|
|
2019年12月5日，华为在深圳举行发布会，宣布今天正式在美国法院提交起诉书，请求法院认定美国联邦通信委员会（FCC）有关禁止华为参与联邦补贴资金项目的决定违反了美国宪法和《行政程序法》。
FCC于11月22日通过一项决定，将华为认定为美国国家安全威胁，并禁止美国农村地区运营商使用通用服务基金（USF）购买华为设备。在向美国联邦第五巡回上诉法院提交的起诉书中，华为认为FCC直接认定华为构成国家安全威胁，没有给予华为就相关指控进行反驳的机会，违反了正当程序原则。华为同时认为FCC并未提供任何证据或合理的理由来支撑其武断随意的决定，违反了美国宪法、《行政程序法》等美国法律。
华为首席法务官宋柳平、案件首席律师Glen Nager、华为企业沟通部副总裁宋凯等出席发布会并讲话，之后现场回答了记者相关提问。
回帖查看本次发布会的现场同传及交传完整视频：
双语对照文字全文：
华为首席法务官 宋柳平：
Huawei’s Chief Legal Officer Dr. Song Liuping:
女士们、先生们，
Ladies and gentlemen,
上午好，欢迎各位参加今天的发布会。今天早上，华为提交了一份起诉书，请求法院推翻美国联邦通讯委员会（FCC）通过的一项非法决定。
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. This morning, Huawei has filed a petition to overturn an unlawful order by the FCC in the US.
11月22日，FCC通过了一项决定，将华为认定为国家安全威胁。该决定将禁止美国运营商使用通用服务基金购买华为设备。
On November 22nd, the FCC approved an order to label Huawei as a national security threat. This move will ban US carriers from using money from the Universal Service Fund to buy Huawei equipment.
美国农村地区的很多用户和小型企业仍未接入移动网络，这一决定将损害他们的利益。
Many people and small businesses in rural America do not have mobile network access. This decision will harm their interests.
FCC声称华为构成安全威胁，但FCC主席Ajit Pai却没有提供任何证据。这是美国政府近来惯用的做法。“华为是一家中国公司。”这是他唯一能给出来的借口。他还试图散播对华为的恐惧情绪，使用诸如“后门”等词汇散播恐惧，但却没有提供任何证据。其他FCC委员也使用了同样的说辞。
The FCC claims that Huawei is a security threat. But the FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, has not provided any evidence. This is a common trend in Washington these days. "Huawei is a Chinese company." That's his only excuse. He has tried to spread fear about Huawei. He uses words like "backdoors" to scare people. But they offer no proof. The other FCC commissioners use the same talking points.
与5月份的实体清单一样，这一决定受到政治因素驱使，而非基于安全考虑。这些政客忽略了一个重要的事实，即华为已经与美国农村地区运营商合作多年，我们的客户信任我们的设备。他们是自己网络安全方面的专家，他们愿意与我们合作。美国农村地区的运营商，包括蒙大拿和肯塔基的小镇、怀俄明的农场等地区的运营商，选择与华为合作，因为他们认可华为设备的质量和安全性。他们也尊重我们的服务，因为其他设备厂商不在乎他们的需求。
This decision, just like the Entity List decision in May, is based on politics, not security. These politicians ignore an important fact: Huawei has been working with rural US carriers for many years, and our customers trust our equipment. They are experts in the security of their own networks, and they like working with us. Carriers across rural America, in small towns in Montana, Kentucky, and farms in Wyoming… they choose to work with Huawei because they respect the quality and integrity of our equipment. They also respect our services, because other equipment vendors don't care about their needs.
这些运营商往往被大型厂商忽视，因为在农村地区提供服务并不能带来可观的收益。政府不应该对这种为实现美国农村地区的联接开展的通力合作一禁了之。自2018年3月FCC推动这项针对华为的禁令开始，多家农村地区运营商都提交了反对意见。其中包括美国农村无线运营商协会。
These carriers are often ignored by big vendors, because there's not "enough money" in rural communities. The government should not shut down joint efforts to connect rural communities in the US. In March 2018, the FCC began promoting the ban on Huawei. Many rural carriers objected. So did the US-based Rural Wireless Association.
