SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (165748)12/6/2020 4:06:58 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217654
 
Here be the alt-version, as opposed to the NYT narrative Message 33076622 . Unsure which version to put faith in :0) but perhaps what Team Bhutan says should carry some weight under the particular circumstances. If so, NYT is suspect.

Very pretty village

scmp.com

Near the China-Bhutan-India border, a new village is drawing attention to old disputes

Does the sudden development of an outpost in Tibet mean the 2017 Doklam stand-off between China and India has not been resolved?

Pangda is one of 628 xiaokang border villages in Tibet autonomous region, a community serving both socioeconomic and defence purposes for China


Images in October of the new Pangda village on the west bank of the Torsa River stirred controversy about possible border infringements but both China and Bhutan deny that there has been any wrongdoing. Photo: Weibo

Satellite images show that China is developing a village near Doklam, a border area with
Bhutan and India where Indian and Chinese troops had a long stand-off three years ago.

Indian media as well as Australian and US-based think tanks claim that the Chinese construction of the village of Pangda, on the west bank of the Torsa River, is 2.5km (1.5 miles) inside the Bhutanese border.

Why is India concerned?

Although China and Bhutan may not appear to have any dispute over the latest development, Indian media has taken a special interest in the controversy, particularly after the 2017 stand-off at the nearby Doklam Plateau, which is just 9km from Pangda in Yadong county, Tibet.

The Indian official establishment regards the region to be strategically sensitive given its proximity and geography.

Chinese and Indian forces engaged in a 72-day stand-off in the area in 2017 after Bhutan requested India’s help with overlapping claims with China on the plateau.

For India, a strong Chinese grip over the region would allow better access for Chinese forces to the valuable Siliguri Corridor, known as the “Chicken’s Neck”, a prospect unpalatable to New Delhi. Sections of the corridor are only about 50km wide and India is worried it could lose control over its northeastern region in times of war if China becomes capable of exerting control over the corridor from Yadong.




“The more China ramps up its construction in the tri-junction region, the stronger its threat to this corridor,” said a retired high-ranking Indian Army official who serves in a government post.

The official said the Indian establishment routinely kept a close eye on Chinese activities in the region. “This has been even more pronounced since the Doklam stand-off,” the official said

The official pointed to media reports in August citing open-source satellite imagery showing that China had stepped up its construction of military installations in areas about 50km from the site of the stand-off.

“If China continues constructions in the region, it shows that the 2017 stand-off was not really resolved,” the official added.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs did not respond to requests for comment.

What does Bhutan say?

Bhutanese ambassador to India Vetsop Namgyel rejected the Indian reports about the village, saying “there is no Chinese village inside Bhutan”.

Bhutanese journalist Tenzing Lamsang said that the third-party reports were based on open-source information such as a Google Maps representation of the border, which was not accurate because demarcation negotiations were still continuing and the border line had not been disclosed or made official.

“Bhutan & China do not negotiate based on ‘Google Map’ but claim lines based on detailed cartographic maps & ground features,” Lamsang, editor of The Bhutanese newspaper, said on Twitter.

“Each side has its own maximalist claim lines. Importantly, these actual maps & claim lines are not available to Google.”

He added that neither the Bhutanese frontline troops nor diplomats, who have a record of quickly responding to minor Chinese encroachments in the area, had raised concerns over the issue.

The Chinese foreign ministry said the construction was in China’s territory.

What is Pangda?

Pangda is just one of 628 “xiaokang villages on the border” in the Tibet autonomous region, built according to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s strategy of “stabilising Tibet for the governance of frontier regions” and to meet the goal of building a xiaokang – or “moderately well off ” – society by 2021.

In all, there are 241,835 residents and 62,160 households in these villages in 21 Himalayan border counties, from Nyingchi, Shannan and Shigatse to Ngari prefecture.



Pangda village is one of 628 xiaokang – moderately well off – border villages in the Tibet autonomous region. Photo: Weibo


The villages were built as part of a plan introduced in 2017 by the Tibetan government for “defenders of sacred land and constructors of happy homes”.

The government earmarked 30.1 billion yuan (US$4.6 billion) to build new homes and infrastructure for transport, energy, water and communication and facilities for education, health and culture.

“This is to implement … the central policies of improving support to border residents, stabilising and consolidating the border,” the plan said.

The villages were mostly completed in October, according to state news agency Xinhua.

How big is the village?

