来源：内容由半导体行业观察（ID:icbank）编译自日经亚洲评论，作者Vincent Peng是华为公司的高级副总裁，也是董事会的成员，谢谢。
两年前的本月，特朗普政府将华为技术公司列入黑名单，阻止美国公司向我们出售制造智能手机和其他产品所需的技术组件。
紧随其后的是其他限制措施，包括去年采取的一项行动，以防止华为从全球最大的半导体制造商台湾半导体制造公司（TSMC）购买芯片。因为台湾半导体制造商使用美国公司的设备制造其芯片。
美国政府之所以采取这些行动，是因为他们认为，作为一家中国公司，华为可能会被迫对美国电信网络发起网络攻击，并有可能从事间谍活动。
网络安全最近占据了新闻的主导地位。本月早些时候，美国总统乔·拜登签署了一项旨在加强美国网络防御的行政命令，此前勒索软件攻击关闭了美国最大的燃料管道已有数天之久。在去年，有黑客通过Microsoft Exchange和一家名为Solar Winds的IT公司对美国政府机构和私人公司进行破坏性攻击。
如果拜登的行政命令导致美国政府对网络安全采取更基于事实的方法，那将是一件好事。实际上，如果与美国重新接受全球竞争而不是继续走向贸易保护主义相结合，该命令实际上可以使美国和中国受益。
如果拜登政府接受竞争，美国和中国的公司可以继续走上一条通俗易懂的道路，在过去十年中加强了它们相互交织的经济。但是，如果拜登总统仅在与美国的政治目标保持一致时才遵循特朗普的领导方式进行竞争，那么全球经济将在经济和技术脱钩方面投入大量精力。
从短期来看，将美国的供应链与中国分离会伤害到一些中国公司，包括华为，由于黑名单，华为的海外收入去年有所下降。但根据美国研究机构Rhodium Group的调查数据，随着时间的流逝，脱钩将使美国损失约1900亿美元的GDP损失。同时还会对美国半导体公司造成损害，因为这会导致他们的营收下降，并削减他们的研发投入。
不幸的是，损害还不止于此。根据经济学人智库的估计，如果中国与澳大利亚，加拿大，新西兰，英国和美国这五眼联盟之间的贸易完全脱钩，全球经济损失将超过50万亿美元。
甚至美国政府自己的国家情报委员会也警告说，将世界分割成几个经济和安全集团将带阿里不菲的成本，包括“国家和公司的巨额财务损失，因为供应链破裂，市场损失，以及一旦利润丰厚的部门，例如旅行和旅游业下降。”
美国方面并非真正与华为竞争，这使我们期望，美国政府选在对待总部位于美国以外的华为和其他全球科技公司上面，可能最终会有所改变。
我们了解到，美国政府正在忙于应对COVID-19，并试图促进美国经济。但是我们也希望，如果时间合适，他们会与我们交谈。为了减轻他们对我们产品和技术的担忧，我们准备接受最严格的控制。
我们愿意讨论任何事情，包括在美国建立制造业务，开放华为设备进行独立测试，或将第五代或5G技术授权给美国公司或财团。
美国可能希望考虑该公司的首席执行官和创始人任正非提出的将华为的5G技术许可给一家美国公司的提议。该协议可能包括华为5G专利的全部或部分，包括软件源代码，与制造，网络规划和测试相关的硬件设计和技术。
有几家美国公司可以采用此方法，可以合理地假设一两个公司可能有兴趣了解更多信息。但是，如果没有美国政府的祝福，他们不太可能大声疾呼。
通过与包括在中国的国际技术公司合作，美国在增强其全球技术领先地位方面处于有利地位。我们希望拜登总统不要像他的前任那样将许多与中国有关的不同问题聚在一起，以讨价还价，而是将这些问题分类，并根据其优缺点进行审查。
共同努力的人们将建立更美好的未来。没有公司或国家可以独自做到这一点。尽管存在分歧，但美国和中国必须找到一种竞争与合作的方式。
附英文原文：Huawei to Joe Biden: Please talk to us
Two years ago this month, the Trump Administration placed Huawei Technologies on a blacklist that blocked U.S. companies from selling us the tech components we need to make smartphones and other products as well.