华为也提交了21轮详细意见，阐述该决定对偏远地区用户和企业的伤害。但FCC却对这些意见视若罔闻。
Huawei also submitted 21 rounds of detailed comments, explaining how the order will harm people and businesses in remote areas. The FCC ignored all of them.
毫无依据的国家安全威胁指控是非常危险的。美国政客称他们非常担心网络安全，我们也有同样的担心。
Empty claims about national security are dangerous. Politicians in the US say they are very concerned about cyber security. And we share these concerns.
但事实上，仅仅因为来自中国就禁止华为等公司不能解决任何网络安全问题。如果FCC真的担心电信供应链的安全，他们应该意识到：任何厂商在中国生产的设备都有同样的风险。这不仅包括华为、中兴，也包括诺基亚、爱立信，他们也在中国生产设备。用中国生产的一套设备替换另一套在中国生产的设备……政客和安全顾问都是聪明人，他们对这点应该更清楚。
The fact is: Banning a company like Huawei, just because we started in China… this does not solve any cyber security challenges. If the FCC is truly worried about the security of the telecom supply chain, then they should understand this: Equipment made in China by any vendor should also have the same risks. So not only Huawei and ZTE, but also Nokia and Ericsson, who also manufacture in China. Replacing one set of equipment made in China for another set that is also made in China… … Politicians and security consultants are smart people. They should know better.
美国政府从未出示任何真正的证据，证明华为构成国家安全威胁。这是因为根本不存在这样的证据。在被要求提供事实依据时，他们回应称，“公开证据也可能会损害美国的国家安全。”这简直就是无稽之谈。
The US government has never presented real evidence to show that Huawei is a national security threat. That's because this evidence does not exist. When pushed for facts, they respond that "disclosing evidence might also undermine US national security." This is complete nonsense.
就在上个月，比尔·盖茨表示，“如果认为只要是来自中国的东西就都是不好的……，这是非常疯狂的想法。”我们非常赞同他的说法。我们愿意与美国政府合作证明我们的产品和服务是安全的。
Just last month, Bill Gates said that "the rule that everything that comes from China is bad… that is one crazy approach." We could not agree more, and we are more than willing to work together with the United States government to prove the security of our products and services.
FCC在通过这项决定的过程中，未让华为行使正当程序，也没有对相关事实进行核实，而是大声、公开地认定华为构成国家安全威胁。FCC的这一决定违反了美国宪法，我们别无选择，只能诉诸法律行动。
When passing this decision, the FCC did not offer Huawei due process, or verify the facts. But they very loudly and very publicly labelled our company as a national security threat. The FCC's order violates the Constitution, and we have no choice but to seek legal remedy.
--
Glen Nager, Huawei’s lead counsel for the legal action:
案件首席律师Glen Nager：
Good Morning. I am Glen Nager, outside counsel for Huawei, and a partner at Jones Day.
上午好！我叫Glen Nager，是华为的外部律师和众达律师事务所合伙人。
Our Petition for Review challenges the Order of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) both insofar as it bars use of federal Universal Service Funds to purchase products and services from companies that the Commission deems a threat to U.S. national security, and insofar as it arbitrarily and capriciously designates Huawei as such a company.
我们通过提交复审起诉书，对联邦通信委员会（FCC）最近通过的一项命令发起挑战。FCC禁止使用联邦通用服务基金（USF）从被FCC认定为对美国构成国家安全威胁的公司购买产品和服务，并武断、随意地将华为认定为此类公司。
The FCC issued its Order through a rulemaking process that supposedly addressed the telecommunications industry in general. But, in reality, at the behest of certain members of Congress, the FCC has simply adopted a standardless rule that, by its own admission, was designed with only Huawei and ZTE in mind; and it has applied that rule to Huawei without fair process and without proper support in evidence or law.
FCC本应基于规则制定程序发布面向整个电信行业的规则。但实际上，在几名国会议员的要求下，FCC未按照相关标准就通过了这条仅针对华为等中国公司的命令，且FCC自己也承认针对华为等中国公司。而FCC在没有给予华为行使正当程序机会、提供相关证据和法律依据的情况下就将该命令应用于华为。
The Order exceeds the FCC’s statutory authority. Nothing in the Universal Service provisions of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to make national security judgments or to restrict use of USF funds based on such judgments. Indeed, the Commission has no national security expertise or authority. And Congress could not constitutionally give the Commission such authority, because it is an independent agency not subject to the direction of the President.
