任正非宣布：华为明天将发布世界最快的人工智能平台！ 附《经济学人》采访纪要（中英文全文）
华为“心声社区”9月16日刊登了任正非于9月10日接受《经济学人》的采访纪要。任正非在采访中表示，到今年8月，华为收入累计增近两成，利润同比持平。他透露，华为在9月18日将要发布昇腾AI集群，1024节点，是目前全世界最快的人工智能平台。他表示，愿意将华为5G的技术和工艺向国外企业进行许可，6G研究方面华为也领先世界。
任正非接受《经济学人》采访纪要
2019年9月10日
1、《经济学人》北京分社社长、“茶馆”专栏作家David Rennie：任总，您是一名非常重要的全球商业领袖。因此，在提出其他华为相关问题前，我们希望先问您一个关于全球化、关于技术给全球化带来哪些挑战的问题。你们现在有许多大公司所销售的产品和服务只有在建立起高度信任的世界才能发生，因为你们销售的不是网球鞋和网球拍，而是自动驾驶汽车或医疗设备。从全球化的角度看，针对这类产品进行交易需要建立在终生信任的基础上。但像中美这样的国家相互之间很难产生信任。这个问题能解决吗？应该怎样解决？我们想听听您的看法。
任正非：欢迎你们直爽提问，我也会非常坦诚地回答问题。
经济全球化对整个人类有非常大的好处，因为它对资源的优化配置和降低服务成本具有极大意义，因此会推动社会的进步速度加快。经济全球化是西方社会先提出来的，西方的指导思想是：西方提供先进的技术和设备，发展中国家提供原材料和低端劳动，这样来进行全球化的经济贸易。但是西方没有想到，发展中国家从低端生产开始，也会逐渐走向高端。
上世纪六、七十年代，西方碰到了严重的经济危机，这个经济危机就是劳资冲突。西方经济学家提出一个理论“高工资、高物价、高消费”，在短时间内解决了西方的困境，实现经济的高速发展。直到上世纪末，数十年间，西方社会发生迅猛的经济增长。这个经济模式的基础是必须要有高收益，如果没有高收益就无法完成高收入分配。发展中国家虽然提供了广大的市场，但是发展中国家也会有大量商品进入发达国家，发生这种冲突和矛盾，不是全球化本身的问题，而是两个发展机制之间应该进行正确的协调。
单单就欧洲和中国的关系来讲如何解决这个问题。中国要履行WTO承诺，大规模开放服务业、制造业……。最近这两年开放速度加快了，比承诺晚了一点。英国和欧洲在服务业上经历了几百年积累，有充分经验，中国也有极大需求，如果欧洲服务业大规模进入中国，有利于中国的社会进步。中国用产品从欧洲赚回来的钱，欧洲用产品与服务再从中国赚回去，这样有利于财务平衡。比如，中国的汽车税收将用五年时间降到非常低的水平，英国和欧洲的汽车是世界上质量最好的汽车，日本的汽车是最经济实惠、又质量优良的汽车。所以，现在全球化中出现的问题需要磋商，一件一件去实现解决。不是全球化本身错了，而是机制在新环境下出现了一些问题，但是没有坐下来好好去协调。
再比如俄罗斯，如果当年欧盟接纳俄罗斯加入欧盟，俄罗斯的能源、西方的机械设备交易，估计至少不低于一万亿欧元，这些经济注入到欧洲，有利于欧洲解决内部贫富分化的矛盾。
我曾经与奥斯本和卡梅伦有良好沟通。当时奥斯本把英国税收降到21%，并不影响英国的财政，为什么？领救济金的人需要有条件领取救济金，必须去找工作，要么做一些公共服务，比如照顾孤寡老人、公共卫生等。减少的税收收入和减少的社会福利开支是相等的，所以英国很平稳。特蕾莎政府继续宣布把税收降到17%，英国的一系列政策是英国重新成为投资中心的基因。所以，要在不断自我调整中适应全球化，而不是一个标准的全球化会适应全世界。这是我一点不成熟的看法。
2、David Rennie ：我知道我的同事有很多关于华为的问题。您刚才提到欧洲和日本等国家如何看待经济全球化，但唯独没有提到美国。鉴于目前的中美关系，您担心全球化未来的走向吗？
任正非：会。因为美国是世界最强大的国家，它本来是世界警察，维护世界秩序，世界的回报是接受美元作为国际流通和储备货币，美国通过发行美元向全世界征收铸币税。如果美国继续承担维护世界秩序稳定的责任，它并不会吃亏。但是现在美国自己把这个机制破坏了，大家不再相信美国在维护世界秩序，也不相信美元是最可靠的储备货币。当全世界对美国和美元的信任产生摇摆，美债和美股就会发生危机，这会引发美国内部产生巨大的经济政治动荡。
3、《经济学人》伦敦商业主编Patrick Foulis：2019年，美国外交家做了很大的努力试图说服美国的盟国不要使用华为设备。请问任先生，美国所采取的一系列行动现在成功了吗？美国的这些努力对象主要是其核心盟国，比如英国和澳大利亚，但是似乎越南等国也面临来自美国的巨大压力，要求他们不要使用华为设备。美国的这一系列抵制华为的举动现在有多成功？
任正非：首先，对于买不买华为设备，这是很正常的商业选择，因为过去也有很多客户不买华为设备，选择过程中大多数是商业原因。但是选择5G的时候，把5G作为一个政治因素、作为一个危险品来看待，美国可能看待错了。对5G的选择应该从有利于国家发展的角度，而不是政治角度。
我举一个例子。一千年前，中国处于唐宋文明，当时中国是世界上最强大的国家，清明上河图的盛世形象不是虚构出来的，而是真实描绘。几百年前，英国的哲学和社会制度促进了工业革命，英国人发明了火车，还发明了轮船，而中国基本还是马车，马车的速度比火车慢，载货量比轮船低，中国就落后了。英国成了世界上的工业强国，把工业品卖到了全世界，对各国的社会进步产生了巨大影响，至今全世界有2/3的人口会讲英语，这就是速度决定了社会进步。
5G是一个高速度、高带宽、低时延的信息联接技术，代表了信息社会的速度，谁掌握了速度，谁就会快速前进。在信息社会中，放弃了速度，放弃了对优秀信息联接技术的选择，也可能使它的经济减速。
英国人民是非常聪明的，英国大学也是世界最优秀的，如果要重振工业雄风，一定要在信息社会中掌握高速度。光纤网络、基于光纤网络的5G技术，它可以联接超级计算机、超级存储系统，支持人工智能。如果人工智能可以让现有产能提升十倍效率，那么英国就变成几亿人口的工业大国。我说“提升十倍效率”是随便说的，在极端情况下，提高百倍、千倍效率也是可能的。人工智能的鼻祖是图灵，他是英国人；克隆小绵羊多莉的也是英国人。如果基因技术和电子技术融成一个技术，这个世界会变成什么样子？我不可想象。英国有极大的振兴空间，速度决定了英国是不是会走向胜利。
4、Patrick Foulis：我想问问关于过去几个月华为的情况以及美国的打压对华为有哪些影响。能否谈一下自今年5月份华为被加入“实体清单”以来，你们的财务表现如何？会不会由于“实体清单”事件带来收入下滑？
