华为，请用上市回应美国的质疑吧！

美国国会的一份报告几乎将中国电信设备业者华为(Huawei)与中兴(ZTE)列入黑名单(请点击这里查看《美国评估华为：没有间谍行为，只是编程太烂》)，对此北京政府大喊不公。 针对上述美国国会报告，中国官方媒体《中国日报》陆续刊登了“华为、中兴反击存有偏见的美国市场报告”、“美国无根据指控背后的贸易保护主义”，以及“中国强烈反对美国的电信业者报告”等报导，并引述中国商业部官员的说法，指美国的报告是充满了“不真实证据”的“主观臆测”。 中国的强烈抗议并不令人意外，毕竟，华为是中国的骄傲。 这家总部位于深圳的电信设备制造商由企业家任正非在1987年创立，起初是为一家香港商代理销售PBX交换器。不同于其它行动笨拙的中国国营企业，华为一直保持灵活与积极，且一直顽强地追求自己的全球市场扩张策略，在美国、英国、德国、瑞典、印度、俄罗斯与土耳其等地都拥有策略伙伴与研发中心。 笔者仍记得在2000年初前往斯德哥尔摩参访瑞典投资促进署(the Invest in Sweden Agency)，听到瑞典政府官员提及他们是如何期待华为的到访。在那个时候我还不知道华为这家公司，于是不耻下问：“这家公司名字要怎么拼？”对方瞄了我一眼，不敢相信我不知道这家新兴中国电信设备商，但我真的不知道…(华为后来在斯德哥尔摩成立研发中心)。 从那时候起，我看着华为以惊人速度成长，甚至拿下了全球电信设备市场两成的占有率；华为的成功被认为是中国的“灰姑娘”故事，而我也同意这种说法。但对于华为，令人好奇的是这么一家全球性的电信设备大厂，一直都是私人企业。

Tabesmc

众所周知，华为的创办人任正非曾是中国解放军军官，而且有人认为这就是个充分的理由，可怀疑华为与中国军方有关系，甚至能为华为幕后的真正掌权者打个大问号；但该公司声称，他们是一家员工持股的公司。 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 本文下一页：华为不能公开上市的原因

相关阅读：
• 美国评估华为：没有间谍行为，只是编程太烂
• 美运营商或禁用中国电信设备，在华美企担心遭报复
• 中国本土工科毕业生为何青睐跨国大公司Tabesmc

{pagination} 有个在北京某半导体公司任职的朋友告诉我：“华为不能公开上市的原因，是因为该公司的财务一团混乱。”我无法证实这样的说法，不过也隐约看出华为这家公司缺乏透明度。 而既然美国众议院情报委员会(House Intelligence Committee)的华为与中兴报告内大多数证据，都被列为机密，也很难苛责中国媒体对美国贸易保护主义的指责。不过，美国一直保持谨慎态度并非不合理，毕竟在担忧网络战争(cyber warfare)发动的前提下，你是否该一意孤行地与一家没在纽约或伦敦股 票市场上市的公司做生意？ 相较之下，你难道不是宁可选择与一家上市公司合作、特别是有关下一代网络布建的电信设备大订单？据了解，华为已经聘请了一位伶俐的美国发言人来捍卫名声，但笔者认为，若该公司能选择公开上市，将可更有效地解决其透明度问题。 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 编译：Judith Cheng 参考英文原文：Yoshida in China: Going public would demystify Huawei，by Junko Yoshida

相关阅读：
• 美国评估华为：没有间谍行为，只是编程太烂
• 美运营商或禁用中国电信设备，在华美企担心遭报复
• 中国本土工科毕业生为何青睐跨国大公司Tabesmc

{pagination} Yoshida in China: Going public would demystify Huawei Junko Yoshida With growing U.S. concerns about cyber warfare, there's little incentive to do business with Huawei, a company that is not listed on New York or London exchanges. TOKYO -- Beijing is crying foul in the aftermath of a congressional report that virtually places China’s Huawei and ZTE on a blacklist. State-controlled China Daily has led the charge with stories like “Huawei, ZTE hit back at ‘biased’ US market report,” “Protectionism behind groundless US accusation,” and “China ‘strongly opposes’ US report on telecom firms.” A Commerce Ministry official is quoted in one story denouncing the U.S. report as “subjective guesswork” filled with “untrue evidence.” The outcry from China should surprise no one. After all, Huawei is the pride of China. The Shenzhen-based telecom equipment maker was founded in 1987 by entrepreneur Zhenghei Ren, initially serving as a sales agent for PBX switches made by a Hong Kong company. Unlike other stodgy state-owned enterprises in China, Huawei has remained nimble and aggressive, and has doggedly pursued its own global expansion strategy. Huawei has partnerships and R&D centers in the U.S., the U.K., Germany, Sweden, India, Russia and Turkey. During an early 2000 press tour, I can recall visiting the Invest in Sweden Agency in Stockholm and hearing Swedish officials talking about a much anticipated visit by Huawei.. At the time, I didn't know Huawei. Swallowing my pride, I asked the Swedes, “How do you spell Huawei?” One shot me a look, incredulous that I didn't know the rising Chinese telecom company. I certainly deserved that look. (Huawei eventually opened an R&D center in Stockholm.) Since then, I've watched Huawei growth with amazement as it captured 20 percent of the global market for telecom equipment. Huawei is considered a Cinderella story in China, and I agree. I find it curious that Huawei, a major player in the global telecom equipment market, remains as a private company. Military link? It is widely known that Huawei’s founder Ren is an ex-People’s Liberation Army officer. While some view that fact alone as sufficient evidence to suspect a clear link between Huawei and the PLA, a larger question is who really "owns" Huawei. The company claims to be employee-owned. A friend working for a Beijing semiconductor company explained to me over lunch: “Huawei hasn’t been able to go public because their financial book is such a mess.” We haven't been able to confirm that, but looming large is Huawei’s lack of transparency. Since much of the evidence in the House Intelligence Committee's report on Huawei and ZTE is classified, it’s hard to blame the Chinese media for alleging U.S. protectionism. Still, it's not unreasonable for the U.S. to remain cautious. After all, as concerns mount about cyber warfare, why should you go out of your way to do business with companies who aren't even listed on the New York or London stock exchanges? Wouldn't you rather work with a public company, especially on big telecom equipment deals for next-generation networks? Huawei has hired a slick U.S. spokesman to defend its reputation, but going public would do more to solve some of Huawei's transparency problems.