roads both on land and the sea.China’s idea of “expanding its influence” and “gaining interest” is to spread its developing experience and to provide support in certain areas, such as infrastructure, manufacturing, etc. In order to promote and support BRI, China also established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.China’s idea of earning money is not a zero-sum game. If anything, it’s the opposite. China wants those under developed nation to be richer, so that they can afford better Chinese products.The richer a target market is, the better business China has, and in China we have a saying “要想富先修路 / build roads in advance if you want to be rich”. Some call this the neo-colonization, I call it win-win situation.Made in China 2025Compared to Made-in-China-2025, BRI is just an appetizer. This one really triggered some panic in the US.In March 2015, the Chinese premier Li Keqiang fully described the plan of “Made in China 2025” for the first time in the annual government work report.The frame of this plan is called “一二三四五五十” or “one two three four five five ten”. (It’s much more catchy in Chinese)One target: Transforming China from a large manufacturing power into an advanced manufacturing power.Two “-nization”s: To stimulate the development of manufacture industry by deeply fuse informationization and industrializationThree steps: Step one, China becoming an advanced manufacturing power in 2025. Step two, Chinese manufacturing industry in general being in the middle level among all advanced manufacturing powers in 2035. Step three, China being in the leading group of manufacturing powers when PRC is 100 years old, which is the year of 2049.Four principles:Market leads, government guides.Based on the present but look into the future.A comprehensive developing plan with focusing points as priorities.Develop on our own, and cooperate with others to achieve win-wins.Five policies and five major projects:5 policies: creation driven, quality as priority, green growth, structural optimization, and people oriented.5 projects: manufacturing creation center, industrial fundament, intelligent manufacturing, green manufacturing, and high-end equipment.Ten target sectors:China now has a bigger aim, big enough to challenge the white supremacy that lasted for several hundred years and to change the international political and economical structure. It’s not the problem of whether China is willing to challenge the global domination of USA:Imagine there were only one restaurant in your community, and it tastes OK but the service is sometimes irritating. Some day, another one opens which tastes equally OK, if not a bit better. The new restaurant did not need to trash the old restaurant just to promote itself. People would naturally congregate at the new one for many reasons, such as being closer or fitting the preferences of some people better. USA is the old restaurant, and it’s worrying. [Edit ends]China is still trying to keep a low profile in many cases. If you recall the recent international political and military conflicts, China wasn't in most of them, or at least was not the one holding the flag.But it’s a huge elephant already, and it cannot be hidden behind a tree anymore. Anything China does will be noticed.When the trade war came, China tried to solve it by promising to buy 300 billion USD worth of American products in the next few years to shorten the trade gap. But just as the USA did in the Tiananmen Incident, it got greedy again, wanting to eliminate China’s future once-and-for-all by asking China to abandon Made-in-China 2025 and instead adopt total privatization.One should be aware that China doesn’t become this big, in terms of both the land and economy, by being nice and harmless.In conclusion:China’s guiding thought hasn't been changed since the late 1980’s. The misunderstanding that China has changed its course is due to lack of understanding about what Deng really said.

Let me show you the true face of some Bollywood celebrities. I request you, if you read it, do read till the end.The interview starts with Javed AkhtarInterviewer: How bad actually is the situation in India today in your views in terms of rising nation*lism, big**ry, auth*ritarianism?Javed: Well if I look around in this world there are places which are much worse but the fact of the situation in India without looking outside, I can say was never so dark as it is today.Interviewer: and Mahesh but would you agree with that how much is the India that once touted its secular, pluralistic, multi-faith credentials India that you and Javed grew up in how much of that India is gone do you think?Mahesh: well it was called the mother of civilisations it was the land which gave birth to people like Nanak and the Mahatma Gandhi and the fact is that what Javed just said is that it couldn't have been worse and the night is only deepening we have had a ray of hope just a few days ago when the BJP got a drubbing but they lost the election - to Arvind Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party but that's just one little ray of hope.Interviewer: Mahesh, what you said in the past that f*sc*sm is quite alive and well in the land of the what would you say to critics who say that's hyperbole that's an exaggeration India as a democratic country Narendra Modi won his majority last year fair and square?Mahesh: Well I would say that they conveniently look away from that expl*sive silence that the Mu**ims of this of my country and not only the Mu**ims even the other min*rities have never felt more insecure they feel now. If they choose to turn their face away from this naked truth it's their privilege but they do India a lot of harm when people are frightened to speak, but people worry about what's going to happen next to this palpable anxiety in the air and if they do not want to see is their tragedy they will have to take stock of the situation and act with urgency.Interviewer: Javed after Mahesh Bhatt mentioned Mu**ims and other minorities and the fear that they have just in the past year alone since Modi's re-election we've had the citizenship law which for the first time introduces a religi*n test for immigrants for refugees from neighbouring countries everyone except Mu**ims eligible you have a registry of citizens in Assam which is excluded nearly 2 million people many of the Mu**ims from the citizenship list you have the Supreme Court decision which allows for the building of a H*ndu temple on a