Huawei hiring former Democratic super lobbyist Tony Podesta(politico.com)
politico.com
Huawei hiring former Democratic super lobbyist Tony Podesta
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/23/huawei-hires-tony-podesta-500649
92 comments
Chinese and Russian lobbies are absolutely nothing compared to the Israeli lobby [1].
[1] - https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/israel-lobby-and-us...
[1] - https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/israel-lobby-and-us...
What’s described in the article as the “Israel lobby” would be better described as the “Pro-Israel lobby,” as it consists largely of Americans democratically expressing their preferences, rather than a foreign entity buying influence.
That's stretching the meaning of "democratic". From the report:
The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. Thus, one of the three main branches of the U.S. government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As former Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) noted as he was leaving office, “You can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.” Small wonder that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once told an American audience. “When people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them—Help AIPAC.”
[..]
The Lobby also has significant leverage over the Executive branch. That power derives in part from the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections. Despite their small numbers in the population (less than 3 percent), they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates “depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money.”
The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. Thus, one of the three main branches of the U.S. government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As former Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) noted as he was leaving office, “You can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.” Small wonder that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once told an American audience. “When people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them—Help AIPAC.”
[..]
The Lobby also has significant leverage over the Executive branch. That power derives in part from the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections. Despite their small numbers in the population (less than 3 percent), they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates “depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money.”
> That power derives in part from the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections.
The definition of democratic. This constituency has an issue they care about, and votes for it.
Everyone has a top issue. Some folks vote based on gun control. Some vote based on healthcare. Some vote based on foreign policy. Everyone only gets one Most Important Thing, and if they organize around it shit happens. If there was a constituency that cared as much about changing our Israeli policy then things would change, but alas the folks complaining don’t actually care very much.
If you want a parallel example, look at how the US foreign policy towards Cuba is successfully shaped by a rather small number of Cuban Americans in Florida. They care, they advocate, shit happens.
The definition of democratic. This constituency has an issue they care about, and votes for it.
Everyone has a top issue. Some folks vote based on gun control. Some vote based on healthcare. Some vote based on foreign policy. Everyone only gets one Most Important Thing, and if they organize around it shit happens. If there was a constituency that cared as much about changing our Israeli policy then things would change, but alas the folks complaining don’t actually care very much.
If you want a parallel example, look at how the US foreign policy towards Cuba is successfully shaped by a rather small number of Cuban Americans in Florida. They care, they advocate, shit happens.
> The definition of democratic.
If you'd continue reading, the following two sentences explain that "influence":
Despite their small numbers in the population (less than 3 percent), they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates “depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money.”
If you'd continue reading, the following two sentences explain that "influence":
Despite their small numbers in the population (less than 3 percent), they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates “depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money.”
The difference is that Cuban Americans are not advocating on behalf of a foreign government.
But things are a bit complicated by the fact that many of those Americans have the Right to Return to Israel with many already holding Israeli citizenship.
I think there’s more nuance here than you realize.
Some Americans are indeed of Jewish descent and could benefit from the right to return should they wish to.
But those people of Jewish descent pale in comparison to the non-Jewish Protestant Christians who also support Israel.
It’s interesting that so many Christians support Israel because for hundreds of years that wasn’t the case. Think the crusades and bograms around the world. Many Christians formerly embraced Replacement Theology, which basically says Christians replace the Jewish people’s in God’s eyes. This lead to all sorts of appalling behavior by Christians against Jews over the last two thousand years.
Many modern Protestant Christians instead believe the Jews have a legal and valid agreement with God. And that bringing harm to a Jewish person or their ancestral lands will be punished by God.
So, this is why many red state Christians support the state of Israel and the Jewish people.
Some Americans are indeed of Jewish descent and could benefit from the right to return should they wish to.
But those people of Jewish descent pale in comparison to the non-Jewish Protestant Christians who also support Israel.
It’s interesting that so many Christians support Israel because for hundreds of years that wasn’t the case. Think the crusades and bograms around the world. Many Christians formerly embraced Replacement Theology, which basically says Christians replace the Jewish people’s in God’s eyes. This lead to all sorts of appalling behavior by Christians against Jews over the last two thousand years.
Many modern Protestant Christians instead believe the Jews have a legal and valid agreement with God. And that bringing harm to a Jewish person or their ancestral lands will be punished by God.
So, this is why many red state Christians support the state of Israel and the Jewish people.
Well, we already _like_ Israel, so there isn't much "convincing" to be done.
> already
Are you sure the lobbying didn't come first? From the linked report:
Second, the Lobby strives to ensure that public discourse about Israel portrays it in a positive light, by repeating myths about Israel and its founding and by publicizing Israel’s side in the policy debates of the day. The goal is to prevent critical commentary about Israel from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing U.S. support, because a candid discussion of U.S.‐Israeli relations might lead Americans to favor a different policy.