任正非：到今年8月份，我们的收入累计增长了19.7%，利润和去年持平，没有增长。收入增长率在递减，年初是30%左右，年中是23%，8月份已经是19.7%了。利润没有增长，主要是战略投入在大幅度增加，我们增加了几千名员工，这些员工都是高素质人才，比如一些天才少年、应届毕业的博士，他们来主要是要修补我们被实体清单击穿的“洞”。现在从5G……到核心网，网络的“洞”我们已经补完了。我们在9月18日将要发布昇腾AI集群，1024节点，这是目前全世界最快的人工智能平台。
现在实体清单打击对我们有影响的是终端，终端的“洞”还需要一定时间才能补好。
Patrick Foulis：现在海外消费者业务是不是在萎缩和下滑？
任正非：之前终端在海外出现了下滑，下滑的速度在减慢，10%左右。
5、Patrick Foulis：这个月再过一段时间，你们将推出华为Mate 30系列新手机。Mate 30系列有没有安装安卓和Google应用？现在是什么情况？
任正非：没有预装Google的GMS生态系统。
Patrick Foulis：那我还要问个问题。如果说华为的这款手机并不能预装全套的Google应用，是否可以预测未来华为手机的海外销量会大大低于从前？是不是意味着下半年，包括第四季度，华为在财务上会面临比较大的打击？
任正非：首先，我们还是想继续使用安卓系统，我们和Google还是很友好的。如果美国政府不准我们使用，我们也有替代方法，但是如果要进行替代，需要两、三年时间才能完成。所以，终端海外销量在这段时期有所下滑，我们认为是正常的。除了生态应用以外，我们的手机还有很多特殊的优质性能，因此我们认为还是会有客户喜欢和接受我们的产品的。9月19日在慕尼黑发布Mate 30手机，要根据那时的发布情况来看，里面装载了什么东西。
Patrick Foulis：在华为准备推出自己的操作系统期间，您觉得有没有可能出现亏损？
任正非：不会。增长会放慢，但是不会亏损。
Patrick Foulis：假如说我是负责Google公司的，华为最终在全球推操作系统，作为Google会多担心呢？
任正非：Google还在不断说服美国政府许可我们使用它的生态系统，我们和Google在这个问题上是一条心的。我们的操作系统最初并不是针对手机开发，而且Google的操作系统是开源的，我们还会继续使用。美国限制我们不能使用的是Google的GMS生态系统，涉及千万家合作伙伴，华为也不可能一、两天就能替代完成。如果美国政府批准我们继续用Google生态系统，其实就是美国公司垄断了世界；如果美国政府不批准，美国公司在世界上的竞争力就削弱了。
6、Patrick Foulis：我们知道您的工作之一是要重建信任，华为公司有没有考虑在重建信任方面提出一些激进的选项或者方案？比如说把中国市场外的部分5G业务卖给其他公司，有没有考虑这样一些激进方案调整公司架构，从而重建信任？
任正非：我们不太可能采用引入外来投资者的方案，因为投资者的思想方式以盈利为中心，而我们公司是理想高于投资利益。至于技术是不是可以许可转让给西方国家？可以。不是部分，可以是全部。华为的理想是“为全人类提供服务，努力攀登科学高峰”，有更多人来一起完成，符合我们的价值观。因此，能否许可别的西方国家也生产我们同等的设备？可以的。
Patrick Foulis：跟您再确认一下，您说的转让是把某些区域的5G业务卖出去，还是指技术许可？
任正非：技术和工艺都可以许可，他们可以在此基础上再研发。
Patrick Foulis：这种模式下，华为员工和相关的设施、场地一并转让还是只是知识产权？
任正非：只是技术秘密，不可能连员工都转让了。
Patrick Foulis：可能的合作伙伴会是哪些？例如在美国哪些公司在考虑之列？
任正非：从来没有人跟我谈到过这个事，我也不知道哪些公司是可以的。
Patrick Foulis：您也知道硅谷包括整个美国会有很多人读我们这篇文章，所以这也是很好的机会向他们宣传。
任正非：对啊，平衡矛盾，平衡斗争。
David Rennie：我和Foulis都在美国常驻过很多年，所以，我们的读者有一半以上常年居住在美国。您向美国政界和商界传递信任是解决问题的重要手段，但有些美国政客对华为的具体技术并不关心，他们真正关心的是更大的问题，即为什么要让中国公司在美国建5G这么敏感的技术？因此，你们在美国遭遇的政治问题是很难解决的。从您的角度来看，刚才提到的5G技术转让也好或者这方面的解决方案也好，规模会有多大？华为能够接受多大程度的5G技术转让？
任正非：当我们把技术全部转让以后，他们可以在此基础上去修改代码，修改代码以后，相当于对我们屏蔽了，对世界也屏蔽了。美国5G是独立的5G，没有什么安全问题，它的安全就是管住美国公司。不是我们公司在美国卖5G，而是美国公司在美国卖自己的5G。
《经济学人》驻香港亚洲科技记者Hal Hodson：任总您有没有想过，除美国之外，你们可能也会在非洲或者欧洲的一些国家遇到新的实体与你们竞争5G？您预想过这种竞争吗？或者您觉得会是什么样的？
任正非：是可以竞争的。
《经济学人》驻上海资深中国商业记者Stephanie Studer：关于转让金额，您心中有没有一个大概的数字？
任正非：没有数字，你们刚提出来，我还没有算账。
Stephanie Studer：有没有一个范围呢？
任正非：我说不出来金额范围，技术范围可以讨论。
David Rennie：从政治的角度来看，接受华为5G技术转让的公司是美国公司比较好，还是欧洲或日本公司更好？还是您认为因为你们面临的问题主要是美国，所以把你们的5G技术卖给美国公司更好？
任正非：主要看你能打下多少市场来，如果你买了技术，占领一个很小的市场，那是不值得的。必须要占领一个很大的市场，自己要先评估是否有能力占领这么大的市场空间。
Patrick Foulis：像这样激进的方案，您认为大概什么时候可以实现？几年？还是很快就可以实现？
任正非：很快。
Patrick Foulis：有可能在2020年大选之前吗？
任正非：这与美国大选没有关系，我们聊天中从来没有提到大选这个事情。
7、David Rennie：我想问您一个关于政治和文化的问题。之前我在美国工作时，很多美国重要的政客都说中国当时的崛起速度很快，但是美国手里还有一个法宝，就是美国的民主、言论自由，包括大学学生可以自由地学习和思考。中国是一个专制国家，很难实现真正的创新，今天来看中国有华为这样的公司在做创新。中国的政治体系是一党制，民众并不是在互联网什么都可以看到，也不是所有书都能读到，这会限制了中国的创新和创造力吗？您觉得在创新方面，民主政治体制是不是相比其它政治体制更有优势？
任正非：创新的基础还是学术自由，有自由的学术思想、自由的研究方向，这是很重要的。美国无疑拥有世界上最利于创新的土壤，互联网出现后，人们获取各种信息更加方便自由，特别是理工科的论文并不具有意识形态，在全世界可以自由发布分享。