disputed religi*us site the site of a m*sque that was d*stroyed by H*ndu nationals all of that in just in the past year is it fair to say that Mu**ims in India now feel like they're in the firing line.Javed: as a matter of fact as long as we will consider it a Mu**im problem, a problem of a minority we will not be able to understand it this is the problem of India and this is the problem of Indians you think Mu**ims can be a stepping stone to reach the platform where some people want to reach but they are not there and they can be the means the fact is that this threat or this silence that may he was talking about is not only a Mu**im I mean it says the majority community also these people are intimidated the fact is that when you look around we see that who stays for detention it's shrinking by the day today it is hardly any channel TV channel in India that openly criticizes the present regime it was not for six years back.Interviewer: indeed so let me bring in much but here the reality is as you well know that the BJP and RSS the ideological force behind the BJP the p*ramilitary group that forms a lot of the ideological backbone of the BJP has been very a*ti-Mu**im for many decades now and when you look at what's happening in, for example, Kashmir which was India's only Mu**im majority state before the government went along and basically br*ke it up a few months ago and has put it under siege. You can understand why Mu**ims in India, and around the world are looking at India and saying what is going on here in terms of Isl*moph*bia a*ti-Mu**im, big*try, anti-Mu**im h*te especially when you look at for example the situation in Kashmir?Mahesh: well I think Isl*moph*bia the radiance of Isl*m would be a blue to the world after 9 (forward slash) 11 and I think the ph*bia here is manufactured because I don't think that the average Indian is so frightened of a Mu**im I mean that kind of fear has been crafted been structured day in and day out media person go out there the pliable channels are working around the clock to create the other they need the other two to stay in power and to h*te the Mu**im is the lifeline of the BJP let's not mince our words there is an institutional bias which has been there since the dawn of time I mean ever since the birth of the nation but now it is n*ked the mask is off and they are doing it right in their nose.Interviewer: and Javed Akhtar, Mahesh Bhatt says the mask is off Narendra Modi won a second term he's escalated his I don't know what you want to call it a campaign of dominance or auth*ritarianism of consolidation of power for his party and for his movement what's interesting about Modi is many people here in the United States where I am for example like to compare Modi and Trump, Trump doesn't actually believe anything Modi is a lifelong ideologue he's been in the RSS since he was a child how danger*us a leader do you think Narendra Modi is?Javed: that's not simplified anything if you'd like believing that Hitl*r only hat*d J*ws otherwise everything was hunky-dory he was every appearance of G*rmany and he whatever he did he did only against J*ws otherwise he was so good to everybody else it's not true the fact remains that what is the fashion you create an en*my you put your own people in an imaginary seat and that is how you control them at the moment if through all this effort people are losing their civil rights people are losing their fr**dom of expr*ssion or confidence at least to express themselves it is not happening to one community it is not happening to one people.Interviewer: Do you believe that Narendra Modi is a f*sc*st?Javed: Of course, he is I mean they just don't have h*rns on their heads. f*sc*st are thinking and this thinking, that we are better than others and whatever problems we have it is because of these people. The moment you hit people in wholesale you are a f*sc*st.Interviewer: let me ask you this when it comes to Modi and Bollywood and I don't want to talk about your industry, you have Bollywood stars congratulating the Prime Minister on his re-election on Twitter you have that famous selfie that got so much coverage of a bunch of Bollywood actors including your daughter Aalia, the acclaimed actress I believe that they took with Modi you have the industry's top stars the Khans and others completely silent on the citizenship bill on Kashm*r on the attacks on students are you disappointed in some of your fellow artists that they haven't taken the kind of stand that you have?Mahesh: well I can't put myself up as a mortal and ask them to emulate me, who gives me that right. But fear is a political tool which has been used in the dawn of time and we are in the business of entertain that and mass entertainment content is consumed there in the cinema halls which become very vuln*rable during release time and these guys have the foot soldiers there to play hammer with people whom they don't like so individually an actor or an actress may want to take a stand and be very vocal but then there's a collective interest of the tribe which is voiced around him or her that look it affects the entire unit and attire the project that accrues riding on it so I think that is they feel very vulnerable but the expl*sive silence speaks for itself that these people are frightened to speak their minds even if they feel completely different to what they are posturing aptly privately.Interviewer: Javed Akhtar is pretty indisputable isn't it the Bollywood with a few notable exceptions is now basically team Modi?Javed: No, I'm not gonna say that but the fact to me is -there are so many voices are missing. But the fact is that it is the proof this is society is scared, do all these people agree with him or agree with the philosophy that he is recommending or his id*ology or they agree with whatever the party is doing? Do they think l*nch*ng is wonderful it should happen more often? Do they really think that no and if they don't think that then why are they not saying it there's a question?Interviewer: what's your answer is it fear? Is it purely fear its fear purely fear? Fear of losing their careers or fear of a worse than that fear of phys*cal h*rm?Javed: because all those people I know them personally and I know what they feel.Interviewer: And you’re disappointed by that, that they seem to be a hypocrite?Javed: No, you see you can't arrest people to become archer.Interviewer: Javed after the government hosted a dinner for Bollywood stars recently