该命令还超越了FCC的法定权力。根据《通信法》里有关普遍服务的条款，FCC没有权力作出国家安全认定或基于国家安全认定限制USF基金的使用。而且FCC的确没有国家安全方面的专业能力和权力。根据宪法，国会也不能赋予FCC此类权力，因为FCC是一个不用听从总统指令的独立机构。
The Commission’s Order is also arbitrary and capricious. The Commission failed to address multiple legal arguments and material facts presented in comments on the proposed rule. And its cost-benefit analysis considered only costs associated with prohibiting the use of USF funds for Huawei and ZTE products and services—a remarkable deficiency that exposes the Rule as simply a vehicle for targeting and burdening these two companies, not a genuine attempt to develop a generally-applicable and fair rule that would seriously protect telecommunications networks and supply chains.
FCC的这一命令是武断、随意的，没有针对拟议规则收到的意见里提出的多个法律依据和重大事实进行回应。其成本收益分析只考虑了禁止使用USF基金购买华为等中国公司产品和服务相关的成本。由此可以看出，该规则仅仅只是用来针对这两家公司并加重其负担的工具，其目的并不是制定统一适用、公平的规则来切实保护电信网络及其供应链。
The Rule is also unlawfully vague and inconsistent with Due Process. The Order states no standard or criteria whatsoever for identifying a company as a genuine threat to the integrity of communications networks or supply chains—again revealing that the Commission’s goal in the Order was simply to impose restrictions on Huawei and ZTE, and them alone. Furthermore, the Order fails to give Huawei constitutionally required due process before stigmatizing it as a national security threat, such as an opportunity to confront supposed evidence and witnesses, and a fair and neutral hearing process. This is contrary to all American constitutional traditions.
该规则措辞含糊，不符合法律要求，且不符合正当程序。该命令没有制定明确的标准来判定一家公司是否对通信网络或供应链的完整性构成真正威胁。这再次表明，FCC发布该命令的目的仅仅只是对华为等中国公司施加限制。另外，在通过该规则前，FCC未按宪法要求给予华为行使正当程序的机会，包括对提出的证据进行驳斥、与证人对峙以及召开一个公平、中立的听证会，而是直接武断地认定华为构成国家安全威胁。这一行为有悖于所有美国宪法传统。
The Commission’s initial designation of Huawei also lacks legal or factual support. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Chinese law, and on unsound, unreliable, and inadmissible accusations and innuendo, not “evidence.” The designation is simply shameful prejudgment of the worst kind.
FCC对华为的初步认定也缺乏法律和事实依据。FCC的认定是基于对中国法律的完全误读以及对华为不合理、不可靠和不可接受的指控和影射，而非基于证据。该认定纯粹是一个无耻的、糟糕的未审先判。
The rule of law to which the United States adheres does not permit this kind of arbitrary and unfair action by a government agency. Under the rule of law in the United States, the ends do not suffice to justify such unlawful means. We are confident that the Fifth Circuit will vacate the Commission’s Order.
美国一直遵循的法治原则不允许政府机构采取这种专断、不公平的行动。根据美国法治原则，最终目的不足以证明该非法手段的正当性。我们相信，美国联邦第五巡回上诉法院将会宣判FCC的这一命令无效。
Thank you.
谢谢！
--
华为企业沟通部副总裁宋凯：
Karl Song, Vice President of Huawei’s Corporate Communications Department:
大家上午好！
Good morning everyone.
刚才宋柳平博士和Glen Nager先生已经陈述了我们此次诉讼的法律主张。接下来，我会以个人的亲身经历给大家讲述为什么我们要发起这次诉讼。
You’ve heard the legal arguments from Dr. Song and Mr. Glen Nager. But there’s also a more personal side to this story.
我还记得我第一次前往蒙大拿州斯科比小镇拜访客户的情景。斯科比位于美加边境附近，是一个人口只有1,000人左右的小镇。当地的运营商客户CEO在他的办公室接待了我，他跟我打招呼时说的一句话我至今记忆犹新。他说：“欢迎来到‘无名之乡’”。我明白他的意思。我从达拉斯出发，在丹佛转机，又开了3个小时的车才到那里，一共花了差不多7、8个小时。真可谓是到了“无人之乡”。
I still remember the first time I set foot in Scobey, Montana. It’s a small town of around 1,000 residents near the U.S.-Canada border, where I was visiting a client. The CEO greeted me in his office and said one sentence I still remember, “Welcome to No-where.”I understood what he meant. It took me 7 or 8 hours to get there from Dallas, including a flight change in Denver and a 3-hour drive into town. It’s definitely “No-man’s land.”
