ROB SCHMITZ, HOST:
In a federal courtroom in Brooklyn, the world's biggest telecommunications company is on trial. Huawei is a Chinese firm that makes smartphones, laptops, routers and all sorts of telecoms equipment that's available all over the world. The U.S. has long alleged that Huawei products pose a security risk and have banned them from being sold in the United States. And according to the U.S. government, Huawei is also a criminal enterprise. U.S. prosecutors allege that Huawei built its telecoms empire by stealing from American companies and violated U.S. sanctions by doing business in Iran and North Korea. In 2018, this all came to a head.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Canadian authorities have arrested the chief financial officer of the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei.
SCHMITZ: In what is widely seen as an act of retaliation, China arrested two Canadians living in China, detaining them for nearly three years.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED NPR CONTENT)
SCOTT SIMON, BYLINE: Late last night, China released two Canadian businessmen who had been imprisoned in China for more than a thousand days.
SCHMITZ: The U.S. agreed to a plea deal that freed Meng and released the two Canadians. One of them, Michael Kovrig, joins us now. Welcome.
MICHAEL KOVRIG: Hi, Rob. Good to be with you.
SCHMITZ: So before we begin, I think it's worth doing a thorough introduction, so our audience understands exactly who you are and why we are talking to you. In 2018, you were living in China, working as an analyst for the nonprofit International Crisis Group. Then in December of that year, Chinese police arrested you on suspicion of espionage. You were held for nearly three years. It's been around five years since you were released. Why do you think the Chinese targeted you?
KOVRIG: It's a two-part question, Rob. The first is, why did they grab Canadians, and then why did they pick me specifically? So the Chinese Communist Party directed the Beijing State Security Bureau to abduct Canadians because they wanted to blackmail the Canadian government into releasing Meng Wanzhou. It was hostage diplomacy, that simple.
As to why they picked me, I think they probably chose me because my work dealt with foreign policy and national security issues. Everything I did was transparent and open. I was well-known to the Chinese system, but it was easier for them to trump up charges than, say, if they grabbed a random shoe salesman.
SCHMITZ: So they apprehend you. They throw you in prison. Tell me about what happened to you while you were in prison in China.
KOVRIG: First of all, they arbitrarily detained me and put me in what's called residential surveillance in a designated location, which is essentially a secret detention facility, where they held me in a padded cell for about 145 days, mostly in solitary confinement, with relentless coercive interrogation in which they tried to gaslight me into confessing to crimes that I didn't commit.
And then I spent the following two years in the State Security Bureau's detention center. So during that time, I never left the cell that I was in except for consular meetings or to occasionally visit a lawyer. So for those who went through the COVID time and felt that they were a bit confined at home, I spent that entire period without being able to leave a single cell.
SCHMITZ: Wow. And now you are closely following the U.S. case against Huawei in New York. What are the details of the prosecutor's case against Huawei?
KOVRIG: So I should note - I've been following this case since before I was detained. In fact, a few days before they abducted me, I gave a television interview explaining why Meng Wanzhou had been arrested. So, for me, this is coming full circle now...
SCHMITZ: Wow.
KOVRIG: ...Right? The trial is about crimes, not about spying, right? The jury's going to determine whether Huawei broke American laws on fraud, theft and sanctions violations, and that's worth knowing for itself. The hostage-taking didn't work. Beijing held us in an effort to free Meng Wanzhou. Her signed admissions have now been read to a Brooklyn jury.
The broader implication of the trial will be whether Huawei can be trusted as a provider of critical telecom infrastructure equipment, right? For governments, whether or not to allow Huawei gear in 5G networks or to rip and replace existing equipment is a risk assessment. And the trial has bearing on whether Huawei's word can be relied on that its equipment is risky or not.
SCHMITZ: So of course, Huawei dismisses the accusations against the company, saying that prosecutors are focusing on a smattering of isolated cases of bad behavior of a few people and that this is not proof of a company-wide conspiracy to steal technology or evade sanctions. For its part, the Chinese government is calling this trial an example of U.S. economic bullying of a Chinese company. What do you say to the criticism that Huawei will not get a fair trial inside the United States, where the company's supporters say the company has been demonized and treated unfairly?
KOVRIG: This trial is being run by a judge in the Eastern District Court of New York, and it's going to be decided by a jury of 12 American citizens. That's not something that can be politicized in the same way as a decision by a government official, right? And the issue is that, you know, whether or not Huawei committed crimes - right? - lying to banks about its business in Iran, evading U.S. sanctions and stealing technology from American companies, right? Prosecutors are calling it a racketeering enterprise and trying to show that it's a 20-year pattern, not a bunch of one-off mistakes. The point we're at now, the jury's heard from 61 prosecution witnesses, and now Huawei is starting to present its defense. So we'll be getting to hear what the company has to say about that.
SCHMITZ: We're talking about the world's largest telecommunications company. You see its equipment everywhere in the developing world, whether it's routers, cellphones, you name it. What are the implications of this trial on Huawei and how it does business?
KOVRIG: One, I think, is accountability, right? Prosecutors say Huawei deceived banks in moving money through the financial system and took technology from American companies. Those are crimes with victims, whatever Huawei sells. And so a trial does something that intelligence briefings and investigative journalism can't do. It puts evidence on the public record, tested by Huawei's own lawyers, decided by a jury of citizens for every bank and government to see.
And so that ultimately has implications for every government that is deciding whether or not to use Huawei equipment, whether or not a government can take Huawei's word when Huawei says, our equipment is safe - or at least it's no riskier than any of its competitors' equipment - and that it won't allow the Chinese government to use its networks for espionage or to degrade networks or otherwise threaten critical telecommunications infrastructure. If the decision of this trial shows that you cannot take Huawei's word about that, that has implications for that risk calculation of every country that's considering whether to keep any Huawei equipment they have or get more or to rip and replace it.
SCHMITZ: That is Michael Kovrig. He's CEO of the geopolitical research firm, Kovrig Group, and is a former Canadian diplomat who served in China and the United Nations. Thank you.
KOVRIG: Thank you, Rob. It's a pleasure speaking with you.
SCHMITZ: In a previous statement, a spokesperson for the Chinese government maintained that its arrest of Michael Kovrig was in accordance with Chinese law, saying, quote, "there is no arbitrary detention at all." NPR also reached out to representatives for Huawei. They have not yet provided a response to our request for comment. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