to explain why the citizenship Amendment Act this controversial act is a good thing presumably so they could have these Bollywood stars-actors influencers/messengers. You were invited and you didn't go but a lot of people did go, how do you push back against that?Javed: Those who are publicly and actively supporting the present regime only they were there.Interviewer: So, you have hope that there are still enough people on your side to kind of resist government propaganda as it were?Javed: No, I don't think about that you see besides that film industry is a minuscule part of the society it's in Bollywood. First of all, its influence is highly exaggerated theatres, cinemas influence is highly limited. No country can claim that a revolution or a great social change came into that society because of a film if we'd have happened please let me know.Interviewer: Mahesh, you're one of India's best-known directors you directed something like fifty films you're a household name do you agree with Javed after there that the role of Bollywood is exaggerated I mean right now in India you have a bunch of very hyper nat*onal*st*c movies being made very movies about the Indian military about the Indian nation a lot of people say the Bollywood is producing movies which only boost the BJP message?Mahesh: what Javed Saab is saying that if movies and both could change nations, this nation would have become a paradise by now. Try to be somebody's arrival of the scene there are innumerable was made we talked about coexistence and the floor energy that we're gonna fire today but yes they do contribute to creating an illusion that the major the steam is flowing in on their side and that's what their limited purpose is but on the ground I think there are other most serious things which ultimately decide the which particular party will rule us and filmmakers of actors actresses filmmakers have a very limited role to play in creating the atmospherics.Javed: yeah, I agree that recently films after films have come, they have been given a saffron version of a tree. Some of them did well the box office, some of them failed. So again, the criteria were not whether they are giving a saffron version or they were not but there the fact is I must accept at this point that they recently there have been quite a few films that had the saffron version the right-w*ng version.Interviewer: Given that you're saying that the film industry is producing films that seem to boost the right-wing version of what India should look like given you're both saying that some of your colleagues in the industry are afraid to speak out given you both are saying that this government right now in India the world's largest democracy is f*sc*st what hope do you have for the future is there hope for India.Mahesh: well man lives in hope and dies in hope and we saw the little way of a few days ago in Delhi I don't think that as long as it in the DNA of India there is plurality and I don't think that you can reduce a nation as diverse as this to one narrative if you try to impose just one narrative on this nation, it will revolt and I don't think any political party can do that in the long run.Javed: I have an unshakeable belief in Indian common sense I believe that Indian even in Indian who is not educated who is not sophisticated in modern terms is not a fool, he's a sensible person even sensible people sometimes it's free up to a point but then they know that now they are going off the cliff they come back and this is also passing faith as a matter of fact it is important because we are doing it these times otherwise you turn the pages of a book of history by mistake you turn to pages you skip 200 years so these 10 years 15 years are not the end of the world this too shall pass.ENDAccording to me what they spoke in the interview is again*t the constituti*n of India (mainly the highlighted ones):Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian constituti*n imposes certain r*strict*ons on free speech under following heads:I. s*curity of the State,II. friendly relations with foreign StatesIII. publ*c ord*r,IV. dec*ncy and mor*lity,V. cont*mpt of c*urt,VI. defam*ti*n,VII. incit*m*nt to an off*nce, andVIII. sov*re*gnty and int*grity of India.I don’t know what to say after such a negative image of my country and my government was portrayed on an international media channel.Please share your views about this interview and these celebrities.Thanks for reading.Source:

PrologueFirst, let me start off by saying that I agree with Benedict Evans that 5G as a technology isn’t all that earth-shattering. It’s really just a continuation of a well-established trend: fatter and fatter data pipes. Imagine being able to take your home Wi-Fi everywhere and that pretty much describes 5G.Getting excited about 5G, or talking about amazing new applications it enables, is pretty much like getting excited about a new version of DSL or DOCSIS.— Benedict Evans (@benedictevans) March 14, 2018This is not to say that 5G is not important, or diminish the work done by hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists and other wireless industry professionals around the world … or that it won’t catalyze the development of a host of cool new applications bearing all of the latest buzzwords and acronyms.It’s just more that I find the underlying economic and geopolitical story far more interesting and meaningful. Sort of like the 2006 film Babel starring Brad Pitt, it is a multiple-storyline epic featuring two main protagonists that lead completely separate lives for the first four acts while gradually converging … until the climactic moment when their paths smash into each other.As the curtains open on Act V, we find the two protagonists having finally taken the stage at the same time. And while we can make some guesses as to how things unfold from here, the reality is that the story is still being written.The implications are enormous and bigger than the wireless industry itself. Indeed, this is perhaps the most important area to pay attention to in today’s increasingly tech-driven geopolitical arena.But we are getting ahead of ourselves; to fully appreciate the saga we need to start at the very beginning … where we find ourselves on a deserted Hamptons beach at the break of dawn, sometime in the mid-80s …Act I“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way — in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”Opening paragraph to A Tale of Two