Newly built Pangda village has 28 homes as well as two public buildings that host the village administration office, as well as facilities for shopping, public health, kindergarten and other community services. In October, 124 villagers in 27 households moved into the new homes at 2,140m (7,020 feet) altitude, descending from their original homes which were as high as 4,630m in altitude.

Pangda has extended China’s southernmost dwellings in the region by 10km.

The villagers plan to make a living from new businesses, such as tourism and fish farming. Some also work in border patrol.

“I won’t lose a single inch of our land in my patrols,” villager Tashi Puci was quoted by Tibet Daily as saying.

Have other settlements caused controversy?

Another xiaokang? village near the border with Nepal caused controversy this year. Last month, the Nepali opposition claimed Beijing had seized territory , moved boundary pillars and built structures about 1km inside Nepal but both Nepal and China denied there was any transgression.




To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (165748)12/6/2020 4:07:21 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217654
 
Another NYT narrative about China China China putting up installations w/I border of yet one more sovereign nation. There is an alt-narrative Message 33076621

nytimes.com

Beijing Takes Its South China Sea Strategy to the Himalayas

China built a village in territory also claimed by the kingdom of Bhutan, echoing its aggressive tactics at the border with India and in places much farther away.

Nov. 27, 2020


Satellite images from last December, left, and from October show China’s construction of a village in territory that the tiny Buddhist kingdom of Bhutan also claims. Satellite image ©2020 Maxar Technologies

Just in time for its National Day in October, China completed construction of a new village high in the mountains where the Chinese region of Tibet meets the kingdom of Bhutan. A hundred people moved into two dozen new homes beside the Torsa River and celebrated the holiday by raising China’s flag and singing the national anthem.

“Each of us is a coordinate of the great motherland,” a border guard was quotedas saying by an official state news agency, China Tibetan News.

The problem is, these new “coordinates” are more than a mile inside what Bhutan considers its territory.

The construction, documented in satellite photos, followed a playbook China has used for years. It has brushed aside neighbors’ claims of sovereignty to cement its position in territorial disputes by unilaterally changing the facts on the ground.

It used the same tactics in the South China Sea, where it fortified and armed shoals claimed by Vietnam and the Philippines, despite promising the United States not to do so.

This year, China’s military built up forces in the Himalayas and crossed into territory that the Indians claimed was on their side of the de facto border. That led to China’s bloodiest clash in decades, leaving at least 21 Indian soldiers dead, along with an unknown number of Chinese troops. The violence badly soured relations that had been steadily improving.

Even when challenged, China’s territorial grabs are difficult to reverse short of the use of force, as the Indian government has learned. Since the dispute at the border, Chinese troops have remained camped in areas that India once controlled.


An Indian Army convoy near the Chinese border in September. A Chinese military buildup in the area led to bloodshed this year, and now China is pushing claims nearby on strategically valuable land claimed by Bhutan.Dar Yasin/Associated Press

“In the end, it reflects the consolidation of China’s control over the area it claims,” said M. Taylor Fravel, director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an expert on China’s military.

Over the past year, China has moved aggressively against many of its neighbors, seemingly with little regard for diplomatic or geopolitical fallout. Its actions reflect the ambition of China’s leader, Xi Jinping, to assert the country’s territorial claims, economic interests and strategic needs around the world.

Mr. Xi often cites China’s historical grievances against foreign encroachment and colonization, using its past to justify its aggressive strategic activities.

Nicholas Kristof: A behind-the-scenes look at Nicholas Kristof’s gritty journalism, as he travels around the world.

The construction of the Himalayan village suggests that China has extended a broader campaign to fortify its southern flanks to include Bhutan, the Buddhist nation of 800,000 people that popularized the concept of “ gross national happiness.”

As the construction was underway on that long-disputed border, China added a new claim this summer to nearly 300 square miles of territory in the Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary, a preserve on the other side of Bhutan from where the village was being built.

In pushing its boundaries, China appears to have brushed aside decades of quiet and ultimately fruitless talks to finalize the two countries’ border. A 25th round of talks this year was postponed because of the coronavirus.

“The Chinese obviously seem to be losing patience,” Tenzing Lamsang, editor of the newspaper The Bhutanese and president of the Media Association of Bhutan, wrote on Twitter.

Chinese structures, including an airstrip, on a disputed island in the South China Sea in 2017.Pool photo by Francis Malasig

The dispute stems from different interpretations of a treaty signed in 1890 by two now-defunct imperial powers, the United Kingdom as India’s colonial ruler and the Qing dynasty in China.