Are you sure the lobbying didn't come first? From the linked report:
Second, the Lobby strives to ensure that public discourse about Israel portrays it in a positive light, by repeating myths about Israel and its founding and by publicizing Israel’s side in the policy debates of the day. The goal is to prevent critical commentary about Israel from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing U.S. support, because a candid discussion of U.S.‐Israeli relations might lead Americans to favor a different policy.
Be thankful for your government, it’s the best that money can buy.
What I don't get about this is that the US govt is the sole issuer or dollars - the govt issues currency and uses it to provision itself with the resources it needs to build bridges, operate its bureaucracy, pay the army etc. So, theoretically, the govt can issue as much coin as it needs to grow to arbitrary sizes.
The citizens aren't paying for the govt to run - not with money anyway.
The citizens aren't paying for the govt to run - not with money anyway.
Sort of. The Federal Reserve is nominally independent and controls the money supply. The US Treasury sells bonds to finance the government, and The Fed buys some of these bonds.
You are correct that tax dollars don’t totally fund the government, it is also possible taxes aren’t needed at all to fund government operations, since as you said, the money supply and government bond issues can theoretically be increased arbitrarily. Practically, the debt ceiling limits how much the government can borrow, and inflation/unemployment control how much money is created by The Fed.
You are correct that tax dollars don’t totally fund the government, it is also possible taxes aren’t needed at all to fund government operations, since as you said, the money supply and government bond issues can theoretically be increased arbitrarily. Practically, the debt ceiling limits how much the government can borrow, and inflation/unemployment control how much money is created by The Fed.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.
Will Rogers
Will Rogers
Big Money can buy.
Not even really that big, though.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
Politicians in Washington are transistors with high beta.
China will hand America its ass either way - in the next decade or two. A large, highly-skilled population with strong national unity is going to be an unstoppable international force. America is more fractured than ever, and more incompetent than ever (the soaring college graduation rates notwithstanding).
It’s just that Americans are slow to adjust to a rapidly changing reality.
Also, let’s not pretend that America does not indulge in pretty unethical behaviors - I have no fondness for Russia, but think America is intrusive, unethical, and untrustworthy as a national.
I certainly hope not. A global Order built on top of an authoritarian superpower will mean other nations of the world taking governance cues to restrict free speech, further Balkanizing of a largely open internet, and historical revisionism to erase atrocities. That's not a future I want to live in.
I actually think that we're nearing peak China. They have a demographic time bomb getting ready to kill GDP growth in the next 2 decades. Coupled with increasing cost of living, inequality and falling social mobility, China will have a similar problem to the west sooner than you think.
It may. It’ll settle at an equilibrium that pushes it far ahead of the US, though.
China has falling social mobility?
> China has realized what Russia knows so well. You don't compete with the USA, it's cheaper and more effective to buy its politicians.
Maybe the Cold War would've ended differently if the Soviet Union had just hired better lobbyists.
There's a saying that goes something like "a capitalist will sell you the rope you'll hang him with," and I think there's more than a grain of truth to it.
If Huawei wants to lobby the US government, let the Chinese Ambassador do it. I don't think foreign companies should be able to hire lobbyists to manipulate the US government, let alone companies from non-democratic countries. And it should be illegal for an American to take such a job.
Edit: also TIL this isn't the Podesta emails guy (that's John), rather it's his brother.
Maybe the Cold War would've ended differently if the Soviet Union had just hired better lobbyists.
There's a saying that goes something like "a capitalist will sell you the rope you'll hang him with," and I think there's more than a grain of truth to it.
If Huawei wants to lobby the US government, let the Chinese Ambassador do it. I don't think foreign companies should be able to hire lobbyists to manipulate the US government, let alone companies from non-democratic countries. And it should be illegal for an American to take such a job.
Edit: also TIL this isn't the Podesta emails guy (that's John), rather it's his brother.
Technically you’re supposed to register as a foreign agent under FARA. This law has gotten a lot of ex trump guys in trouble, including just last week his inauguration committee chairman.
So as the laws currently stand you can work for a foreign government lobbying the US government, you just need to be transparent about what you’re doing.
So as the laws currently stand you can work for a foreign government lobbying the US government, you just need to be transparent about what you’re doing.
> So as the laws currently stand you can work for a foreign government lobbying the US government, you just need to be transparent about what you’re doing.
While that's better than nothing, it doesn't go far enough.
And frankly, there's also an issue of reciprocity: why should the Chinese be able to hire connected government insiders, when I'm pretty sure the CCP would absolutely disallow such work by their own political insiders (and probably do bad things to anyone who was stupid enough to take a job like that).
While that's better than nothing, it doesn't go far enough.
And frankly, there's also an issue of reciprocity: why should the Chinese be able to hire connected government insiders, when I'm pretty sure the CCP would absolutely disallow such work by their own political insiders (and probably do bad things to anyone who was stupid enough to take a job like that).
Tom Barrack is not arrested under FARA.
He was arrested under a related statue, 18 U.S.C. § 951, for which FARA provides an explicit exception for if you’re registered. An interesting legal technicality, but not something that changes the lay person’s understanding of the situation. He was charged with being an illegal foreign agent, and if he’d registered under FARA’s rules he wouldn’t be in trouble.