Cities by Charles DickensI remember the iconic scene[1] in 1987 film Wall Street when Gordon Gekko officially brings Bud Fox, an ambitious young broker, “inside” the curtain. It is a critical scene in the movie, made even more dramatic by use of what was then a novel piece of modern technology — the cellular phone. Gekko delivers the coup de grâce to the young broker by expounding — in real-time on that phone — on the beauty and awe of the sunrise from his beachfront palace as a metaphor for a new world of hitherto unimaginable wealth that he was about to enter.The first cellular phones were analog radio devices that would connect to a local tower that oversaw a fixed area, or “cell”, on a dedicated frequency. The radio-frequency (RF) technology was pretty much the same as that powering walkie-talkies — the trick there was figuring out how to connect the walkie-talkie to the circuit-switched phone network.Call capacity was limited because there are only so many slices of frequency into which you could divide spectrum before you run into quality issues. As a result, early cellphones and their related service plans were extremely expensive and generally limited to wealthy moguls like the fictional Gordon Gekko.But while Gekko extolled the “virtues” of unmitigated greed, scientists and engineers were working on the next generation of wireless standards, and trying to solve the fundamental problem of how to cram more channels into the same allotment of limited spectrum. It is essentially the same problem that they continue to try to improve on today.At the time, there were two competing methods on how to do this. The first was something called time-division multiple access (TDMA)[2]. With TDMA, you could have multiple users share the same frequency by dividing the signal into fixed time slots that were assigned to each active user.The second method was code-division multiple access (CDMA).As with TDMA, the goal of CDMA was to permit multiple users from sharing the same slice of frequency but instead of having fixed, assigned time slots to differentiate between users, CDMA used unique codes to identify each user (hence the name). These codes could switch and hop across multiple channels, making it more flexible than TDMA.From a technology perspective, CDMA was better because it was more scalable especially as the world became more digital and less analog over time. But as we saw in the battle between VHS and Betamax[3], sometimes it is not just about technological superiority.Act IIThe race was on between the two competing standards.Western European countries latched onto the TDMA method and a generally open, collaborative approach, releasing Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM)[4] in 1991.The world’s first GSM call was made by Finnish Prime Minister Harri Holkeri on July 1st, 1991 and commercially deployed at the end of the year on a network built by German conglomerate Siemens and a then-relatively unknown conglomerate subsidiary called Telenokia. It would later drop the prefix, adopt the name of its conglomerate parent and become widely known simply as “Nokia”.Helsinki, Finland (Photo: Paasitorni)The competing CDMA method was not entirely novel — it had been pioneered as early as the 1930s by scientists from the Soviet Union. Interestingly, wireless phones based on the CDMA method were used in Moscow as early as 1963. However, it wasn’t until a former electrical engineering professor from MIT named Irwin Jacobs latched onto the technology that it found mainstream, commercial applications.In 1985, Jacobs launched Qualcomm — which stood for “Quality Communications” — based in the Southern California paradise of San Diego. The new company was initially focused on mobile satellite communications and because satellite bandwidth was so expensive and precious, there was an intense focus on bandwidth efficiency, which is what had led Jacobs to CDMA.The company went public in September 1991, raising $68 million to fund its CDMA research and later an additional $486 million to help commercialize a CDMA-based ecosystem. Qualcomm was perhaps the highest flier in the high-flyin’ 90s, ending the decade with its stock price increasing around 180x from its IPO price eight years earlier.Knowing nothing else but Qualcomm’s stock chart in the 1990s, one could have reasonably concluded that CDMA and its superior technology had won.But that was not to be, at least here in Act II.One issue for Qualcomm and its CDMA-based “cdmaOne” standard was that GSM had gotten a big head start.The “cdmaOne” standard was not adopted as a standard until 1995[5] at which point GSM networks in Western Europe and the United States had already reached 10 million active subscribers. By the time cdmaOne networks were deployed at scale, GSM networks had already reached over 100 million active subscribers.The other issue is that for voice, the technical advantages of CDMA were not that significant. TDMA did a fine job of transmitting voice and capacity constraints could be alleviated by adding additional wireless radios or reducing the size of each cell, especially if those radios could be purchased at affordable rates.Taking a more open, collaborative approach, GSM had also incorporated certain features such as a standard ID schema that allowed cellphones to be used across multiple networks by simply switching out the SIM card — which was much more important in Europe with its multiple country networks vs. the United States where people tended to travel internationally far less frequently.Ultimately, GSM won decisively by achieving scale and driving down cost. Because GSM networks were first to market, equipment manufacturers were able to deploy networks more quickly and inexpensively. Because GSM operators reached scale, handset manufacturers designed handsets around GSM standards. Because GSM was developed with a more open, collaborative approach, its technology licensing fees were lower. And because costs were lower, active subscribers tended to go with GSM networks vs. cdmaOne when given a choice.In September 2001, shortly after 9/11[6], I moved out to Hong Kong, which had deployed a GSM network.I was amazed at how much cheaper and better my cellphone service was compared to the United States. It was incredibly convenient to be able to simply switch out a small SIM card and start using your phone on another network. I loved my Nokia 8310 handset[7]. And I still distinctly remember how one annoying thing