The new village is near the Doklam Plateau, where the borders of China, India and Bhutan converge. The plateau was the site of a 73-day standoff between Indian and Chinese troops in 2017 that began over the construction of a road into Bhutanese territory. India, which is obliged to defend Bhutan under a longstanding security pact, pushed troops forward to halt the Chinese work.

Bhutan, which in recent years has felt squeezed between the two giants, poses no military threat to China. For China, control of the area would give its forces a strategic position near a narrow strip of land in India called the Siliguri Corridor.

That area, which Indian military strategists also call the Chicken Neck, connects the bulk of India to its easternmost provinces bordering Bangladesh, Myanmar and China.

Mr. Lamsang noted that Bhutan has long had to defer to India’s security interests. In its repeated talks with the Chinese, Bhutan has so far been unwilling to make any territorial concessions along the western and central borders.

“Given Bhutan’s refusal to concede in the talks or even agree to compromises by China we are now paying a price,” Mr. Lamsang wrote.

Neither the Bhutanese nor the Chinese foreign ministry responded to requests for comment.

Global Times, a Communist Party newspaper that often echoes a hawkish view among Chinese officials, ridiculed the claims that the newly built village was in Bhutan, blaming India for stoking tensions with China’s southern neighbors. A day later, the newspaper warned against “looming foreign forces backing the China-bashing campaign across the Himalayas.”

Images from December, left, and October show the construction of military storage bunkers in Chinese territory near Bhutan.Satellite image ©2020 Maxar Technologies

The exact location of the new village, called Pangda, emerged in a series of satellite images published recently by Maxar Technologies, a company based in Colorado. They showed that construction began late last year and was completed, it seems, not long before Oct. 1, China’s National Day. China’s version of the border lies south of the village.


Sakteng Wildlife

Sanctuary

SILIGURI

CORRIDOR

The images also showed extensive new road-building and the construction of what seem to be military storage bunkers, according to a Maxar spokesman, Stephen Wood. The bunkers are in undisputed Chinese territory, though, indicating that China has sought to build up its military presence along much of the Himalayan border area. The images of China’s new construction were earlier reported by NDTV, a broadcaster in India.

China has made no secret of the construction, as evidenced by several state media reports on the village. One recounted an inauguration ceremony on Oct. 18 that was attended by senior officials from Shanghai, including Yu Shaoliang, deputy secretary of the city’s Communist Party committee.

In China, richer provinces often sponsor development projects in poorer regions, especially in Tibet and Xinjiang. China absorbed Tibet beginning in 1950, with the new Communist government seeking to reassert sovereignty over the Tibetan people and territory that had been lost after the fall of the Qing dynasty.Although the Chinese called its annexation the “Peaceful Liberation of Tibet,” many Tibetans are unhappy with Chinese rule.

Mr. Fravel of M.I.T. said that with its recent construction, China appeared to have backed away from potential compromises that it floated in earlier rounds of border talks with Bhutan, in which it offered to trade swathes of territory.

“Previous compromise ideas from the 1990s may no longer be on the table,” he said, “as China may be unwilling or unlikely to withdraw from territory where it has erected such infrastructure.”

Elsie Chen contributed research.



To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (165748)12/6/2020 9:46:14 AM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation

Recommended By
marcher

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 217654
 
I neither believe in conspiracies nor coincidences, and in the case of China-China-China & Australia, the coincidences are piling on top of each other so it seems to the benefit of Team USA, the one that set Australia up, arguably, and indubitably also set Canada up.

I do at times believe in conspiracoincidences and coincidentalspiracies. Strictly case by case, students, tourists, copper, wine, beef, lobster, barley, ... wheat, and at some juncture, the big items, natural gas and iron ore.

Mines do not react well when cut off from revenue, and when mines do not do well, especially big ones that do copper and iron and natural gas, banks do poorly, and once banks do poorly, as applied to an organic organism, systemic failures happen, requiring regime-change and color-revolution, democratically, given that people do not appreciate being volunteered for wars to guard against China from China Message 33074526 :0) The video applies equally well to Canada, New Zealand and a lot of nations.

Let’s see how much of what stuff Team USA steps up to buy from its allies in exchange for forcing them to buy weapons they shall never dare to use, certainly do not need, and assuredly can not sustainably afford, making them weaker, the opposite of stronger.

As and when and if Teams Australia and Canada fails in holding the line, and should Team Brazil still insist on war-against-China-China-China, regime-change time beckons. A guess.