比如5G技术来源，是土耳其数学教授Arikan2007年的一篇数学论文。十多年前，他发布论文后的两个月，我们发现了这篇论文，就投入了庞大的研究力量，把它解析成了今天的5G标准。中国在科技领域的思想还是百花齐放的，华为还有非常多的外国科学家，我们努力吸取这个时代的营养，让自己快速前进。
David Rennie：大家的确可以在互联网上看到科技论文，但在互联网上也有关于政治、历史的内容，在中国绝大多数人是看不到的，因为中国政府对这些信息进行了封锁。我们也看到了华为在东莞的美丽园区，有很多欧式建筑。华为会不会确保设计人员、研究人员有VPN上外网获取国外的新闻、了解国外的政治事件和其他一些重要问题？
任正非：如果华为的工程师都变成政治家，华为公司可能就垮了。工程师不要去看政治，管那么多政治问题干什么？把商品做好就行了。如果我们的工程师跑到外面去游行，工资谁发？
David Rennie：邓小平在1978年3月份时发表了一个很著名的演讲，他谈到中国科技时表示，现在应该让科学家专注于科学研究，不要让他们读那么多的政治论文或者研究政治。我在中国跟一些大学的教授交流时，他们说现在很有压力，花很多的时间研究习近平思想，了解政治，留给自己思考的时间反而非常有限。华为作为一家民营企业有没有感到学习政治、了解政治的压力？还是像邓小平1978年说的一样，在一定程度上保护你们的科学家，让他们不过问政治，专注科研？
任正非：邓小平讲这句话的时候，我在现场，那是在全国科学大会上，现场有六千名全国科学代表，我是六千人之一，亲耳听到他的讲话，我流泪了。他讲话提到“五天工作，一天政治学习”，那时中国是六天工作制，政治学习占的时间太多，我们能够每个星期有五天用于业务工作，非常高兴。我始终认为，让政治家去搞懂政治，工程师主要搞懂技术，一个不懂技术的工程师是浪费粮食。
David Rennie：您是一名党员，现在党员手机上都有一个专门学习习近平思想的应用。是不是有些人认为中国共产党的部分党员忘记了邓小平1978年讲话的思想，想让像工程师和您这样忙碌的人一天花一到两小时学习政治？
任正非：习近平主席讲话各个方面都有，关于农业、卫生、乡村建设……，与我们关系不大，我们是科技公司，主要学习习主席讲话关于科学技术发展的内容。当然，一部分党政工作者或者要成为党和国家领导人的人，他们是需要多学习一些各方面的内容。
我听习主席讲话，他在博鳌论坛讲到“中国要更大规模对外资开放”，他在上海进出口博览会讲到“要把汽车关税降下来”……，这些都是习主席指示，我们觉得很高兴，国家在继续发展。深圳明显对中小企业把税收降下来了，像出租车司机的这类低端收入人群不再缴税，这是接受了香港的教训。中央电视台播了对香港教训的深刻认识，就是要关心穷人的生活，穷人要有房子住，如果穷人有了一定生活保障水平，就不会去闹事，一小撮人闹事也不会有人附和。这也是习主席思想，我是在电视上看见的。
8、David Rennie：刚才提到香港。最近看到香港一家民营企业国泰航空，被迫替换了高层、开除了员工，纯粹是因为政治因素，因为其员工在香港参加了示威。这相当于中国中央政府迫使民营企业做出政治方面的决策，这会不会让中国民营企业的处境更加艰难？你们试图对外解释民营企业不受中国政治影响，但中国政府却对国泰航空采取了行动。这会不会让民营企业的处境更加艰难？
任正非：香港的情况恰恰是极端资本主义造成的，大资本家们挣了非常多的钱，连小报亭、地下停车场、咖啡厅很多都是他们掌控的，拿走了太多的利益，普通老百姓没有多少钱，很多人生活水平很低。
我看了国家民航总局对国泰航空的通报，国泰有些机师、空乘有暴力冲击的行为，民航局担心飞行员在飞行过程中出现极端思维，有可能造成安全问题，所以要求国泰航空要管控飞往内地的飞行活动。因为担心飞行安全，采取这样的管理措施应该是合理的，而且并没有限制国泰航空飞往其他地方的飞机。我一个人认为，中央政府在处理香港问题上是很明智的，一国两制，我们这边的管理和香港的管理是不一样的。香港游行、示威、喊口号应该是允许的，但是有破坏行为就不合适了。直到今天，中央政府没有做任何行为，但是香港再继续这样下去，商业会受影响，金融会受影响，旅游也会受影响，再影响下去，穷人的生活更不能解决。香港现在的状况是要反思贫富差距不能太大，不能有极端贫困。
中国政府在消除贫困上做了很多努力。这几年，我沿着新疆、西藏、云南这些边境走过，边疆老百姓的生活改善非常大，特别是西藏，西藏改善比新疆还大，都很稳定，亲眼一看才知道是什么情况。以后应该开放给更多外国记者去这些地方看一看。我亲自走过云南、贵州、西藏、新疆等地方的贫困地区，亲眼看到人们的生活改善，相信中国不会出现颜色革命。
9、David Rennie：政治方面问您最后一个问题，前面很多的采访都问到您女儿孟晚舟事件，现在有两个加拿大人在中国被扣押，根据中国外交部说法，说此事是为了给加拿大政府一个教训。我们也从加拿大使馆了解到，其中一位是前加拿大外交人员。现在不知道他们被关押在哪个地方，而且他们不能见律师、不能见家人，也不能打电话。除了几名加拿大外交人员，他们没有和其他人沟通过。他们的眼镜被没收，连书都看不了。我相信这个情况有人跟您描述过，您怎么看这两个加拿大人受到的待遇？您认为这样对待他们合适吗？中国政府是否应该允许他们见律师？您的女儿现在在加拿大也是被扣押，但是可以见律师、见家人，也可以在温哥华走动。这两个加拿大人受到的待遇完全不一样，您怎么看？
任正非：对于这两个人的事，我一无所知，国家怎么做事，我们并不清楚。我只知道孟晚舟本身没有犯罪，逮捕孟晚舟就是一个错误，要依靠法庭来解决。他们的事情没有人跟我讲过，没有必要跟我讲，我也没有渠道去知道这个事。
10、Hal Hodson：华为作为网络基础设施领域最大的企业之一，过去二十年不断的发展壮大，越来越成为情报机构的目标，不仅仅是后门问题，也有渗透、业务运营安全的问题。能否介绍一下华为如何确保业务运营安全，以及采取了哪些反制措施？
任正非：第一，华为坚持把网络安全和隐私保护作为公司的最高纲领，坚定不移地实行欧洲GDPR标准，全面贯彻到所有体系中去。我们现在不断投入巨额资金，在整改新的网络、构建新的网络。
第二，三十多年来，华为在170个国家为1500多家运营商提供网络服务，覆盖大约30亿用户，在全球范围内一直保持着良好的网络安全记录。事实证明，我们的设备从来没有出现过严重的网络安全事故。
而且，我们愿意接受各个国家的严格监管，英国是监管最严厉的。为什么英国坚定不移地用我们的设备？虽然英国也提出了我们设备存在的问题和缺点，但是总体比其他公司的审查更严格一些，英国因此就会更信任我们一些。
11、Stephanie Studer：任先生，我们知道中国另外一家技术先驱型企业阿里巴巴的创始人马云在今天（9月10日）退休。这个事情去年已经宣布，这种情况并不常见。我相信您也知道，中国有许多企业领导人退休太晚，以至于对企业发展不利。想问如果您退休的话，成本和收益是什么？考虑到华为目前所处的大环境，您会不会考虑更早一点退休呢？