about work trips to South Korea — one of the few markets that had chosen CDMA over GSM — was having to use a clunky loaner Sanyo handset that didn’t have my address book or Snake[8].My Nokia 8310 handset (circa December 2003)GSM and Nokia had won the 2G war. CDMA-based technology was expensive and clunky and few people wanted it. By the early 2000s, Nokia was a giant, one of the world’s most valuable companies, at one point accounting for 21% of Finland’s exports and 70% of the Helsinki stock exchange market capitalization.But we were really just getting warmed up.Act IIILong before Apple unlocked “Smartphones” on the Technology Research Tree in 2007[9], wireless industry executives had suspected that data and not voice was going to be the long-term future of wireless. Fresh off the release of GSM in 1991, the various industry groups that set wireless standards had already begun trying to figure out how to transmit data at high speeds over the airwaves.Most had already known that GSM’s TDMA approach — perfectly adequate for voice communications — was just not going to cut it for data. While data could be transmitted over GSM networks, the transmission rate was capped at speeds reminiscent of the early days of dial-up modems. As nostalgic as I was for the halcyon days of the mid–90s, it was just not practical for anything outside of short-form messaging (i.e. SMS/texting).As wireless industry executives tried to find solutions for this technical issue, every path seemed to lead back to San Diego.San Diego, California (Photo: PV Magazine)It’s not enough to just have a good idea — you need to execute.While wireless operators worked 24/7 to deploy mostly GSM mobile networks around the world in response to the surge in active subscriber growth, Qualcomm was busy executing … and betting its future on CDMA. It too worked round-the-clock — frankly, an amazing accomplishment considering San Diego’s gorgeous year-round weather — to solve fundamental issues related to implementing wireless networks using the CDMA approach.Its main approach was to patent specific methods on how to perform various functions that were important in enabling wireless communication. For example, US Patent No. 5,280,472[10], issued on January 18, 1994, called for a “CDMA communication system in which cellular techniques are utilized in a distributed antenna system environment”. This particular one would cover instances where wireless signals need to be split up and re-routed and amplified within large buildings that remote tower-generated wireless signals would have difficulty penetrating.This was just one of an estimated 16,000 patents filed by Qualcomm over the years[11], of which at least 6,000 are related to wireless. In addition to building its IP portfolio, Qualcomm took a lead role in fostering eco-system development, including at various points producing handsets, network equipment and designing RF chips and chipsets.Photo: Gizmodo: Qualcomm's Amazing Wall of PatentsAs various 3G standards — represented by confusing acronyms like UMTS, W-CDMA, TD-SCDMA, CDMA2000 — emerged and were implemented, it became abundantly clear that CDMA was the common technology tying all of them together. With such a large patent portfolio around this method, it also became clear that Qualcomm was going to be collecting a recurring, steadily increasing stream of royalty payments for the foreseeable future.As 4G standards (LTE) rolled around in the mid- to late-2000s, cementing data as the key focus of the wireless industry, Qualcomm emerged as the dominant toll collector in one of the largest and most strategic industries on the planet.Act IV — Part I:For most of the first three acts, China is a mere after-thought, a minor character that is largely relegated to watching the main action from backstage:While Gordon Gekko was recruiting Bud Fox into his insider trading cabal, China was figuring out how to motivate its farmers to really put their backs into it so the nation could avoid teetering so close to the edge of starvation.While Nokia was busy deploying early GSM networks in Western Europe, China was figuring out how to dismantle its centrally planned industry without uprooting the lives of urban workers to the point where they would pour out into the streets by the millions like they did that fateful spring of 1989.While Qualcomm’s scientists were patenting thousands of wireless patents, China was figuring out how to open its doors so it could actually start trading the things that it had in abundance — e.g. inexpensive labor — for the things that it lacked, like wireless technology.In 1987, Ren Zhengfei — a former mid-level officer in the People's Liberation Army engineering division — founded Huawei in Shenzhen, the city bordering Hong Kong which was at the front lines of China’s economic reform program. At this point, China was 100%-reliant on foreign telecom equipment for its landline industry and most major international telecom equipment companies had established a presence in the country on the promise of tapping into China’s billion-person market.Shenzhen in the late 80s / early 90s (Photo: Shenzhen Municipal Government)At first, Huawei focused on re-selling imported telephone switches and fire alarms from Hong Kong. But for whatever reason, its founders decided very early on that the company should develop its own technology in-house vs. the “easier” path taken by others like Shanghai Bell to form a joint venture with multinationals to access foreign technology via transfers. Ren believed that “foreign companies were unlikely to transfer their cutting-edge technology and that Huawei would be better served by performing its own R&D”[12].Starting from a technology base of virtually nil, Huawei nonetheless prioritized R&D from its early stages. As a private company (vs. state-owned enterprise), Huawei suffered from lack of access to capital and was forced to borrow at extremely high rates in the early years. Despite these challenges, by 1993 Huawei had released its first significant in-house developed product — an electronic switch that could handle 10,000 lines, unprecedented for a domestic company at the time. It was a mature product and comprised almost entirely of foreign components but it was still quite impressive for the six-year old company.Huawei C&C08 Circuit Switch (Photo: DIY Trade, Shenzhen Huaxinzhihe Technology Co.)One of its strategies was to focus on market segments that were ignored by foreign technology