Mistreating good customer should not be tolerated, for the greater good.

bloomberg.com

Australia Adds to Warning on Possible Wheat Export Ban to China

Sybilla Gross
December 6, 2020, 9:01 PM GMT+8



Wheat harvest near Gunnedah, New South Wales, Australia.

Photographer: David Gray/Bloomberg
LISTEN TO ARTICLE
:48

Supply Lines is a daily newsletter that tracks Covid-19’s impact on trade. Sign up here, and subscribe to our Covid-19 podcast for the latest news and analysis on the pandemic.

China may impose trade restrictions on Australian wheat exports similar to the curbs on barley and other commodities, Abares said, adding to expectations that the crop may be next to get ensnared in a worsening trade fight.

While China historically hasn’t been a key market for Australian wheat -- accounting for about 10% share last year -- high domestic grain prices could push China’s 2020-21 imports to the highest in 25 years, the Australian government forecaster said in its latest quarterly report.

READ: China Trade Dispute Sends Wheat Futures Reeling in Australia

This demand will likely be met by cargoes from the U.S. and the Black Sea region, though smaller exportable surpluses from these major shippers will give Australia an opportunity to meet demand in other markets, Abares added.

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.

LEARN MORE



To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (165748)12/17/2020 6:57:02 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 217654
 
Aussie biz folks fidgeting ... let us see how the politicians explain their way out of being a dog barking for others and earning a pat on the head

No alternative but to regime-change, else reset meaningless
“Australian foreign policy with respect to China has been weaponised, and it’s largely because I feel the security, intelligence and defence establishment has taken over the management on Australia’s foreign policy over the past six years,” said Geoff Raby, a former Australian ambassador to China, who runs a consultancy and is a board member of Yancoal, which is majority owned by a state-backed Chinese company.

“We don’t understand why the Federal government picked a fight with our biggest customer,”


ft.com

Australia’s ‘amateurish’ China diplomacy sets business on edge

Opposition politicians and analysts warn Canberra’s approach is hurting the economy

10 hours ago


The Chinese embassy in Canberra. Australia’s opposition has accused prime minister Scott Morrison of ‘focusing on splashy headlines’ that have damaged relations with Beijing © Mick Tsikas/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

This week marks the fifth anniversary of the China-Australia free trade deal, a diplomatic triumph that has boosted trade by A$100bn a year. But no one is celebrating in Canberra amid a breakdown in bilateral relations, which has sparked a rare debate about Australian diplomacy.

Foreign policy is characterised by bipartisan agreement between Labor and the conservative government, which has held power since 2013. But Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s furious reaction to a tweet by a Chinese diplomat and Beijing’s imposition of trade sanctions on Australian products have caused disquiet about the handling of China relations.

“I think the government really does need to stop focusing on splashy headlines and work out what is it doing, how is it helping our exporters, how is it helping those who are so dependent, and have become more dependent on China for Australian jobs,” Penny Wong, Labor spokesman on foreign affairs, told Australian television last week.

“In diplomacy you always have to think about how you calibrate your response.”

Ms Wong’s criticism was directed at Mr Morrison’s decision to respond directly to a mid-level Chinese diplomat’s “repugnant” social media post, which depicted an Australian soldier holding a knife to the throat of an Afghan child.

Our actions are wrongly seen and interpreted by some only through the lens of the strategic competition between China and the United States

Scott Morrison, Australia’s prime minister
The government has dismissed Labor’s criticism, noting that the opposition party has backed all its main policies, including excluding Huawei from 5G networks, combating foreign interference and calling for an international inquiry into the origins of Covid-19 in Wuhan.

“They [Labor] are in lockstep with the government,” said Dave Sharma, an MP for the ruling Liberal party and former diplomat.

“The same party which always urges Australia to be a ‘creative middle power’ seems to have a problem when Australia articulates its viewpoint on the world stage. You cannot have it both ways.”

Nevertheless, some commentators and businesses fear Canberra is quietly departing from its long-held position that it does not have to choosebetween China, its largest trade partner, and the US, its strategic ally.

“Australian foreign policy with respect to China has been weaponised, and it’s largely because I feel the security, intelligence and defence establishment has taken over the management on Australia’s foreign policy over the past six years,” said Geoff Raby, a former Australian ambassador to China, who runs a consultancy and is a board member of Yancoal, which is majority owned by a state-backed Chinese company.

Trumpeting policy shifts directed towards China, such as banning Huawei from 5G or tough foreign interference laws, had needlessly irritated Beijing, said Mr Raby.

