Why is Lenovo OK, but not Huawei? – 为什么联想行而华为不行? – English

100%
14 paragraph translated (14 in total)
Read or translate in

You are viewing an old revision of this post, from November 20, 2014 @ 11:52:23. See below for differences between this version and the current revision.

Recently, news of Lenovo’s big expansionary efforts has been constant, with purchases of IBM’s low end server business and Google’s Motorola cell phone business costing over 5 billion USD. Of course, these two acquisitions require US government review, however it is expected that the company will pass with little trouble.

Lenovo’s impressive purchases in the US and Huawei’s bitter experience in the US market form a stark contrast. Huawei has also tried to make purchases in the US, all of which it ultimately had no choice but to abandon due to US government obstruction, so much so that one acquisition worth only a few million US dollars also sunk like a stone because of US government rejection. Forgetting acquisitions, later, telecommunications and Internet products simply produced by Huawei were also prohibited by the US from entering the American market for reasons concerning national security.

Back when Lenovo was aquiring IBM’s computers, in fact it too encountered the great uproar over the so called threat to US national security, such that even after successful acquisition there were still people who were strongly opposed to American government departments purchasing Lenovo PC computers, believing they were a security threat. As Lenovo has walked its path over the years, this kind of racket seems to have lessened a lot, to the point that today, Lenovo is able to purchase relatively smoothly from IBM and Google.

No matter if one looks at Lenovo and Huawei from a scale perspective or form their degree of internationalisation, there is no doubt they are standouts in China’s information industry today. The two companies have also both suffered accusations of threatening American national security while in the American market, however their circumstances in America today are already vastly different. One has unlimited prospects, and one has had the door shut in its face and has even encountered attacks that have chased them outside the American market. I am afraid that everyone will have the question,why is Lenovo OK, while Huawei is not?

Perhaps some will say that Lenovo’s communication abilities are strong while Huawei’s are weak, and so that is why Lenovois able to enter the American market. This point, I am afraid, is not precisely correct. Although Huawei is relatively low-key and unwilling to be in the media limelight, this certainly doesn’t mean that Huawei is stiff and inflexible. Huawei in its early years was called a ‘wild wolf’,both fierece and agile. In terms of its communication with America, the time and energy spend by Huawei has been more than that of Lenovo’s, for example in spending money to hire America lobby companies to conduct lobbying.

Also, with respect to the notion that Huawei is ‘not open’, the Vice Chairman of Huawei, Hu Houkun, once wrote an open letter calling on the American government to open a formal investigation into Huawei. Huawei has also repeatedly requested for so-called “evidence” to be brought into light, and also has openly and transparently cooperated with intelligence committees. Yet, in the end Congress’ reports only speak of threat – far from providing clear information or evidence to confirm its legality.

Another perspective is that Huawei’s boss, Ren Zhengfei was formerly an officer in the People’s Liberation Army and that American politicians and security officials are expressing concern over the military background of Huawei’s founder. In truth, this reason was extremely surprising to me as I never thought America would think up such an unsophisticated reason in order to prevent Huawei’s entry. Because there are many CEOs and Chairmans of American corporations who come from the military, do we also connect these companies with the American military and worry about that companies’ products will threaten China’s security? Another point that I would also like to make is that Lenovo’s founder, Liu Chuanzhi, was also once a member of the PLA, yet Americans basically haven’t raise this point. This in itself shows the ridiculousness of America’s reasons.

Huawei and Lenovo’s radically different experiences in America very obviously are not market issues. Those who defend America by trying to find reasons from the market side, undoubtedly are wasting their energy or are强词夺理。Then what on earth is the reason? 前一段时间,Turkey wanted to purchase an anti-aircraft defense system and, through a tender, chose China’s system, causing America and NATO to be extremely unhappy and exert pressure on Turkey to give up its China purchase. What does this 遭遇 of China’s mean? It means that America and NATO felt threatened and under the influence of precisely this fear did America attempt in all ways to pressure Turkey to give up purchases of Chinese guided missiles and anit-aircraft systems. Huawei 华为遭遇全球范围的美国围剿和联想在美国市场的顺风顺水,the real reason lies in that America has felt the threat of Huawei, but does believe at all that Lenovo has any threat to itself.

联想和华为无论从规模,国际化程度还是影响力上看,无疑是今天中国信息产业的翘楚,两家公司在美国市场,也都曾遭受威胁美国国家安全的指控,但今天在美国的境遇已经大不一样了,一个风光无限,一个被拒之门外,甚至在美国市场之外也遭遇美国围剿。恐怕大家都会有疑问,为什么联想行而华为不行呢?