任正非：你催我退休，那我就退休吧。我会在我思维跟不上的时候退休的，我现在还是才思泉涌的状态，再呆几天吧！
Stephanie Studer：您觉得您大概多久会退休呢？
任正非：不知道，根据需要。
12、David Rennie：您看过美国纪录片《美国工厂》了吗？如果看过，您如何看中国人和美国人不同的工作方式？
任正非：我听说是奥巴马出品的，听过介绍，但还没看。
13、Stephanie Studer：再追问一下。你刚才提到您今天早上突然有一个大胆的想法，要把你们的核心业务卖掉。我觉得，你是想说5G吧？然后你们会继续开发6G，甚至更新一代的技术。是什么让您触发了这个念头？这样做是不是有可能只是在回避问题？如果等你们6G做出来了，人家也不接受怎么办？所以，这样做对你们具体会有什么好处呢？这样做的主要原因是什么？
任正非：我说的5G是给予许可，不等于我们自己不做。我们希望西方能缩短往前走的平台路径，所以许可其他公司完整拿到我们的技术。对于6G研究，我们也是领先世界的，但是我们判断6G十年以后才会开始投入使用。因此，转让技术不是我们前进的终结，我们获得资金以后会更大踏步前进。
Patrick Foulis：跟您确认一下，这里所说的“许可”并不是像华为给Arm的许可一样，每年缴年度许可费，而是一次性交易，收购方一次性买断永久使用相关技术和知识产权的权利？
任正非：对，一次性付钱。
Patrick Foulis：华为其他高管对这一计划怎么看？我不知道您是否有时间和他们讨论过这个计划？他们听到这个想法之后会大吃一惊吗？
任正非：不会，我们本来就希望世界是平衡的，大家利益均享是有利于华为生存的。“利益均分”本来也是一百多年前英国提出的。
David Rennie：我发现您很喜欢用布满弹孔的苏联老伊尔2飞机作比喻。您在讲关于5G的想法时，我的感觉是，有点像飞行员，因为担心飞机会坠落，就把飞机上重的东西扔掉一些，以保持飞机继续飞行。这个描述能够反映您内心的想法吗？
任正非：不是。因为我们把5G许可权转让以后，我们会得到一部分钱，这部分钱就如柴火一样，“柴火”可以把我们未来的科学研究烧得更旺。
Hal Hodson：您觉得美国的商界和政界是否已做好准备,与华为在5G知识产权上一争高下吗？
任正非：没有。
Hal Hodson：所以，您说这个话主要是为了展现一个良好的姿态？
任正非：对。如果他们真正要买，我们会真正去做成这件事情。
Hal Hodson：也就是说，如果美国愿意探索这个可能性，华为愿意放弃领先地位，把时钟归零，与大家一起公平竞争吗？
任正非：是这样。
David Rennie：非常感谢您抽出时间接受我们的采访。
任正非：欢迎你们以后经常来。如果想知道我们是不是真正能活下来，你们可以明年这个时候再来。
以下是英文版：
Ren Zhengfei'sInterview with The Economist
September10, 2019
01 David Rennie, Beijing BureauChief and "Chaguan" Columnist, TheEconomist: Mr. Ren, before we ask you questions about Huawei, we would liketo ask you a question about globalization and about how technology ischallenging globalization, because you're also a very important global businessleader, and you now have big companies that are selling products and servicesthat can only make sense in a world of a great degree of trust. You know, it'snot selling tennis shoes or tennis rackets. It's selling an autonomous car or amedical device. So this globalization is now seeing trade in products thatrequires a lifetime of trust, at the same time as countries like China andAmerica find it very difficult to trust one another. Can this problem beresolved? What is your view on how this problem can be solved?
Ren: Pleasebe straightforward in your questions. I will also be very frank in my answers.
Economicglobalization can bring substantial benefits to all of humanity. This isbecause it will play a significant role in driving the optimal allocation ofresources and reduction of service cost, thereby accelerating the pace of socialprogress. Economic globalization was a concept put forward by Westerncountries. Their guiding principle was to allow the West to trade theiradvanced technology and equipment for developing countries' raw materials andcost-efficient labor forces. This enabled global trade. But the West did notexpect that developing countries would slowly begin to move up the value chain withproduction of low-end products.