That restriction was followed by others, including a move last year to prevent Huawei from buying chips from the world's largest maker of semiconductors Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), a Taiwan-based manufacturer whose chips are made with equipment from U.S. companies.
The U.S. government took these actions because it believes that as a Chinese company, Huawei could be forced to launch cyberattacks on American telecommunications networks, as well as provide Beijing with the ability to engage in espionage activity in the U.S.
Cybersecurity has dominated the news lately. Earlier this month U.S. President Joe Biden signed an executive order aimed at strengthening America's cyber defense following a ransomware attack that shut down America's biggest fuel pipeline for several days, as well as last year's damaging attacks on U.S. government agencies and private companies perpetrated through Microsoft Exchange and an IT company called Solar Winds.
If Biden's executive order leads the U.S. government to adopt a more fact-based approach to cybersecurity, that will be all to the good. In fact, the order could actually benefit both the U.S. and China -- if it is coupled with renewed American acceptance of global competition rather than a continuing slide toward protectionism.
If the Biden administration embraces competition, U.S. and Chinese companies can continue down a well-trodden path that has strengthened their intertwined economies over the past decade. But if President Biden follows Trump's lead in permitting competition only when it aligns with U.S. political aims, the global economy will extend its headlong rush into economic and technological decoupling.
In the short term, separating America's supply chains from China will hurt some Chinese companies -- including Huawei, whose overseas revenues declined last year as a result of the blacklist. But in time, decoupling will cost the U.S. an estimated $190 billion in lost GDP," according to U.S. research outfit The Rhodium Group. It will also hurt American companies' leadership in semiconductors and other technologies by shrinking their revenues and forcing them to cut R&D spending.
Unfortunately, the damage does not stop there. According to Economist Intelligence Unit estimates, a full decoupling of trade between China and the Five Eyes countries -- Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. -- would cost the global economy more than $50 trillion.
Even the U.S. government's own National Intelligence Council has warned that splitting the world into several economic and security blocs will impose extraordinary costs, including "massive financial losses for countries and corporations, as supply chains fracture, markets are lost, and once lucrative sectors, like travel and tourism, decline."
Washington's beef is not really with Huawei, but with China, a strategic competitor whose rise could threaten the economic and military primacy America has enjoyed for decades. Although U.S.-China relations may not thaw any time soon, it seems clear that the current administration is taking a more multilateral approach to the world than its predecessor did.
This gives us hope that there may eventually be a change in how the U.S. government chooses to treat Huawei and other global technology companies headquartered outside of the United States.
We understand that the administration is busy coping with COVID and trying to boost the U.S. economy. But we also hope that when the time is right, they will talk to us. To ease their concerns about our products and technologies, we are prepared to be subject to the most stringent controls.
We're open to discussing anything, including setting up manufacturing operations in the United States, opening Huawei's equipment to independent testing, or licensing our fifth-generation, or 5G, technology to a U.S. company or consortium.
Washington may want to consider the company's CEO and founder Ren Zhengfei's offer to license Huawei's 5G technology to an American company. The agreement could include part or all of Huawei's 5G patent portfolio, including software source code, hardware designs and technologies related to manufacturing, network planning and testing.
There are several U.S. companies that could take this on, and it seems reasonable to assume that one or two might be interested in learning more. But they are unlikely to speak up without the U.S. government's blessing.
America is in a strong position to enhance its global technology leadership by collaborating with international technology companies, including those based in China. We hope that instead of lumping together many disparate China-related issues for bargaining purposes, as his predecessor did, President Biden will disaggregate the issues and examine each one on its merits.
A better future will be built by people working together; no company or country can do it alone. The U.S. and China must find a way to compete and collaborate despite their differences.