也许有人会说,联想的沟通能力强,华为的弱,所以联想可以进入美国市场。这一点恐怕不确切。华为公司虽然比较低调,不太愿意在媒体上风光,这并不表明华为是呆板的。早年的华为被人称为土狼,是既凶狠又灵活的。在与美国的沟通上,华为下的功夫比联想大的多,比如花钱聘请美国的游说公司进行游说,比如针对华为“不开放”的说法,华为副董事长胡厚昆曾经写过一篇公开信,呼吁美国政府对华为展开正式调查,华为也多次要求亮明所谓的“证据”,华为也曾开放透明地与情报委员会进行了合作,但是最终国会的报告只说威胁,并没有提供清晰的信息或证据来证实其合法性。

还有一种说法,华为的老总任正非曾经是一名解放军军官,美国的政客和安全官员就表示对华为创始人军方背景的担忧。说实话,这个理由让我非常的惊讶,没想到美国为了阻 止华为的进入搞出这么低级的理由,因为美国企业的CEO和董事长们军人出身的多了,是不是我们也把这些公司和美国军方联系起来,担心这些公司的产品会威胁中国的安全呢?另外还要说的一点是,联想的创始人柳传志也曾是解放军的一员,但是美国人基本上不提这一点,这本身就说明美国的理由的荒谬性。

华为和联想在美国的截然不同的遭遇,很显然不是市场问题,那些为美国辩护的人试图从市场方面找到理由,无疑是白费力气或者强词夺理。那么到底是什么原因呢?前一段时间,土耳其要购置防空系统,经过竞标,选中了中国的系统,引发了美国和北约的极大不满,力压土耳其放弃对中国的采购。中国的这一遭遇说明了什么?说明美国和北约感受到了威胁,正是在恐惧的作用下,美国才会想法设法的压迫土耳其放弃对中国导弹和防空系统的采购。华为遭遇全球范围的美国围剿和联想在美国市场的顺风顺水,真正的原因在于美国感受到了华为的威胁,但并不认为联想对自己有什么威胁。

在今天的世界舆论中,对于中国的评价是很大不同的,有的认为中国将超越美国,成为世界的领导者,也有人认为中国不过是另一个日本,短暂的辉煌后急转直下。当年的美国为了对付日本,也是采取了很多遏制的政策,比如逼迫日本签署广场协议,比如逼迫日本开放本国市场等等。但是美国经济发展之所以最后战胜日本,主要在于两个原因,一个是美国资本家找到了新的经济增长点,完成了新的一轮产业升级,这就是美国引领了以计算机、通讯和网络为代表的信息产业大发展,今天我们耳熟能详的硅谷就是其中的杰出代表。我们知道,资本主义就是要不断寻找和培养新的大量的消费需求,才能保证自己的生命力,多年来一次次的新的工业革命,不断创造了新的市场需求,才让资本主义有了今天的局面。美国的信息产业发展,无疑是资本主义又一次的自我更新,而在这一次的自我更新中,日本落在了美国的后面,这是日本与美国竞争失败的主要原因。日本竞争失败的另一个原因在于在面对广场协议等新的形势下,应对错误,搞起了泡沫,最后自己把自己玩残了。我听说一个段子,据说上世纪八十年代日本泡沫经济最盛的时候,日本皇宫闲置的几亩土地,价值就超过整个加拿大土地的价值,而当时仅日本东京土地的价值,就超过整个美国土地的价值。我不知道这些段子的真伪,但是可以说明日本当年的泡沫大的实在是疯狂了,而泡沫吹得越大,破的时候损失就越大。正是由于美国的信息技术革命创造了新的市场,日本人的自我毁灭这两个原因,造成了日本与美国竞争的失败。但是这一切与联想和华为在美国的遭遇有什么关系呢?

我们知道,今天的日本的制造业还是很高端的,质量还是很好的,只是在新的产业升级方面落后美国了,美国并不害怕今天的日本。而联想今天的追求,其实还是今天的日本的模式,在生产上追求“精工”的路子,它的工业设计可能很优良,他的生产可能精益求精,即使是今天的丰田的管理,也仍然是全世界汽车行业的学习榜样,但产品是老产品,虽屡有创新但创新不大,所以它并不威胁美国的核心产业。无论是从IBM的两次收购还是从Google的收购,都是这两家公司的包袱和外围产品,IBM的核心是软件和服务,硬件制造是IBM当年的主打,今天属于它要淘汰的,而谷歌的核心是网络搜索和软件,收购摩托罗拉本身就是错误,今天出售也算是专注核心。收购这些美国IT公司的低端业务,恐怕是不会让美国感到威胁的。应该说的是,今天的中国制造大多数也和联想一样的,它的追求是日本式的“精工”产品。所以,联想在美国的遭遇是可以理解的。