The West had aserious economic crisis in the 1960s and 1970s, brought about by conflictsbetween employers and employees. Some Western economists suggested higher pay,higher commodity prices, and higher consumption would solve this crisis. Thistheory worked well to address the West's problems for a while. For the next severaldecades until the end of the last century, their economy grew very quickly. Sustainingsuch an economic model requires very high yields though. Without high yields,it's going to be very difficult to ensure that you have enough wealth todistribute. Although developing countries created a massive market space for Westerncountries to sell in, many products from these developing countries also entereddeveloped markets. The clashes and contradictions that arose during the processare not an inherent problem with globalization, but occurred because of a lackof effective coordination between countries of these two different developmentstages.
Let me use theEurope-China relationship as an example to explain how we could possiblyaddress this problem. China has made a commitment to the World TradeOrganization (WTO) that it will significantly open up its service andmanufacturing sectors. Over the last two years, this opening up has beenaccelerating, even though it is still a bit behind the promised schedule.
The UK and Europehave accumulated hundreds of years of experience in the service sector. Chinahas a huge demand for services. In this sense, if the export of largequantities of services is allowed from the West into China, it will facilitatethe social advancement of China. In addition, the money earned by China fromEurope through the export of products will return to Europe through the exportof products and services, creating a more balanced economic situation.
Let's look at anotherexample. China will reduce automobile tariffs to a very low level over the nextfive years. The UK and Europe produce the world's highest quality automobiles,while Japan produces the most cost-effective quality automobiles. Today, weneed to address the problems arising from globalization one at a time, throughconsultation. There is nothing wrong with globalization itself. These problemsare arising because the development mechanism has failed to adapt to some ofthe changes in our new environment and the different players involved are notsitting down to have good discussions about how best to coordinate on theseproblems.
Let's take Russiaas another example. If Russia had been accepted as a member of the EuropeanUnion, I estimate that the trade between Russia and other Western countrieswould represent at least one trillion euros, because of Russia's energy exportsand Western countries' machinery and equipment exports. These transactions wouldbring a lot of money into Europe, which would help Europe address the issuesthey are seeing related to increasing economic disparity.
I've had very goodtalks with George Osborne and David Cameron in the past. Back then, Osborne hadalready lowered the UK's tax rate to 21%, but these cuts didn't impact theirnational revenue. Why? Because the UK only allowed welfare to be distributed undercertain conditions. To receive welfare, recipients would have to be activelyseeking a job or make some form of contributions to community service, such ascaring for the elderly or engaging in public health activities. The reductionin tax revenue equaled their reduced social welfare spending, and thus ensuringstability within the country.
Afterwards,Theresa May's administration announced that it would further lower the tax ratesto 17%. All of these policies adopted in the UK are serving as the DNA for itto become an investment center again. All in all, this proves that differentplayers have to keep adapting to the new globalized environment. A one-size-fits-allapproach won't work.
This is my humbleopinion.
02 David Rennie: Iknow my colleagues have many questions about Huawei. The one country you havenot mentioned is the US. So you have talked about Europe and Japan. They cansee the economic globalization. When you look at the US-China relationship, areyou worried about the future of globalization?
Ren: Yes, I think China-USrelations will affect the future of globalization. The US is the most powerfulcountry in the world. It used to maintain order as the "policeman" ofthe world, and in return it was rewarded with the US dollar becoming theworld's currency. The US collects seigniorage from the world by issuing USdollars. If the US continued to maintain world order, it would not stand tolose anything.
However, the US has destroyedthis mechanism. People no longer believe that the US is trying to maintainorder in the world, or that the US dollar is the most reliable reservecurrency. When the world's confidence in the US and the US dollar starts towane, the national debts and stock markets in the US will face crises, whichwill cause great economic and political turmoil in the US.
03 Patrick Foulis,Business Affairs Editor, The Economist:During 2019, US diplomats have made a big effort to persuade its allies not touse Huawei. Could Mr. Ren talk about how successful those efforts have been?Clearly it's focusing on its core allies like Britain and Australia, but italso looks as though countries like Vietnam have been put under heavy pressurenot to use Huawei products. So how successful has the US boycott been?
Ren: First of all, it's perfectly normal for customers notto buy Huawei's equipment. In fact, many customers did not buy Huawei'sequipment in the past. Most customers make their decisions based on commercialconsiderations.
When it comes to 5G, I think theUS may be wrong to politicize 5G or treat it as something dangerous. Countriesshould make their decisions about 5G to facilitate their development ratherthan fulfil political agendas.
Let me give you an example. About1,000 years ago, China was the most powerful country in the world. Theprosperity depicted in the famous painting "Along the River During theQinming Festival" was not fictional; it was real.
Several hundred years ago,the philosophical thoughts and social systems in the UK led to the IndustrialRevolution. The British invented the train and steamship. However, Chinacontinued to rely mainly on horse-drawn carriages for transportation. Thosecarriages travelled at much slower speeds than trains, and they could carry farless cargo than steamboats. That's why China was left behind.
The UK became anindustrial powerhouse, and managed to sell its products all over the world,hugely impacting social progress in many countries. Today, about two-thirds ofthe world's population speak English. With this example, I want to say thatspeed determines social progress.
5G is a connectivity technologythat delivers high speeds, high bandwidth, and low latency. 5G represents speedin the information society. Countries that have speed will move forwardrapidly. On the contrary, countries that give up speed and excellentconnectivity technology may see economic slowdown.
The British are very intelligent,and British universities are among the best in the world. If the UK wants tomake a comeback in industry, it needs speed in the information society.
Optical fibre networks and5G technology that is based on optical fibre networks will connectsupercomputers and super storage systems to support AI. If AI is able toincrease productivity by ten-fold, then the UK will become an industrial powerwith a workforce equivalent to hundreds of millions of people. When I say AIcan increase productivity by ten-fold, this is just an estimation. The truth isthat in some rare cases, with the aid of AI, efficiency can increase by 100times or even 1,000 times.
Alan Turing, the fatherof AI, was British, as was the scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep. I simplycannot imagine what the world will be like when genetic and electronictechnologies come together. I believe the UK has enormous potential forrevitalization. Speed will determine whether the UK can be successful again.
04 Patrick Foulis: Could I ask somequestions about Huawei in the last few months and the implications of theAmerican actions against the company? So the first question is, could you talkabout the financial performance of the business since May when the Entity Listbegan? Have you seen a drop off in your revenues?