suppliers. For example, international telecom companies preferred to focus on the rapidly growing urban centers while ignoring the poor, rural areas. Seeing this, Huawei adapted foreign technology to deal with “frontier market” issues — problems such as unreliable power grids and rats that like to gnaw on cables. Its business practices were “controversial” and by international standards probably textbook “corrupt” but in China at this time, function prevailed over form.Huawei began to separate itself from its domestic peers. By 1996, less than a decade after founding, it had secured its first international customer, selling circuit switches to Li Ka-shing’s telephone company in Hong Kong. By 2002, Huawei had overtaken Shanghai Bell, the largest Chinese-international JV at the time. Around this time it began expanding into adjacent markets like Internet and data communications, which was dominated by companies like Cisco.February 5th, 2003 marked the day that the name “Huawei” was formally introduced to the American lexicon (outside of a small group of telecom industry insiders). This was the day that Cisco sued Huawei’s American subsidiaries for copying code from its routers[13]. It marked the first major instance where a Chinese technology company had brushed up against an American one — not to mention the beginning of what I can only describe as a “lengthy and systematic effort by Americans to devise ever-increasingly creative and sophisticated ways to butcher the pronunciation of its name”.The suit was settled in 2004 but the damage had already been done. By this time, Huawei had captured one-third of China’s enterprise market and has never looked back.By the mid-2000s, Huawei was pushing hard into developing markets with an increasingly sophisticated array of products and services for both landline and wireless communications. Like its foray into China’s rural markets in the early 1990s, Huawei adapted mature products for developing countries facing problems that China had dealt with the prior decade such as non-existent or unreliable power grids and inexperienced technical staff.An example from one of my early Quora answers[14] was a low-power base station that could run on solar power, targeted at African countries that lacked reliable power infrastructure. In another early answer[15], I also discuss the important role the China Development Bank played in helping Huawei expand into overseas markets.RuralStar Base Station (Photo: Huawei)By 2011, Huawei had overtaken Ericsson as the largest telecom equipment supplier in the world with approximately $33 billion in revenue and industry-leading profit margins.It was around this time that Huawei had started aggressively pushing into consumer electronics[16] as well, piggybacking on the smartphone revolution and its now massive R&D operation to vault into the Top 10 of smartphone OEMs. By 2017, Huawei was pushing $100 billion in revenue, largely driven by growth in its consumer devices division which was now challenging Samsung for the top spot in smartphone market share (by unit volume). Today, the company has around 180,000 employees worldwide with 80,000 of them involved in R&D[17].Act IV — Part II:While Huawei was pushing forward at breakneck speed (even compared to the rapidly evolving Chinese economy), China’s state-owned telecom operators were plodding along slowly, trying their best just to keep up with the rapid and accelerating march of communications technology.Prior to 1994, the state held a monopoly on the provision of telecommunications services through the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications and its operational arm, China Telecom. In 1994, to kick off reforms, the first competitor was established (China Unicom) and in the following years, there would be a series of reforms as Chinese policymakers tried to mold these former government ministries into modern corporations.It was around this time that Qualcomm had first reached out to China. Although the Chinese government had already selected GSM for commercial use in 1994 — attracted by lower cost and ease-of-deployment — Qualcomm set up a partnership with the People’s Liberation Army (kind of crazy when you look back and think about it) to use its CDMA technology for military communications. However, in 1998, Chinese President Jiang Zemin “shocked the world” when he announced[18] that the PLA would no longer be allowed to engage in civilian activities, swiftly killing off the joint venture plans.The Chinese government was initially hesitant to partner with Qualcomm until they would address three priority issues:It wanted to be able to deploy phones that could work on both GSM and CDMA networksIt did not want to pay the royalty fees or structure that Qualcomm was demanding for its CDMA technologyIt wanted access to the design of Qualcomm’s CDMA chipsetHowever, as detailed excellently by MacroPolo[19], in the backdrop of late-90s negotiations to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO), Chinese policymakers decided to drop most of these demands and, under pressure from the US government, agreed to allow Qualcomm and its CDMA technology into the Chinese market. This decision would prove very costly in later years but for now, China was more focused on WTO accession.Source: MacroPolo: From Windfalls to Pitfalls: Qualcomm’s China Conundrum - MacroPoloFollowing this decision, over the next decade Qualcomm’s revenue in the Chinese market grew from zero to nearly $2.5 billion and came to represent almost one-fifth of the company’s revenue. And this was just the beginning — as China began to commercially deploy 3G networks in 2008, this number was set to explode even higher.Source: Company Filings via Capital IQIn the most recent fiscal year (12 months ending September 30, 2018), Qualcomm’s revenue from China had increased to over $14 billion and represented over two-thirds of its revenue stream.A large part of this revenue stream, especially in the earlier years, was paid by foreign smartphone OEMs like Apple[20] but as Chinese smartphone OEMs (incl. Huawei) took market share in China and around the world, they began to realize how much Qualcomm was making off its intellectual property — because they were now the ones paying these royalty fees in increasing amounts.But just as Americans are about to break out the champagne and “USA! USA!!” chants, the latest missive from the Debbie Downer-in-Chief[21] himself flashes across our feed …We are not in a trade war with China, that war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S. Now we have a Trade Deficit of $500 Billion a year, with Intellectual Property Theft of another $300 Billion. We cannot let this continue!