华为与联想的不同它的确威胁到了美国的信息产业的核心竞争力。华为的快速发展,对研发技术的投入等等让美国思科公司感到了威胁。思科不是一般的公司,它是美国信息产业的核心公司,曾经有人把微软、英特尔和思科并列,组成“Wintelco”一词,表示这三家对美国信息产业的重要性。应该说,今天的中国还没有出现能够威胁到微软的软件公司,同时,IBM和英特尔这样的公司,也没有把中国的联想当做威胁。而思科公司却承认,华为是他的竞争对手,当年在美国政府还没有出面对付华为的时候,这也说明美国政府当时还不认为华为是个威胁,思科看出了华为在网络设备上的潜力,未雨绸缪,抢先对华为提出诉讼,想把华为提前赶出美国市场,但这并没有阻止华为前进的脚步。经过这些年的发展,华为已经成为世界范围内的通讯设备公司中的巨无霸,像其他的跨国公司一样,华为的产品链还在不断地延伸,这就让美国感受到了威胁。美国对华为痛下杀手,就是要拔除这个威胁,而“安全”不过是冠冕堂皇的理由。

美国对于日本当年的威胁是有深刻记忆的,在当时,美国还有完成信息技术产业的升级之前,在制造业与日本拼斗产品的“精工”,屡战屡败,还是非常痛苦的,红火的日本在美国购买地产和电影公司,让美国哀鸿一片。华裔美国公民陈果仁因被美国汽车工人当成日本人而被活活打死,英特尔公司被日本公司逼得被迫转型,才开启了后来的辉煌。惨痛的教训,使很多美国人信奉一句话叫唯有偏执狂才能生存,就是要时刻警惕,消灭威胁,把威胁消灭在萌芽中,思科起诉还没成气候的华为是如此,今天美国政府围剿华为也是如此。欲加之罪,何患无辞,什么任正非当做解放军之类的小儿科理由都堂而皇之的拿出来。

中国日后在经济规模上是否能超越美国,按照现在的发展趋势,不过是早晚的事。但是中国是否和当年的日本走同样的路,这取决于中国和美国两个方面的情况变化。应该说,日本当年的势头以及媒体上鼓噪的比今天的中国还厉害,所以我们并不能确定我们一定能够超越美国,但这要看美国是否能像当年一样大力发展信息产业那样找到新的重大市场需求。可能美国是想发展金融产业,通过虚拟经济之类的高高在上,攫取全世界的财富,很多像陈志武这样的经济学家也是对此推崇备至,但2008年的金融危机给了美国当头一棒,很多被舆论鼓吹宣传为不得了的金融“创新”,反而成了危机的导火线。在其他的一些新的需求方面,美国的发展还有很多问题,比如生物技术方面,如果能够解决癌症、糖尿病等疾患,必定会有大的发展,可是现在还看不到希望。在环保低碳方面,发展中国家并不买账,他们希望以免费或者低价获取这方面的技术,而美国等西方国家一方面强调低碳刻不容缓,一方面又希望通过这个产业赚大钱,在道德方面说不过去。所以,美国经济要持续领先中国是有困难得,因为现在还看不出它能够进行新的产业升级转换。

中国要想经济规模超越美国,进而逐渐在整体实力上超越美国,首先不能像日本那样自己的应对出现大的问题,面对美国的遏制,要能正确的应对。其次,中国不是日本,日本在“失去的二十年”中,保持了社会的稳定,人们的忍耐、乐观和奋斗的精神还是保持了下来,这一点,华为的任正非在他写的《北国之春》里,也是赞叹不已的。而中国却有可能在经济高速增长的状况下,发生类似现在出现在乌克兰和埃及的局面,尤其是政治转型为西式民主后,这种动乱的状况出现的可能性是很大的。出现这种情况,比今天的日本还要惨的多。所以,要想超越美国,未来中国保持一个稳定的社会局面是必不可少的。

今天美国到处围剿华为,就像思科起诉华为一样,是华为公司优越的“认证书”,希望以后我们能够看到越来越多的“华为”们被美国四处围剿。



Source : my1510

Article Revisions:

Changes:

November 20, 2014 @ 11:52:23Current Revision
Content
Recently, news of Lenovo's big expansionary efforts has been constant, with purchases of IBM's low end server business and Google's Motorola cell phone business costing over 5 billion USD. Of course, these two acquisitions require US government review, however it is expected that the company will pass with little trouble.  <p>Recently, news of Lenovo's big expansionary efforts has been constant, with purchases of IBM's low end server business and Google's Motorola cell phone business costing over 5 billion USD. Of course, these two acquisitions require US government review, however it is expected that the company will pass with little trouble.</p>
Lenovo's impressive purchases in the US and Huawei's bitter experience in the US market form a stark contrast. Huawei has also tried to make purchases in the US, all of which it ultimately had no choice but to abandon due to US government obstruction, so much so that one acquisition worth only a few million US dollars also sunk like a stone because of US government rejection. Forgetting acquisitions, later, telecommunications and Internet products simply produced by Huawei were also prohibited by the US from entering the American market for reasons concerning national security.  <p>Lenovo's impressive purchases in the US and Huawei's bitter experience in the US market form a stark contrast. Huawei has also tried to make purchases in the US, all of which it ultimately had no choice but to abandon due to US government obstruction, so much so that one acquisition worth only a few million US dollars also sunk like a stone because of US government rejection. Forgetting acquisitions, later, telecommunications and Internet products simply produced by Huawei were also prohibited by the US from entering the American market for reasons concerning national security.</p>
Back when Lenovo was aquiring IBM’s computers, in fact it too encountered the great uproar over the so called threat to US national security, such that even after successful acquisition there were still people who were strongly opposed to American government departments purchasing Lenovo PC computers, believing they were a security threat. As Lenovo has walked its path over the years, this kind of racket seems to have lessened a lot, to the point that today, Lenovo is able to purchase relatively smoothly from IBM and Google.  <p>Back when Lenovo was aquiring IBM’s computers, in fact it too encountered the great uproar over the so called threat to US national security, such that even after successful acquisition there were still people who were strongly opposed to American government departments purchasing Lenovo PC computers, believing they were a security threat. As Lenovo has walked its path over the years, this kind of racket seems to have lessened a lot, to the point that today, Lenovo is able to purchase relatively smoothly from IBM and Google.</p>
No matter if one looks at Lenovo and Huawei from a scale perspective or form their degree of internationalisation, there is no doubt they are standouts in China's information industry today. The two companies have also both suffered accusations of threatening American national security while in the American market, however their circumstances in America today are already vastly different. One has unlimited prospects, and one has had the door shut in its face and has even encountered attacks that have chased them outside the American market. I am afraid that everyone will have the question,why is Lenovo OK, while Huawei is not?  <p>No matter if one looks at Lenovo and Huawei from a scale perspective or form their degree of internationalisation, there is no doubt they are standouts in China's information industry today. The two companies have also both suffered accusations of threatening American national security while in the American market, however their circumstances in America today are already vastly different. One has unlimited prospects, and one has had the door shut in its face and has even encountered attacks that have chased them outside the American market. I am afraid that everyone will have the question,why is Lenovo OK, while Huawei is not?</p>