Ren: Our revenue has grown by 19.7% by the end of August,while our profits were similar to last year's. Our growth rate has declinedfrom about 30% in the beginning of the year, to 23% by the end of June, and nowdown to 19.7%. Our profits didn't increase largely due to a significantincrease in our strategic investments. We have recruited a few thousand moreemployees worldwide, mostly high-end talent like young geniuses and fresh PhDgraduates, to help patch our holes caused by the Entity List.
We have patched our holes from 5G to core networks. On September 18, wewill announce an AI cluster that connects 1,024 Ascend chips. This will be thefastest AI platform in the world.
Currently, the Entity List still impacts our consumer business, and it willtake some time to patch our holes in this area.
Patrick Foulis: Can I ask, so ifyou look at the consumer business now and just take a snapshot, is itdeclining? Is it shrinking outside of China?
Ren: Our smartphone sales once declined in markets outsideChina, but the rate of that decline is now decreasing, now at around 10%.
05 Patrick Foulis: Later thismonth, I think you'll be launching the Mate 30, the new handset. At the moment,will it have Android and Google apps available on it? What's the latest on that?
Ren: The Mate 30 series won't have the Google Mobile Services(GMS) ecosystem pre-installed.
Patrick Foulis: That leads to mynext question. If you launch a handset that doesn't have the full suite ofGoogle apps on it, is it correct to think that the volume you sell outside ofChina will be much lower than in the past? And following from that, does thatsuggest that the company faces quite a big financial hit in the second half ofthe year, in the fourth quarter?
Ren: We would like to continue using Android, because weremain on good terms with Google. Even if the US government won't allow us tocontinue using Android, we have our alternatives. It will take us two to threeyears to replace Android with our own system, during which time our phone salesin markets outside China will see some decline. We think it is understandable.Our smartphones have their unique features in addition to ecosystemapplications, so we believe there will be many more customers who will like andaccept our products. We will launch the Mate 30 series in Munich on September19, and you can find out what features they will have then.
Patrick Foulis: Over this periodwhen you may have to roll out your own system, do you think it's possible thata company can be pushed into making a loss?
Ren: No, our growth will slow down, but we won't see losses.
Patrick Foulis: If I was running Google and Huawei endsup pushing its operating system out globally, how worried should I be?
Ren: Google is trying to persuade the US government to allow us to use theirecosystem. In this regard, we are willing to work with Google. Our operatingsystem wasn't initially intended for smartphones. Moreover, Google's operatingsystem is open source, so we can continue to use it.The US limits our use of Google Mobile Services, GMS. That ecosystem includesthousands of partners, and Huawei wouldn't be able to build a comparableecosystem in just a couple of days. If the US government allows us to continue touse Google's ecosystem, the US would maintain its dominant position in thisfield. If the US government refuses to grant the license, it will hurt them inthe long run.
06 Patrick Foulis: Part of your job is to try to rebuildtrust. Are there some radical options open to the company that tries to rebuildtrust? For example, welcoming a foreign investor or perhaps even selling partsof the 5G business operated outside of China. Could Mr. Ren talk a bit aboutthe radical options of changing the structure of the company that might helprebuild trust?
Ren: It's unlikely that we will consider introducing externalinvestors, because they often focus on profit. For Huawei, we put ouraspiration above profit. Would we license our technologies to Western countries?Yes. We would even be open to licensing all of our technologies. Our aspirationis to "serve humanity and achieve the pinnacle of science".Collaboration is consistent with our values, so we are willing to license ourequipment to Western countries.
Patrick Foulis: Would this be a sale of the business,perhaps, the 5G business in some geographies, or licensing the technology toother manufacturers? Perhaps you could elaborate.
Ren: We can license technologies and production techniques. Whoever gets thetechnologies can develop new things based on them.
Patrick Foulis: Would Huawei employees and facilities betransferred to the new owners or just the intellectual property?
Ren: We would most certainly not transfer our employees. It would just be thetechnological know-how.
Patrick Foulis: Whodo you think would be the partners? What kind of companies in America, forexample, might be counterparts?
Ren: I haven't had any of this kind of discussion with anyone else yet, so Ihave no idea.
Patrick Foulis: Many people in Silicon Valley and inAmerica will read this article, so this is the chance to explain to them theplan.
Ren: Right. I hope this article can help clear up some conflicts.
David Rennie:Both Mr. Foulis and I were based in America for many years. So more than halfof our readers live in America. So if you're telling the American politicalworld and the business world that you understand trust is a very importantquestion, some American politicians really say, "I'm not interested inhearing about this piece or that piece of Huawei technology." They have abigger problem: Why would you let a Chinese company build something assensitive as 5G? So the political problem that you have in America is very hardto solve. Could you just explain a little bit more how big a transfer you couldimagine? How big a solution are you thinking about to solve this problem? Howradical a transfer of 5G technology?
Ren: If we transfer all our technologies to the US, then they can modify thecode themselves. Neither Huawei nor anyone else in the world will be able toaccess these technologies anymore. The US will have independent 5G. Securitywon't be an issue as long as the US can properly manage its owncompanies. Then it will not be about us selling 5G in the US, but rather aboutUS companies selling their own 5G in the US.
Hal Hodson, Asia Technology Correspondent, The Economist: Mr. Ren, would you envisage Huawei competingwith this hypothetical new entity in 5G technologies, outside of China,obviously not inside the United States, but in Africa or parts of Europe? Wouldyou imagine competing with this new entity or how would that work?
Ren: Huawei cancompete with new entities in those markets as well.
Stephanie Studer, Senior China Business Correspondent, The Economist: Is that a ballpark figure, Mr. Ren, onhow much this sale would cost?
Ren: I don't have anumber right now. This was just brought up, and I haven't done any calculationsyet.
Stephanie Studer:Not even a range?
Ren: No, but we can talk about the range of technologies.
David Rennie:Politically, would it be better to have an American partner for 5G, or aEuropean or Japanese partner? Or do you think your problem is American, so youshould look for an American company willing to buy your 5G technology?
Ren: It depends on howbig a market the potential partner would be able to carve out. If they couldonly capture a little market share through the purchase of our technologies,then that wouldn't be worthwhile. Such a deal is only feasible when they cananticipate a large market share using our technologies. This is an evaluationprocess our potential partners will have to go through.
Patrick Foulis:What would be the time horizon for a radical project like this? Would it take acouple of years to achieve or could it be done quickly?
Ren: Pretty quickly.
Patrick Foulis:Before the 2020 election, perhaps?
Ren: This has nothingto do with the US general election. When I talk to you all, the generalelection is never a topic.