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 4, 2018Somewhere between China’s reputation as the world’s most rapacious “intellectual property thief” and the tens of billions of dollars per year it pays to international technology companies like Qualcomm … lies reality.Act V is where we are going to find out what that reality is.Act VOn November 8th, 2016, Donald Trump pulled off a surprise win over Hillary Clinton in the United States presidential election. Eight days later, a far less publicized political battle was taking place, this time over a topic that only a handful of people in the world really understand at a deep, technical level.Remember the industry groups that we met in Acts I to III that played such a critical role in choosing and setting wireless standards?Well, they are still around and playing just as critical a role. Depending on which technologies are incorporated, the respective IP holders may be richly rewarded, just as Qualcomm had for the better part of the last three decades.On November 16th, 2016, members of this standards body, 3GPP[22], met in Nevada to decide whether something called “polar coding” would be incorporated into official 5G canon. It was up against an alternative approach called “low-density parity check”. Intense debate ensued over which one was better.To a casual observer, the debate of “polar coding” vs. “low-density parity check” may have appeared to be a Nerd Fight of Epic Proportions but behind all of the computer science and technical jargon was something much deeper — what it was really about was control over the next-generation of communications technologies.As you may have guessed, this is where the paths of Huawei and Qualcomm finally began to converge.You see, China was getting weary from paying tens of billions of dollars every year in licensing and royalty fees for technology invented 15–20 years ago at a time when they did not have the capability or resources to even have a seat at the standards-setting table. While they had been late to the standards-setting game for even 4G/LTE standards, the country’s leaders had committed to making sure that this would not be the case with 5G. And Huawei was the main horse that they were betting on.As Huawei had grown through the years, it had continuously re-invested this growth back into R&D. By 2017[23], close to RMB90 billion ($13.8 billion) per year, out-spending Qualcomm by two and a half times in absolute terms (i.e. before adjusting for the approximately 3x[24] difference in wages between Shenzhen and San Diego).In doing so, it had quietly built up its very own patent wall:One of these patents was around the aforementioned “polar coding” method while Qualcomm held patents around the competing “low-density parity check” method. During the 3GPP debate, Western companies largely backed Qualcomm’s method while Asian manufacturers favored Huawei’s. In the end, both were accepted into as viable alternatives in the 5G standards book and each side moved on to battle over other (likely even nerdier) topics.While accumulating the most patents is still an important part of the game (as we saw in Act III with 3G), commercialization is an equally important consideration (as we saw in Act II with 2G).And on this front, China is racing ahead. Not only is it already the world’s largest wireless market by far, with 10x the number of base stations as the United States (and 40% of global sites[25]), its wireless operators are already well into the roll-out schedule and plan to be fully commercialized (for “standalone” or “full” 5G; see Note i) by the end of 2020[26][27]:The 3GPP debate in Nevada presaged the fault lines that we are now beginning to see, not only for 5G but other technologies as well. The elections of President Trump and the rise of other right-wing political parties in Western European countries has only increased the politicization trend.On April 16th, 2018, ZTE, the second-largest Chinese communications equipment supplier after Huawei, was hit by the U.S. Department of Commerce with an export ban[28]. The ban would prevent it from accessing critical components provided by U.S. suppliers (e.g. optical chips) and force it to re-design its equipment. It was a crippling blow to the company and while later reversed, was one of the first clear signs of this increased politicization.Then, just a few weeks ago on December 1st, 2018, Sabrina Meng, CFO of Huawei and daughter of its founder, was arrested in Canada at the request of the U.S. government in what was viewed by most as a politically motivated escalation. President Trump essentially confirmed it several days later[29].And that pretty much brings us to the present.The key protagonists, Huawei and Qualcomm stand together on stage, surrounded by a host of supporting cast members. The crowd watches with rapt attention, eagerly awaiting the next twist in the story …EpilogueAs I sit here and write in the last few days of 2018, it is quite clear that we are still very much in the middle of Act V — and it looks like there will be plenty of more excitement and fireworks to come.I also must admit that I am not 100% sure how Act V and the “race for dominance” will ultimately play out between Qualcomm and Huawei, not to mention all of the other actors on stage.As you saw through the first four acts, there were many twists and turns along the way, with new characters entering the space and old ones fading away with each successive generation of wireless standards. Add to that the increasing politicization of technology and the oft-times capricious nature of geopolitics and my crystal ball is quite foggy at the moment.But I do think understanding how we got to this point is very important if we want to think about the possible future scenarios and where we go from here — and that is why I took you through this fairly expansive review of the history of wireless.That said, I do want to leave you with some final thoughts on the topic:The emergence of Huawei as a major IP holder will inevitably cut into Qualcomm’s wireless market dominance and position as the favored toll collector.Opening quote to Act I notwithstanding, this is actually not just a Tale of Two Companies; it is also about existing