Perhaps some will say that Lenovo's communication abilities are strong while Huawei's are weak, and so that is why Lenovois able to enter the American market. This point, I am afraid, is not precisely correct. Although Huawei is relatively low-key and unwilling to be in the media limelight, this certainly doesn't mean that Huawei is stiff and inflexible. Huawei in its early years was called a <span style="color: #ff6600;">'wild wolf'</span>,both fierece and agile. In terms of its communication with America, the time and energy spend by Huawei has been more than that of Lenovo's, for example in spending money to hire America lobby companies to conduct lobbying.  <p>Perhaps some will say that Lenovo's communication abilities are strong while Huawei's are weak, and so that is why Lenovois able to enter the American market. This point, I am afraid, is not precisely correct. Although Huawei is relatively low-key and unwilling to be in the media limelight, this certainly doesn't mean that Huawei is stiff and inflexible. Huawei in its early years was called a <span style="color: #ff6600;">'wild wolf'</span>,both fierece and agile. In terms of its communication with America, the time and energy spend by Huawei has been more than that of Lenovo's, for example in spending money to hire America lobby companies to conduct lobbying.</p>
Also, with respect to the notion that Huawei is 'not open', the Vice Chairman of Huawei, Hu Houkun, once wrote an open letter calling on the American government to open a formal investigation into Huawei. Huawei has also repeatedly requested for so-called "evidence" to be brought into light, and also has openly and transparently cooperated with intelligence committees. Yet, in the end Congress' reports only speak of threat - far from providing clear information or evidence to confirm its legality.  <p>Also, with respect to the notion that Huawei is 'not open', the Vice Chairman of Huawei, Hu Houkun, once wrote an open letter calling on the American government to open a formal investigation into Huawei. Huawei has also repeatedly requested for so-called "evidence" to be brought into light, and also has openly and transparently cooperated with intelligence committees. Yet, in the end Congress' reports only speak of threat - far from providing clear information or evidence to confirm its legality.</p>
  <p>Huawei and Lenovo’s radically different experiences in America very obviously are not market issues. Those who defend America by trying to find reasons from the market side, undoubtedly are wasting their energy or are just using sophistry. Then what on earth is the reason? In the recent past, Turkey wanted to purchase an anti-aircraft defence system and, through a tender, chose China’s system, causing America and NATO to be extremely unhappy and exert pressure on Turkey to give up its China purchase. What does this 'Chinese catastrophe' mean? It means that America and NATO felt threatened and under the influence of precisely this fear did America attempt in all ways to pressure Turkey to give up purchases of Chinese guided missiles and anti-aircraft systems. Why this global American containment for the Huawei approach, and authorisation for Lenovo to enter the American market? The real reason lies in that America has felt the threat of Huawei, but does believe at all that Lenovo has any threat to itself.</p>
  <p>In global opinion today, there are very different judgements about China: some believe that China will overtake the United States and become the world’s leader, others believe that China is just another Japan, and will only shine for a moment. When the US dealt with Japan at the time, it also applied a form of containment policy, for instance by forcing Japan to sign the Plaza agreements, and forcing Japan to open its market. But there’s two main reasons why the US economy ultimately triumphed over Japan: one is that the US capitalists have found a new area of economic growth, and completed a full round of industrial upgrading, and the US led the great development of the information industry, including computers, communications and networks – the Silicon valley, that we’re familiar with today, is one of the symbols of this. We know that capitalism will only maintain its vitality by continually identifying and developing new forms of demand from consumers, and only repeated industrial revolutions over the year, constantly creating new demands in the market, have resulted in the situation of capitalism today. The development of the