07 David Rennie: Can I ask you another political, kind ofcultural question? When I worked in America, many very important Americanpoliticians would say, "China is rising very fast, but America has a magicweapon. Its magic weapon is it's a democracy and we have freedom of speech, andour university students are free to study and think whatever they want. Chinais an autocratic country so they cannot achieve real innovation." Now,people look at China and companies like Huawei are innovating. The Chinesepolitical system is a one-party system, where students cannot see everything onthe Internet and cannot read any book they want. Does that impose any limit onChinese innovation or creativity? Is there an advantage to being a democraticcountry in the field of innovation?
Ren: Academic freedom is the foundation of innovation. The freedom to havedifferent academic ideas and to study whatever you want is very important.Undoubtedly, the US has the world's most innovation-friendly environment.Thanks to the Internet, people have easier access to information. Science andengineering papers have nothing to do with ideology, so they can be publishedand shared all over the world.
For example, the very source of 5G technology is a mathematical paperwritten in 2007 by Erdal Arikan, aTurkish mathematics professor. Two months after he published the paper, we readit. Then we put a lot of work into researching the paper and turned it intotoday's 5G standard.
China still has an inclusiveenvironment when it comes to science and technology. On top of that, Huawei hasa large number of non-Chinese scientists. We are doing our best to take in thenutrients of the times we are in, so we can move forward faster.
David Rennie:Clearly on the Internet you can see scientific papers, but there are also largeparts of the global Internet that talk about politics, that talk about history,that are not available inside China to most people, because the Chinesegovernment closes that off. You have built this beautiful campus in Dongguan,full of beautiful European buildings. Do you also make sure that your designersand your researchers have VPNs so that they can see foreign news or foreignpolitics to look at big important questions that are not available to Chinesepeople?
Ren: If our engineers became politicians, Huawei would have collapsed.Engineers should focus on developing good products. They don't need to readabout politics. What's the point of them caring about political issues? If ourengineers are all out protesting, who is going to pay them?
David Rennie: To ask on that point, there was a famousspeech that Deng Xiaoping gave in March 1978 about science in China, and hesaid exactly that it was time to allow scientists to do science and not to askthem to read too many political essays or to study politics. When I talk toprofessors at Chinese universities, they complain that the pressure now is tostudy Xi Jinping's thoughts and to study a lot of politics, and they feel thatthe time to think is being limited. You're a private company. Do you feelpressured to have your scientists studying politics, or do you protect them,like Deng Xiaoping said, from studying politics to let them focus?
Ren: I was there when Deng Xiaoping made those remarks at a national scienceconference. I was one of the 6,000 representatives, and I burst into tears whenhearing his speech. Deng said we should spend five days at work and one day forpolitical studies. Back then, Chinese people worked six days a week, and toomuch time was spent on political studies. We were very happy that we couldspend five days a week at work. I have always believed that politics should bedone by politicians, and engineers should focus on technology. Engineers whodon't understand technology aren't worth their wages.
David Rennie: You are a Party member, and party membersnow have an app for studying Xi Jinping's thoughts on their phones. Do theyworry that some people in the Chinese Communist Party are forgetting the wisdomof that speech in 1978, and they now want engineers and busy people like you tospend maybe an hour or two every day studying politics?
Ren: President Xi's speeches cover a lot of areas, such as agriculture,healthcare, and rural development. These topics are not strongly related to us.As we are a technology company, we mainly study his speeches about science andtechnology development. Of course, those who work for the Party or governmentor those who want to become party or country leaders may need to spend moretime learning about all those areas.
I listen to President Xi's speeches. In his speech atthe Boao Forum for Asia, he spoke about China further opening up to foreigninvestment. When it came to his speech at the China International Import Expoin Shanghai, he talked about reducing tariffs for vehicles. These speechescontain his instructions, and we are pleased that our country continues todevelop under these instructions. The tax for small and medium-sizedenterprises in Shenzhen has been significantly reduced, and low-income workerssuch as taxi drivers no longer need to pay income tax. This is a lesson learnedfrom Hong Kong. China Central Television broadcasted lessons learned from HongKong. Caring about poor people's lives is one such lesson. We should providepoor people with accommodation. If their lives are up to a certain standard,there is a much lower chance they will cause problems. Even if a small numberof people do stir up trouble, they will have few supporters. These points arealso part of President Xi's thoughts, which I saw on TV.
08 David Rennie: Just on the question of Hong Kong. Werecently saw that a private company, Cathay Pacific Airways, was forced tochange its senior leaders and some employees for reasons that are 100%political and related to the protests in Hong Kong. When you see the Chinesecentral government using its strength to make a private company take politicaldecisions, does that make life more difficult for every private company in China,when you want to tell foreigners that you are not controlled by politics? Whenthey did that to Cathay Pacific, did they make your life more difficult?
Ren: The issue in Hong Kong has been caused by extreme capitalism. Largecapitalist institutions have made enormous amounts of money, and they evencontrol many newsstands, underground garages, and coffee shops in Hong Kong.They have gained a lot of benefits, but the general public don't have muchmoney, and many have fairly low living standards.
I saw the notice issued by Civil AviationAdministration of China (CAAC) in relation to Cathay Pacific. This notice saidthat some pilots and cabin crew members who worked for Cathay Pacific had beeninvolved in questionable activities related to the Hong Kong protests. So CAAChad concerns about these pilots. That's why CAAC asked Cathay Pacific toregulate and control its flights to the Chinese mainland. I think CAAC's actionmakes sense, because it was taken to ensure aviation security. In addition, therehave been no such limitations to Cathay Pacific's flights to other places.
I personally believe the Chinese central governmenthas acted sensibly in dealing with Hong Kong. China adheres to the "onecountry, two systems" principle. The system in the Chinese mainland andthe system in Hong Kong are different. Demonstrations, protests, and shoutingslogans are allowed in Hong Kong, but I do not think violence is appropriate.
The Chinese central government still hasn't taken anyaction in Hong Kong. If the current situation in Hong Kong continues, business,finance, and tourism in Hong Kong will be affected, and it will be moredifficult to address the issues with the poor there.
A lesson we are learning from the current situation inHong Kong is that the divide between the rich and the poor shouldn't be toolarge, and extreme poverty should be eliminated.
The Chinese central government has made great effortsto eliminate poverty. In recent years, I have personally travelled throughseveral provinces along the Chinese border, such as Xinjiang, Tibet, andYunnan, places previously known for being very poor. From what I saw, theliving standards of the people there have improved a lot, especially in Tibet. Tibethas improved faster than Xinjiang, and both places seem to be enjoying muchstability. I didn't know the real situation there until I had gone there andseen how people's lives had improved with my own eyes.