Seething diplomatic and trade tensions have also alarmed Australian businesses, which have publicly urged Canberra to pursue a reset with Beijing. In private, an executive at a multibillion-dollar company with Chinese partners told the Financial Times that the government’s diplomatic strategy had been “amateurish”.

James Robson, owner of Ross Hill Wines in Orange, New South Wales, warned Beijing’s imposition of tariffs on Australian wine was terrible news for the industry and questioned the government's diplomatic strategy. “We don’t understand why the Federal government picked a fight with our biggest customer,” he told Australia’s national broadcaster ABC.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison, whose diplomatic push back against China, Australia’s largest trading partner, has come under fire © Getty ImagesThe deterioration in Sino-Australian relations has been swift and painful. Back in 2014, China’s president Xi Jinping was accorded the rare honour of addressing Australia’s parliament. His speech lauded the “oceans of goodwill” between the nations and laid the groundwork for a trade deal, which boosted two way trade to a record A$252bn ($191bn) last year.

But in the past six months, Beijing has slapped tariffs on barley and wine and is disrupting imports of many other Australian goods. Chinese ministers refuse to return calls from their Australian counterparts and its diplomats are deploying confrontational “ wolf warrior” tactics, such as leaking a 14-point memo to media blaming Canberra for the breakdown.

Mr Morrison declared last month that Canberra did not want to be forced into a “binary choice” between superpowers.

“Our actions are wrongly seen and interpreted by some only through the lens of the strategic competition between China and the United States,” Mr Morrison said. “It’s as if Australia does not have its own unique interests or views as an independent sovereign state.”

There is no doubt, said analysts, that managing China relations has become more challenging as Beijing asserts its national interests and the US pushes back. Beijing’s territorial land grabs in the South China Sea, its crackdown in Hong Kong and human rights abuses in Xinjiang have alarmed diplomats, they said.

Many China scholars support Canberra’s forthright approach in defending its values, including demanding an apology from Beijing over the tweet, which followed Canberra’s publication last month of a critical war crimes report. Labor also condemned the post, although it has urged the government to respond strategically, rather than “be emotional”.

James Curran, professor of history at University of Sydney, said the failing in Canberra’s diplomacy towards Beijing has not been the substance of its policy but rather the presentation. In particular, the decision to call for a Covid-19 inquiry was a mis-step, owing to the lack of consultation with China and other nations.

Mr Curran said Canberra’s naivety had left it exposed to economic coercion from Beijing, which has used Australia as a warning to other nations of the risk of getting too close to the US.

Other countries, such as New Zealand, have been more successful by speaking out in concert with allies against Beijing, for example regarding political repression in Hong Kong, without suffering a backlash, he said.

“Some Australian analysts have not hesitated to state that not only is Australia at the vanguard of ‘pushing back’ against China,” said Mr Curran. “But will America come to Australia’s aid in terms of our export markets that have been affected? No.”

2014President Xi Jinping delivers speech in Australian parliament noting the “vast oceans of goodwill between China and Australia”

2015China-Australia trade deal signed, boosting trade by A$100bn within five years

2016Australian senator pinpointed in foreign interference controversy involving a Chinese billionaire with alleged ties to Chinese Communist party

2017Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declares in Mandarin the Australian people will “stand up” against foreign interference and pledges tough new laws

2018 Australia becomes the first western power to ban Huawei and ZTE from its 5G networks

April 2020 Canberra calls for inquiry into the origins of the Covid-19 outbreak in Wuhan

November 2020Beijing imposes trade sanctions on Australian products. Chinese diplomat rebuked by Canberra for Twitter post depicting a soldier committing war crimes

December 2020Australia says it will ask the WTO to investigate punitive Chinese tariffs on barley imports

Sent from my iPad



To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (165748)4/25/2022 6:38:49 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 217654
 
Re <<Huawei>>

(1) am guessing that a Huawei $ spent on R&D has the effect of ~$5 spent by others per people's war protocol, due to and in no particular order, (i) exchange rates, (ii) purchasing power parity, (iii) supplies of raw talents, (iv) more astute R&D management, (v) alliance structuring, and (vi) astute and fine-tuned methodologies

(2) the news on the 5G rollout continues to be supportive, as I follow the space due to staking of 0941.HK China Mobile finance.yahoo.com

(3) Conversion of 0941's remaining 500M 4G subscribers is just a matter of time thestandard.com.hk , and soon-enough shall be a 5G-subscriber pure-play w/ 970M souls even as industrial and logistic subscribers can double the count once each container is tracked and every machine monitored and controlled, along with traffic cameras etc etc