American information industry is no doubt a form of self-regeneration for capitalism. During this time of renewal, Japan lagged behind the United States, and this is the main reason why Japan lost in the competition with the United States. Another reason for Japan to fail in the competition is that, when faced with new market agreements, it responded wrongly, developed a bubble, and in the end was only harmed by itself. I read a piece saying that at the height of the Japanese bubble in the eighties, the land value of the few idle acres of land in the Japanese imperial palace were worth more than the entire land in Canada, and the value of land in Tokyo alone exceeded the value of land in the entire United States. I do not know how authentic this information is, but it goes to show how insane the Japanese bubble was at the time, and the bigger a bubble is, the greater the loss when it breaks. The failure of Japan in its competition with the US was the result of the development of the information industry in the US, and Japan’s own self-destruction. But what does any of this have to do with what Lenovo and Huawei experienced in the US? </p>
  <p>We know that Japan’s manufacturing sector is still very strong, quality is still very high, but in new industries, it lags behind the US, and the US is not threatened. The model followed by Lenovo today is still the Japanese model, it follows the 'fine-work' model of production. Its industrial design may be very good, its production may be even better, and it may even serve as a model for the automobile industry around the world, but the product is an old product, and although there is some innovation, there is not much, and so it doesn’t threaten the heart of American industry. Whether it's the double acquisition from IBM or the one from Google, we're only talking about peripheral, burdensome areas of both companies. The core of IBM is software and services: hardware used to be its flagship, but today is just waiting to be eliminated. The core of Google is web search and software. Acquiring Motorola might have been a mistake, and selling it off today may be seen as refocusing on the core. Acquiring the low-end business of these American companies, I'm afraid this won't be experienced as a threat. It should be said that most of China's manufacturing today is the same as Lenovo, it pursues a Japanese-style 'fine work' product strategy. Therefore, we can understand how Lenovo was received in the US. </p>
  <p>The difference between Huawei and Lenovo has to do with how they threaten the core America’s information industry. Huawei’s rapid development and their investment in R&amp;D and technology has been seen as a threat by the American Cisco. Cisco is not an ordinary company, it is a core company of the US information sector. People used to put together the names of Microsoft, Intel and Cisco to form the word ‘Wintelco’, which shows the importance of these three companies for the IT industry. It should be said that China has not yet produced a software company that could rival microsoft, and neither IBN not Intel consider Lenovo as a threat. But Cisco admits that Huawei is a rival. This year, as the US government had not yet come forward against Huawei, showing that it did not perceive it as a menace then, Cisco foresaw Huawei's potential in network equipment, and proactively launched a lawsuit against Huawei to expel them form the US market in advance. But this did not prevent Huawei from moving forward. After years of development, Huawei has become a worldwide IT infrastructure giant, and like other multinationals, Huawei products are continuing to expend their presence, which made the US feel threatened. The reason why the US is trying to kill off Huawei is just this, and ‘security’ is nothing but a good-sounding pretext. </p>