美国偏远地区的网络联接一度曾非常糟糕。如果你的车或者拖拉机坏了，你连电话都打不了。你要是用手机叫救护车，根本没有信号。
For years, remote parts of the U.S. had poor connectivity. You couldn’t make a phone call when your car – or your tractor – broke down. If you called for an ambulance on your cell phone, you got no signal.
如今，情况有了很大改善，而华为功不可没。我们在其他厂商不愿意去的地方搭建起了网络。这些地区要么非常偏远、地形条件艰苦，要么人口比较稀少。
Today, things are much better – partly because of Huawei. We’ve built networks in places where other vendors would not go. They were too remote, or the terrain was difficult, or there just wasn’t a big enough population.
其他厂商将这些地区的用户从他们的客户清单上划掉，将其定义为“低价值客户”。但在华为的字典里，从来没有“低价值客户”这个词。
Other vendors saw those communities, and wrote them off as “low-value customers.” But for Huawei, there’s no such thing.
在美国，我们的设备主要销售给40家小型无线和有线运营商。这些运营商为偏远地区的学校、医院、农场、家庭、社区大学和急救中心提供网络联接。
In the U.S., we sell equipment to 40 small wireless and wireline operators. They connect schools, hospitals, farms, homes, community colleges, and emergency services.
稍后我会播放一段视频，大家可以听一听其中一些农村运营商的心声。他们会告诉你们他们有多信任和依赖华为，以及当其他厂商都抛弃他们的时候，华为是如何与他们并肩合作的。
In just a moment, you’ll hear from some of those rural operators. You’ll hear them say how they trusted us, relied on us, and partnered with us, when other vendors had turned their backs on them.
这些小型无线和有线运营商给偏远地区搭建了一条数字生命线，但这条生命线需要依赖通用服务基金才能维持。
These small wireless and wireline operators give their communities a digital lifeline … But that lifeline depends on the Universal Service Fund.
FCC颁布的新规将禁止这些运营商使用该基金购买华为设备，甚至还要求这些运营商移除他们已经安装的华为设备，这将为运营商带来数亿美元的额外成本。有些运营商说，如果他们不得不遵守这一规定，可能会以破产告终。
The FCC’s rule would cut off the operators from the fund. It could even force them to rip out equipment they’ve already installed. This would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Some operators say if they have go with the plan, they will probably go bankrupt.
然而，真正令人痛心的是：移除华为设备并不会让美国的网络更安全。
And the really heart-breaking thing is: Ripping out Huawei gear won’t make U.S. networks any safer.
ICT行业有很多厂商的设备都是在中国生产的，其中有一些甚至还与中国国有企业成立了合资企业，他们的设备也在美国网络中广泛使用。FCC一位委员说过，美国差不多40%的网络中都含有中国生产的设备，针对华为并不会改变这一现状。
Our competitors make a lot of their equipment in China, some of them even have joint ventures with Chinese state-owned companies. Their equipment is used widely in America. One FCC Commissioner said roughly 40% of all U.S. networks contain equipment that was made in China. Targeting Huawei will not change that situation at all.
因此，除了今天讨论的法律问题，我也想请大家记住：
So, in addition to the legal issues we’re discussing today, please remember this:
我们的美国客户致力于为偏远地区的用户和社区提供关键的网络联接服务。这些用户需要依赖华为设备接入网络。因为这些地区规模太小、交通不便利、无利可图，其他厂商都不愿意与他们合作。
Our customers in the US provide the vital connectivity to real people, in real communities. And those people rely on Huawei to stay connected. No one else wanted to work with these communities -- they were too small; too hard to get to; not profitable enough.
只有华为挺身而出。这也是华为一直以来在做的事情。今天，我们正是在争取我们做这件事的权利。
But Huawei came through for them. Because that’s what we do. And that's what we are fighting for today.
谢谢！
Thank you! |
|
发表于 2019-12-14 00:59:40
收藏
分享
发表于 2019-12-19 09:56:56