players like Ericsson, Nokia and Apple that have long chafed at Qualcomm’s licensing fees and dominant market position[30].As I wrote in a recent answer[31], Qualcomm collects upwards of $30–40 on each iPhone that was sold — on top of any chips it provides — due to its “double-dipping” licensing structure. For 5G, Qualcomm announced that it would charge “up to $16.25” in royalties for every phone — much lower, an indication of lower negotiating leverage.The battle between commercialization vs. technology will be another area to watch.I do not know enough of the technical minutiae — stuff like “polar coding” vs. “low-density parity check” — to fully assess but my gut tells me that the differences between Huawei’s approach and the one supported by Qualcomm may not be that material and certainly not like the difference between TDMA and CDMA during the 2G and 3G mobile standards wars.We cannot rule out the possibility (as unlikely as it may seem at this point) that Qualcomm and Huawei end up collaborating or working together out of pure self-interest (an “if ya can’t beat him, join ‘em” type situation).The likelihood of global wireless standards bifurcating into different camps seems to be increasing, although it is far from inevitable at this point.If this happens, there are two clear camps — China and the “Five Eyes” Anglophone group. If you throw the European Union and Japan into the Anglophone group (let’s call it the “U.S. Alliance”), you are talking about a combined population of around 1 billion (that is significantly wealthier on a per capita basis) compared to 1.4 billion in China — all things considered, fairly balanced.But we cannot forget about the other 5 billion+ people out there — and places like Southeast Asia, India and Africa are where the front lines of the battle for technology dominance will take place.From the perspective of these 5 billion plus, the entrance of Huawei into the fray is seen as a positive development, insofar as providing them with another option and greater leverage to negotiate on fees.This bifurcation trend may also play out in other areas of technology, not just wireless standards.Semiconductors are another strategic (and related) industry. Chips are how you take the IP from the patents and convert into real-world use cases. They are critical components in network equipment, as ZTE was reminded in April 2018.The U.S. Alliance dominates the semiconductor industry, especially upstream (i.e. semi capital equipment). Certain specialty equipment like extreme UV lithography[32] is dominated by European like ASML and Japanese players like Canon/Nikon and can be easily controlled through measures like export bans over “dual-use” technology.However downstream production is dominated by Asian manufacturers, notably Taiwanese and South Korean foundries. Moreover, the consumer electronics supply chain is deeply entrenched in China and the East Asia region.So it is very complicated, and this is what makes predicting how the various points of negotiating leverage play out so hard.National security concerns are very valid. But I think they can be addressed without forcing others to have to split into camps that are non-interoperable. That would be a shame for everyone.Finally, the one thing that I do know for sure is that we’ve come a long way since the days of Gordon Gekko and his massive brick of a cellular phone.Explanatory Note[Note i] There is a bit of confusion out there as to what constitutes “5G”. Part of the reason is that there are essentially two different levels of 5G implementation:The first is something called “non-standalone” which means augmenting the existing 4G network with 5G hardware that will focus on ultra-high-bandwidth data services.The second is called “standalone” which means everything can go on the 5G network.It is somewhat analogous to the difference between a plug-in hybrid vehicle like the Chevy Bolt and an electric-only vehicle like Tesla.Roll-outs for “non-standalone” 5G implementation are happening in 2019–2020 throughout most of the world — for example, Verizon announced that “5G services” would begin in 2019[33]. However, China is planning a particularly aggressive roll-out schedule for “standalone” 5G compared to every other country with scale deployments in 2020.Whether or not this is the right strategy remains an open question.Footnotes[1] Wall Street (1987) - Wake up call (Drop it)[2] Time-division multiple access - Wikipedia[3] Videotape format war - Wikipedia[4] GSM - Wikipedia[5] cdmaOne - Wikipedia[6] Glenn Luk's answer to Are there any survivors of 9/11 on Quora?[7] Glenn Luk's answer to Why is the smartphone industry dominated by the U.S. and East Asian nations (e.g. Japan, South Korea and China)?[8] Nokia 8310, giocando a Snake II / playing Snake II[9] Glenn Luk's answer to Will China become an innovator?[10] CDMA microcellular telephone system and distributed antenna system therefor[11] Which Are the Most Valuable Patents in Qualcomm Patent Portfolio? - GreyB[12] https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/130215_competitiveness_Huawei_casestudy_Web.pdf[13] https://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/Cisco_Mot_for_PI.pdf[14] Glenn Luk's answer to Is there an indigenous Chinese product that is the best in the world?[15] Glenn Luk's answer to How does China finance its development projects in Africa and South America?[16] INTERVIEW - Huawei makes aggressive push in consumer devices[17] Caring for Employees - Huawei Sustainability[18] 1998年江泽民宣布“军队不再经商” 震惊世界[19] From Windfalls to Pitfalls: Qualcomm’s China Conundrum - MacroPolo[20] Glenn Luk's answer to Where does the money I pay for an iPhone go?[21] Debbie Downer - Wikipedia[22] 3GPP - Wikipedia[23] https://www-file.huawei.com/-/media/corporate/pdf/annual-report/annual_report2017_en.pdf[24] Cost of Living Comparison Between[25] Blog: How many global base stations are there anyway?[26] Subscribe to read | Financial Times[27] China Mobile Confirms Aggressive 5G Standalone Plan | Light Reading[28] Secretary Ross Announces Activation of ZTE Denial Order in Response to Repeated False Statements to the U.S. Government[29] Trump says he would intervene in Huawei case to help secure China trade deal[30] Apple is still selling iPhones in China despite being ordered not to[31] Glenn Luk's answer to Where does the money I pay for an iPhone go?[32] Extreme ultraviolet lithography - Wikipedia[33] Verizon’s first 5G hotspot will launch in 2019