Another perspective is that Huawei's boss, Ren Zhengfei was formerly an officer in the People's Liberation Army and that American politicians and security officials are expressing concern over the military background of Huawei's founder. In truth, this reason was extremely surprising to me as I never thought America would think up such an <span style="color: #ff6600;">unsophisticated</span> reason in order to prevent Huawei's entry. Because there are many CEOs and Chairmans of American corporations who come from the military, do we also connect these companies with the American military and worry about that companies' products will threaten China's security? Another point that I would also like to make is that Lenovo's founder, Liu Chuanzhi, was also once a member of the PLA, yet Americans basically haven't raise this point. This in itself shows the ridiculousness of America's reasons. <p>For the US, the memory of the Japanese threat goes deep. At the time, before the US finished upgrading its IT industry, the defeat against Japan's Seiko is still very painful. The purchase of American entertainment and real estate companies by the prosperous Japan still causes sorrow. The Chinese American citizen Chen Guoren was beaten to death by workers of the American automobile industry because he was mistaken for a Japanese, and only after a restructure forced by Japan did Intel corporation rise to its later glory. After this painful lessons, many Americans believe that only paranoia will support survival, and so you have to be vigilant, destroy the threat, nip it in the bud. Cisco suing Huawei was nothing yet, now the American government is on the case. <span style="color: #ff6600;">Arbitrary accusations are enough for condemnation, like Ren Zhengfei having a history with the People's Liberation Army, it's all coming out.</span></p>
Huawei and Lenovo's radically different experiences in America very obviously are not market issues. Those who defend America by trying to find reasons from the market side, undoubtedly are wasting their energy or are强词夺理。Then what on earth is the reason? 前一段时间,Turkey wanted to purchase an anti-aircraft defense system and, through a tender, chose China's system, causing America and NATO to be extremely unhappy and exert pressure on Turkey to give up its China purchase. What does this 遭遇 of China's mean? It means that America and NATO felt threatened and under the influence of precisely this fear did America attempt in all ways to pressure Turkey to give up purchases of Chinese guided missiles and anit-aircraft systems. Huawei 华为遭遇全球范围的美国围剿和联想在美国市场的顺风顺水,the real reason lies in that America has felt the threat of Huawei, but does believe at all that Lenovo has any threat to itself.  
联想和华为无论从规模,国际化程度还是影响力上看,无疑是今天中国信息产业的翘楚,两家公司在美国市场,也都曾遭受威胁美国国家安全的指控,但今天在美国的境遇已经大不一样了,一个风光无限,一个被拒之门外,甚至在美国市场之外也遭遇美国围剿。恐怕大家都会有疑问,为什么联想行而华为不行呢?  
也许有人会说,联想的沟通能力强,华为的弱,所以联想可以进入美国市场。这一点恐怕不确切。华为公司虽然比较低调,不太愿意在媒体上风光,这并不表明华为是呆板的。早年的华为被人称为土狼,是既凶狠又灵活的。在与美国的沟通上,华为下的功夫比联想大的多,比如花钱聘请美国的游说公司进行游说,比如针对华为“不开放”的说法,华为副董事长胡厚昆曾经写过一篇公开信,呼吁美国政府对华为展开正式调查,华为也多次要求亮明所谓的“证据”,华为也曾开放透明地与情报委员会进行了合作,但是最终国会的报告只说威胁,并没有提供清晰的信息或证据来证实其合法性。  
还有一种说法,华为的老总任正非曾经是一名解放军军官,美国的政客和安全官员就表示对华为创始人军方背景的担忧。说实话,这个理由让我非常的惊讶,没想到美国为了阻 止华为的进入搞出这么低级的理由,因为美国企业的CEO和董事长们军人出身的多了,是不是我们也把这些公司和美国军方联系起来,担心这些公司的产品会威胁中国的安全呢?另外还要说的一点是,联想的创始人柳传志也曾是解放军的一员,但是美国人基本上不提这一点,这本身就说明美国的理由的荒谬性。  
华为和联想在美国的截然不同的遭遇,很显然不是市场问题,那些为美国辩护的人试图从市场方面找到理由,无疑是白费力气或者强词夺理。那么到底是什么原因呢?前一段时间,土耳其要购置防空系统,经过竞标,选中了中国的系统,引发了美国和北约的极大不满,力压土耳其放弃对中国的采购。中国的这一遭遇说明了什么?说明美国和北约感受到了威胁,正是在恐惧的作用下,美国才会想法设法的压迫土耳其放弃对中国导弹和防空系统的采购。华为遭遇全球范围的美国围剿和联想在美国市场的顺风顺水,真正的原因在于美国感受到了华为的威胁,但并不认为联想对自己有什么威胁。  
在今天的世界舆论中,对于中国的评价是很大不同的,有的认为中国将超越美国,成为世界的领导者,也有人认为中国不过是另一个日本,短暂的辉煌后急转直下。当年的美国为了对付日本,也是采取了很多遏制的政策,比如逼迫日本签署广场协议,比如逼迫日本开放本国市场等等。但是美国经济发展之所以最后战胜日本,主要在于两个原因,一个是美国资本家找到了新的经济增长点,完成了新的一轮产业升级,这就是美国引领了以计算机、通讯和网络为代表的信息产业大发展,今天我们耳熟能详的硅谷就是其中的杰出代表。我们知道,资本主义就是要不断寻找和培养新的大量的消费需求,才能保证自己的生命力,多年来一次次的新的工业革命,不断创造了新的市场需求,才让资本主义有了今天的局面。美国的信息产业发展,无疑是资本主义又一次的自我更新,而在这一次的自我更新中,日本落在了美国的后面,这是日本与美国竞争失败的主要原因。日本竞争失败的另一个原因在于在面对广场协议等新的形势下,应对错误,搞起了泡沫,最后自己把自己玩残了。我听说一个段子,据说上世纪八十年代日本泡沫经济最盛的时候,日本皇宫闲置的几亩土地,价值就超过整个加拿大土地的价值,而当时仅日本东京土地的价值,就超过整个美国土地的价值。我不知道这些段子的真伪,但是可以说明日本当年的泡沫大的实在是疯狂了,而泡沫吹得越大,破的时候损失就越大。正是由于美国的信息技术革命创造了新的市场,日本人的自我毁灭这两个原因,造成了日本与美国竞争的失败。但是这一切与联想和华为在美国的遭遇有什么关系呢?  
我们知道,今天的日本的制造业还是很高端的,质量还是很好的,只是在新的产业升级方面落后美国了,美国并不害怕今天的日本。而联想今天的追求,其实还是今天的日本的模式,在生产上追求“精工”的路子,它的工业设计可能很优良,他的生产可能精益求精,即使是今天的丰田的管理,也仍然是全世界汽车行业的学习榜样,但产品是老产品,虽屡有创新但创新不大,所以它并不威胁美国的核心产业。无论是从IBM的两次收购还是从Google的收购,都是这两家公司的包袱和外围产品,IBM的核心是软件和服务,硬件制造是IBM当年的主打,今天属于它要淘汰的,而谷歌的核心是网络搜索和软件,收购摩托罗拉本身就是错误,今天出售也算是专注核心。收购这些美国IT公司的低端业务,恐怕是不会让美国感到威胁的。应该说的是,今天的中国制造大多数也和联想一样的,它的追求是日本式的“精工”产品。所以,联想在美国的遭遇是可以理解的。  
华为与联想的不同它的确威胁到了美国的信息产业的核心竞争力。华为的快速发展,对研发技术的投入等等让美国思科公司感到了威胁。思科不是一般的公司,它是美国信息产业的核心公司,曾经有人把微软、英特尔和思科并列,组成“Wintelco”一词,表示这三家对美国信息产业的重要性。应该说,今天的中国还没有出现能够威胁到微软的软件公司,同时,IBM和英特尔这样的公司,也没有把中国的联想当做威胁。而思科公司却承认,华为是他的竞争对手,当年在美国政府还没有出面对付华为的时候,这也说明美国政府当时还不认为华为是个威胁,思科看出了华为在网络设备上的潜力,未雨绸缪,抢先对华为提出诉讼,想把华为提前赶出美国市场,但这并没有阻止华为前进的脚步。经过这些年的发展,华为已经成为世界范围内的通讯设备公司中的巨无霸,像其他的跨国公司一样,华为的产品链还在不断地延伸,这就让美国感受到了威胁。美国对华为痛下杀手,就是要拔除这个威胁,而“安全”不过是冠冕堂皇的理由。  