I think more foreign journalists should also be ableto visit these places. I have been to some of the most poverty-stricken areasin Yunnan, Guizhou, Tibet, Xinjiang, and other regions, and I don't think acolor revolution will happen in China.
09 DavidRennie: One last quick question about politics. So many interviewers have askedyou about your daughter Meng Wanzhou in Canada, but there are also two Canadiancitizens currently being detained in China, and the Chinese foreignadministration has said that the detention should be a lesson to the Canadiangovernment. We know that because the Canadian embassy said these two Canadiandetainees, one of whom is a former diplomat, are not allowed to see theirfamily or make any phone calls. They have not spoken to anyone except someCanadian diplomats. They were allowed a book, and then they had their glassestaken away, so they can't read a book. I'm sure people have described thesituation to you. Do you think that the conditions of these two Canadiandetainees, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, are appropriate conditions, or doyou think that the Chinese government should give them access to a lawyer? Theyhave no access to a lawyer or access to their families. But your daughter hasaccess to a lawyer and access to her family, and can travel around Vancouver.But they are locked up in an unknown location with no access to lawyers. Whatdo you think of the conditions of the detention of the two Canadians citizens?
Ren: I don't know anything about these two individuals.I don't know how the government deals with such cases. I only know Meng Wanzhouhas not committed any crime. Her arrest was wrong from the beginning, and hercase needs to be addressed according to the law. No one has told me anythingabout the situation you just mentioned, because they would have no reason to. Ialso have no channels to get that kind of information.
10 HalHodson:Huawei is one of the biggest infrastructure companies in the world. Andsurely over the last 20 years, it has become larger and larger, and has beenthe target of intelligence agencies. I'm not just talking about backdoors, butin terms of infiltration, and in terms of operational security. Can you tell usa bit about how Huawei approaches operational security and how much you spendon counter intelligence?
Ren: First of all, at Huawei, cyber security andprivacy protection are the company's top priorities. Huawei resolutelyincorporates requirements of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)into all of our business processes. We are now investing heavily to upgradeexisting networks and build new networks.
Second, for more than 30 years, Huawei has provided network services toover 1,500 carriers in more than 170 countries and regions, servingapproximately three billion users. We have maintained a proven track record insecurity. In fact, we have never had any major security incidents.
Besides, we are more than willing to submit ourselves to strict oversightin countries where we operate. At present, the UK has conducted the moststringent oversight of Huawei. Why is the UK determined to continue using ourequipment? Because they still trust us despite the few problems and flaws theyhave found with our equipment. They may even trust us more than other suppliersbecause we have been more rigorously reviewed.
11Stephanie Studer:Mr. Ren, one of the other pioneers of China'stechnology sector, Ma Yun of Alibaba, retires today, September 10. When heannounced this last year, he was the great exception in handing over the reign.As I'm sure you know, many other Chinese bosses don't do this until too late tothe detriment to their companies. What do you think the costs and benefitswould be to your retirement? Do you think it could be an expedient to have anearlier one, given the current political climate that Huawei finds itself in?
Ren: I will retire when my thinkingslows down. Currently, I still have many creative ideas, so I will continueworking for some time.
StephanieStuder: How soon do you think that retirement might be?
Ren: I don't know. It depends on the circumstances.
12 David Rennie: Have you seen the American documentarycalled "American Factory"? If you have seen it, did you get any ideasabout the difference between American and Chinese ways of working?
Ren: I heard this was produced by Obama.Someone described it to me, but I have not seen it yet.
13 Stephanie Studer: Youspoke earlier, this rather bold idea you had this morning, to sell the core ofyour business really. I imagine by that you mean 5G, and you would continue towork on 6G, the next generation. So could you tell us more about what motivatesyou to do this? Because I imagine that it might just be pushing the problemdown the road. Your 6G may be also not accepted when it is up and runningglobally. So how does this help you exactly? What would be the main reason fordoing this?
Ren: I'm talking about licensing our 5Gtechnology. Licensing 5G to others does not mean that Huawei would stop workingon 5G itself. We hope that the speed of technological development in the Westcan increase, so we are looking at the licensing of all our 5G technology tohelp facilitate this process. I think Huawei will continue to take the leadwhen it comes to 6G research, but our judgment is that the commercial use of 6Gwon't begin for at least 10 years.
Therefore,transferring 5G technology to other companies does not mean we will stopworking on it. Instead, the money we get from this transfer will allow us tomake greater strides forward.
Patrick Foulis: Justto be clear, it's not licensing in the sense that there's an annual payment,like what Arm does. It's a one-off transaction which gives the buyer thepermanent right to use the technology and intellectual property.
Ren: Yes. It is a one-off payment.
Patrick Foulis: Whatdo the executives of the company think about this plan? I'm not sure you had achance to discuss it but would they be shocked to hear that you are preparingto do something so dramatic?
Ren: I don't think they would be shocked.Because for Huawei, we hope to see a balanced world. A balanced distribution ofinterests is conducive to Huawei's survival in this world. This same conceptwas put forward by the UK more than 100 years ago.
David Rennie: Yousometimes use this very powerful image of the old Soviet airplane that is stillflying with many holes. When I hear you talking about your thinking about 5G,it is a bit like an airplane pilot who is worried about going down so you maybethrow something heavy out of the airplane and you can keep flying. Does thatreflect your thinking?
Ren: No. Licensing 5G to other companies wouldallow Huawei to get some money. It's just like adding more firewood to fuel ourscientific research efforts.
Hal Hodson: Mr.Ren, do you think that the US business and political community has what ittakes to take this 5G IP package and make it a global competitor to Huawei?
Ren: I don't think so.
Hal Hodson: Sojust a nice gesture then?
Ren: Yes. But if the US wants to buy from us,we will be serious about pursuing that option.
Hal Hodson: Soyou see it as creating a fair technological race and giving up your lead andresetting the clock if America will go for it?
Ren: Yes, that's right.
David Rennie: Thank you very much for your time.
Ren: Welcome to see us often. If you want toknow if Huawei can survive, you can come and see us at the same time next year.
来源：华为 心声社区 《经济学人》The Economist
关于深圳的一切，关注深圳城市、精神生长！
我们的使命是：星辰大海，只与梦想者同行！
拥有深圳梦，请关注（微信号ID：SZeverything）
欢迎来稿，合作，畅谈深圳梦，邮箱至：SZeverything@qq.com