Huawei spies for China, says ex-CIA chief
by Staff Writers nukewar.com
Sydney, New South Wales
The former head of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency
Michael Hayden said Friday it "goes without saying" that Chinese
telecoms giant Huawei spies for Beijing.
Speaking to the Australian Financial Review, Hayden claimed China was engaged in unrestricted espionage against the West and said it was his belief that Huawei would have shared information with state agencies.
Asked whether Huawei represented an unambiguous national security threat to the US and Australia, Hayden replied: "Yes, I believe it does".
Britain, the United States and Australia have all raised concerns that Huawei's alleged ties to the Chinese state could see telecoms equipment supplied by the company used for spying and cyber-attacks.
Huawei denies it has any direct links to the Chinese state, but the US Congress last year called for its exclusion from US government contracts and it was also barred from bidding for contracts to build Australia's national broadband network.
The retired general said he believed Western intelligence networks had hard evidence that Huawei had spied on behalf of the Chinese state.
"I have no reason to question the belief that's the case," said Hayden, who retired from the CIA in 2009 and who prior to that served as head of the National Security Agency (NSA).
"That's my professional judgement. But as the former director of the NSA, I cannot comment on specific instances of espionage or any operational matters.
"And, at a minimum, Huawei would have shared with the Chinese state intimate and extensive knowledge of the foreign telecommunications systems it is involved with. I think that goes without saying."
Huawei's John Suffolk, who has previously described the company as the "piggy in the middle" of the broader dispute over hacking between China and the United States, reportedly dismissed Hayden's comments as tired, unsubstantiated and defamatory.
"It's time to put up or shut up," Suffolk, Huawei's global cybersecurity officer , told the newspaper.
Hayden said Huawei had approached him several years ago to be on the firm's American board, but it had failed to convince him it should be involved in critical communications infrastructure.
"This is not blind prejudice on my part. This was my considered view based on a four-decade career as an intelligence officer," he said.
"My conclusion was that, 'No, it is simply not acceptable for Huawei to be creating the backbone of the domestic telecommunications network in the United States, period.'
"And frankly this is where I think the state has a role to play -- to ensure we don't make decisions that compromise the foundations of our national security."
![]() |
Speaking to the Australian Financial Review, Hayden claimed China was engaged in unrestricted espionage against the West and said it was his belief that Huawei would have shared information with state agencies.
Asked whether Huawei represented an unambiguous national security threat to the US and Australia, Hayden replied: "Yes, I believe it does".
Britain, the United States and Australia have all raised concerns that Huawei's alleged ties to the Chinese state could see telecoms equipment supplied by the company used for spying and cyber-attacks.
Huawei denies it has any direct links to the Chinese state, but the US Congress last year called for its exclusion from US government contracts and it was also barred from bidding for contracts to build Australia's national broadband network.
The retired general said he believed Western intelligence networks had hard evidence that Huawei had spied on behalf of the Chinese state.
"I have no reason to question the belief that's the case," said Hayden, who retired from the CIA in 2009 and who prior to that served as head of the National Security Agency (NSA).
"That's my professional judgement. But as the former director of the NSA, I cannot comment on specific instances of espionage or any operational matters.
"And, at a minimum, Huawei would have shared with the Chinese state intimate and extensive knowledge of the foreign telecommunications systems it is involved with. I think that goes without saying."
Huawei's John Suffolk, who has previously described the company as the "piggy in the middle" of the broader dispute over hacking between China and the United States, reportedly dismissed Hayden's comments as tired, unsubstantiated and defamatory.
"It's time to put up or shut up," Suffolk, Huawei's global cyber
Hayden said Huawei had approached him several years ago to be on the firm's American board, but it had failed to convince him it should be involved in critical communications infrastructure.
"This is not blind prejudice on my part. This was my considered view based on a four-decade career as an intelligence officer," he said.
"My conclusion was that, 'No, it is simply not acceptable for Huawei to be creating the backbone of the domestic telecommunications network in the United States, period.'
"And frankly this is where I think the state has a role to play -- to ensure we don't make decisions that compromise the foundations of our national security."
Yeah that is RICH coming from the country that is basically spying on the rest of the world and not giving even its own people a bit of privacy. The NDAA allows the US government to make false propaganda. The US government always did it, just now it is legal!
ReplyDeletelegal by whose standards? certainly not by our constitution. by creating these"laws" out of thin air like much like our currency, they have no backing and are fiat...you have to build on a sound foundation like the u.s. constition or you have nothing but a worthless piece of paper. ..legal my ass! theres nothing resembling legal in what their doing. our congress needs to be recalled and new elections held...or a referendom on what kind of republic we as a peaple want...as Jimmy Carter said a few days ago..."we no longer have a working democracy"
ReplyDeletecongress cannot pass laws that are in conflict with the constitution unless the constitution is ratified ...i see no grounds for ratification that meet the full needs of the peaple...fear of the peaple doesnt meet that bar...nor does percieved future threats be it imagined or otherwise percieved
ReplyDeleteyou have a republic, ...if you can keep it
ReplyDeleteour constitutional scholar has wieghed us and found us wanting...we are to be sold for 30 shillings
ReplyDelete