美国对于日本当年的威胁是有深刻记忆的,在当时,美国还有完成信息技术产业的升级之前,在制造业与日本拼斗产品的“精工”,屡战屡败,还是非常痛苦的,红火的日本在美国购买地产和电影公司,让美国哀鸿一片。华裔美国公民陈果仁因被美国汽车工人当成日本人而被活活打死,英特尔公司被日本公司逼得被迫转型,才开启了后来的辉煌。惨痛的教训,使很多美国人信奉一句话叫唯有偏执狂才能生存,就是要时刻警惕,消灭威胁,把威胁消灭在萌芽中,思科起诉还没成气候的华为是如此,今天美国政府围剿华为也是如此。欲加之罪,何患无辞,什么任正非当做解放军之类的小儿科理由都堂而皇之的拿出来。  
中国日后在经济规模上是否能超越美国,按照现在的发展趋势,不过是早晚的事。但是中国是否和当年的日本走同样的路,这取决于中国和美国两个方面的情况变化。应该说,日本当年的势头以及媒体上鼓噪的比今天的中国还厉害,所以我们并不能确定我们一定能够超越美国,但这要看美国是否能像当年一样大力发展信息产业那样找到新的重大市场需求。可能美国是想发展金融产业,通过虚拟经济之类的高高在上,攫取全世界的财富,很多像陈志武这样的经济学家也是对此推崇备至,但2008年的金融危机给了美国当头一棒,很多被舆论鼓吹宣传为不得了的金融“创新”,反而成了危机的导火线。在其他的一些新的需求方面,美国的发展还有很多问题,比如生物技术方面,如果能够解决癌症、糖尿病等疾患,必定会有大的发展,可是现在还看不到希望。在环保低碳方面,发展中国家并不买账,他们希望以免费或者低价获取这方面的技术,而美国等西方国家一方面强调低碳刻不容缓,一方面又希望通过这个产业赚大钱,在道德方面说不过去。所以,美国经济要持续领先中国是有困难得,因为现在还看不出它能够进行新的产业升级转换。  
中国要想经济规模超越美国,进而逐渐在整体实力上超越美国,首先不能像日本那样自己的应对出现大的问题,面对美国的遏制,要能正确的应对。其次,中国不是日本,日本在“失去的二十年”中,保持了社会的稳定,人们的忍耐、乐观和奋斗的精神还是保持了下来,这一点,华为的任正非在他写的《北国之春》里,也是赞叹不已的。而中国却有可能在经济高速增长的状况下,发生类似现在出现在乌克兰和埃及的局面,尤其是政治转型为西式民主后,这种动乱的状况出现的可能性是很大的。出现这种情况,比今天的日本还要惨的多。所以,要想超越美国,未来中国保持一个稳定的社会局面是必不可少的。  
今天美国到处围剿华为,就像思科起诉华为一样,是华为公司优越的“认证书”,希望以后我们能够看到越来越多的“华为”们被美国四处围剿。  
  <p>Whether China will overtake the US economically, according to current trends, is not a question of if, but when. But whether China will follow the same path as Japan today depends on two aspects of the relationship with the US. It should be said that media shout outs about Japaan at the time was even more resounding than it is for China today, so we cannot be certain that we will overtake the US. But this depends on whether the US can repeat what they did back then, and find a large new market to satisfy as they did with information technology. The US may want to develop their financial industry, and using virtual economy or similar high level concepts, get hold of the wealth of the world. Many economists, like Chen Zhiwu, hold them in high esteem in that regard. But the 2008 financial criss has given a blow to the United States, and many forms of 'financial innovation' supported by public propaganda turned into the sparks of the crisis. In other areas of emerging demand, the development US faces many problems. For instance, if we look at biotechnology, if they can solve cancer, diabetes, or other illnesses, there can be huge developments, but at the moment, we cannot see much hope. As for environmental protection and low-carbon technology, developing countries do not want to pay for them, they hope to adopt free or low-cost technology. But the US and other Western countries on the one hand stress the urgency of the question, while hoping to make considerable money from that industry, which cannot be justified in moral terms. And so, it will be difficult for the US to continue leading ahead of the Chinese economy, because it is unclear whether they will be able to undertake a complete industrial upgrading. </p>
  <p>China wants to overtake the US in economic scale, and gradually overtake the US on all other aspects. First, it can't want to face huge problems of its own, like Japan, and when it faces containment from the US, it wants to be able to respond properly. Second, China is not japan: during its ‘lost two decades’, Japan maintained social stability, and the patience, optimism and competitiveness of the people has been maintained. This is a point that Ren Zhengwei from Huawei notes and admires in his book 'Northland'. But there is also a chance that under the condition of fast economic growth, China will experience similar situations as Ukraine and Egypt, especially after their transition to Western style democracy, with high possibilities of civil unrest. If this happened, China would be even more miserable than today’s Japan. Therefore, in order to overtake the US, it is essential that China maintains a stable social situation internally. </p>
  <p>Today, the US is containing Huawei everywhere, like the reason why Cisco is suing Huawei, is because of their superior 'certificate' systems - and I hope that in the future, we will see more cases like Huawei, of companies that the US try to contain. </p>

Note: Spaces may be added to comparison text to allow better line wrapping.

About julien.leyre

French-Australian writer, educator, sinophile. Any question? Contact julien@marcopoloproject.org