(4) Huawei should look quite different by the time the Trump gets back in office should such be the eventuality, and if not, no matter for the entertainment provided by Team Huawei should continue apace, even in Brazil

For Team Brazil can done well by strong engagement w/ Team Huawei bnamericas.com

(5) Let us see what Team Brazil can do by 2026 / 2032 relative to Team India

(5-i) Team India likes to be cautious and discuss stuff businessinsider.in

(5-ii) Team Brazil seems to be good at fictional workarounds, able to separate 'official' telecom from 'private' telecom :0) never mind that Huawei only cares about the flow of luscious revenue worldcrunch.com

bloomberg.com

Huawei Rivals Apple, Meta With R&D Spending to Beat U.S. Sanctions - Bloomberg

26 April 2022, 00:00 GMT+8
Few companies devote more of their revenue to research than Huawei Technologies Co., for which developing new technologies is a matter of thwarting crippling U.S. trade and investment sanctions.

China’s largest tech giant almost doubled its R&D budget over the past half-decade to $22.1 billion in 2021 -- more than any company in the world outside America. That’s 22.4% of its sales that year: nearly double Amazon.com Inc.’s and Google-owner Alphabet Inc.’s proportions and more than triple iPhone-maker Apple Inc.’s. Only Meta Platforms Inc. came close among the so-called Faang contingent with 20.9%, data compiled by Bloomberg shows.

That growing warchest underscores Huawei’s do-or-die effort to develop chips, networking gear and even smartphones free of American technology, barred since 2019 after Washington accused Huawei of jeopardizing U.S. national security. The sweeping sanctions wiped out nearly a third of revenue in 2021, inflating the ratio the Chinese firm spent on research -- though that’s still up in absolute terms from the previous year.

“The true value of Huawei lies in the R&D capabilities we have accumulated though our constant, long-term investment in research,” Meng Wanzhou, the eldest daughter of billionaire founder Ren Zhengfei, said in March during her first briefing since emerging from house arrest in Canada on charges of violating U.S. sanctions. “It’s in the company’s basic law that we will spend 10% of our annual revenue in R&D.””

Proportional AllocationsHuawei is No. 1 relative to revenue among the top research spenders

Source: Bloomberg, companies' reports

Note: Calendar-year figures



Huawei, which isn’t publicly traded, was one of just six companies worldwide that spent more than $20 billion on R&D last year, Bloomberg data show. Its tally rivaled Microsoft Corp.’s and came in about $1 billion less than Apple and $2.5 billion shy of Meta. That approach has paid dividends so far -- the Chinese networking giant received 2,770 U.S. patents last year, putting it at No. 5 behind perennial leader International Business Machines Corp., according to an independent study.

Amazon and Alphabet towered over all with total outlays of $56 billion and $31.6 billion, respectively. The median among the 15 companies in the SuperTech Index was $2.9 billion.

Biggest BudgetsHuawei's R&D spending stacks up well with Faangs, tech giants

Source: Bloomberg

Note: Figures are calendar year; SuperTech is median budget



While sanctions imposed during Donald Trump’s presidency have hobbled its smartphone business and barred its 5G gear across parts of Europe and Asia, the company has managed to raise capital by selling off assets and relying on its industry-leading IP portfolio. In 2021, Huawei sold its Honor phone unit to a state-led conglomerate, and unloaded its x86 server business on another Chinese consortium.

But there are limits to its spending capacity.

While Huawei’s 2021 research budget doubled from five years earlier, based on its annual reports, the yearly growth slowed. Meta quadrupled its own spending -- a function of its new focus on developing metaverse technology. Amazon more than tripled its own R&D budget, according to calendar-year figures compiled by Bloomberg, reflecting different fiscal periods.

Boosting BudgetsResearch and development spending increases since 2016

Source: Bloomberg, annual reports

Note: Figures are trailing 12-months to reflect calendar years since 2016



The Chinese firm said it had 195,000 employees in 2021, of which 107,000 -- 55% -- “worked in R&D.” An accurate comparison of technical staff is difficult as various companies use different definitions. By comparison, about 60,000 or a third of Microsoft’s employees are classified as R&D staff, according to its annual report.

“The problems Huawei faces right now can’t be solved by cutting expense,” Guo Ping, the former rotating chairman and now chairman of Huawei’s supervisory board, told reporters during the briefing. “Huawei can not acquire advanced technologies, we have to increase investment in technology development.”

— With assistance by Lee J Miller, and Yuan Gao