>let the Chinese Ambassador do it
...
And from comment below
>CCP would absolutely disallow such work by their own political insiders
It's Track 1 vs 1.5 vs 2 diplomacy. CCP allows "legal" foreign influence as well. A PRC equivalent-ish of FARA was new NGO laws / local partners. Un-sanctioned foreign influence (i.e. all the CIA assets) got purged. There's going to be need for less official track 1.5/2 work in managing complex relationships especially if tensions between US&PRC is going to heatup in future.
The nuance is recalibrating different tiers of policy instruments to determine level of appropriate engagement. Over the last few years, US has been neutering PRC orgs like Confucius institutes, pursued the extremely broad China Initiative and other measures to establish reciprocity in response to CCP crushing unwanted US influence ops in PRC. Work in progress, but track 1.5/2 is not going anywhere.
...
And from comment below
>CCP would absolutely disallow such work by their own political insiders
It's Track 1 vs 1.5 vs 2 diplomacy. CCP allows "legal" foreign influence as well. A PRC equivalent-ish of FARA was new NGO laws / local partners. Un-sanctioned foreign influence (i.e. all the CIA assets) got purged. There's going to be need for less official track 1.5/2 work in managing complex relationships especially if tensions between US&PRC is going to heatup in future.
The nuance is recalibrating different tiers of policy instruments to determine level of appropriate engagement. Over the last few years, US has been neutering PRC orgs like Confucius institutes, pursued the extremely broad China Initiative and other measures to establish reciprocity in response to CCP crushing unwanted US influence ops in PRC. Work in progress, but track 1.5/2 is not going anywhere.
Don’t forget this is the guy who came under investigation in 2018 and his entire lobbying firm imploded. He’s lucky he’s not in jail.
>"He’s lucky he’s not in jail."
A wealthy Washington DC insider and power-broker... I assure you his freedom has nothing to do with luck.
A wealthy Washington DC insider and power-broker... I assure you his freedom has nothing to do with luck.
He plays for the right team, too.
Generally neither team wants any players going to jail, not even those on the other team. Once you start that the game itself gets disrupted.
It seems like the gloves are coming off lately with the Michael Flynn prosecution, Giuliani losing his license to practice, and so on.
All that says is which side is losing.
Luck got nothing to do with it. He is just that good and he has just those goods.
. . . Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta . . . is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/
This looks a lot like a legalized form of bribery. Is there any way to account for this or distinguish it from more transparent bribery? Is there any way to identify the effects of this? For example, if we see that Huawei is suddenly acceptable in infrastructure contracts where there would have otherwise been major national security concerns, is there any way to even identify who is responsible for undermining national security from inside?
When you break a law, say speeding it is sufficient to prove that you were going above the speed limit. Pretty simple. Bribery laws aren't written like speeding laws, it is insufficient to prove that a official took money or favors and then acted in a manner beneficial to the payer, you must prove that they did so due to the payment specifically. This is virtually impossible so long as they aren't idiots and write the agreement down.
One way to enforce this would be to do sting operations from time to time. This was done during the 70's, it was called ABSCAM and they hooked twelve high ranking public officials. Congress got real mad when the FBI did that and it was never attempted again.
Must be nice to make the laws.
One way to enforce this would be to do sting operations from time to time. This was done during the 70's, it was called ABSCAM and they hooked twelve high ranking public officials. Congress got real mad when the FBI did that and it was never attempted again.
Must be nice to make the laws.
In my head, lobbying in US is already the same with bribing. Unless this lobbying things don't associate with money to certain people or organizations.
Sometimes I wonder if we include lobbying in bribing, where would US government rank in most corrupt government in the world.
Sometimes I wonder if we include lobbying in bribing, where would US government rank in most corrupt government in the world.
[deleted]
“Oh, don’t you worry about that,” Yossarian comforted him with a toneless snicker as the engines of the jeeps and ambulance fractured the drowsy silence and the vehicles in the rear began driving away backward. “You make the bribe big enough and they’ll find you. Just make sure you do everything right out in the open. Let everyone know exactly what you want and how much you’re willing to pay for it. The first time you act guilty or ashamed, you might get into trouble.”
-Captain Yossarian, Catch-22
But what is the framework under which Huawei can reliably secure the returns on their bribe? What can a consultant like Tony Podesta do for your company?
They’re paying Tony Podesta to convince legislators or regulators to act favorably towards Huawei. The framework is uh the US legal system. Securing reliable ROI simply means finding the most effective lobbyist.
How exactly does Tony Podesta achieve this end?
By having relationships with legislators that will vote for legislation favorable to Huawei.
As far as I can tell, it would be impossible to know if one existed. Perhaps plausible deniability is the KPI here?
It honestly seems like nobody can tell bribery from the normal order of operations anymore
And if this results in horrific consequences because we've fundamentally undermined security, who's accountable for that? No one (and everyone)?
>And if this results in horrific consequences because we've fundamentally undermined security, who's accountable for that? No one (and everyone)?
It will be quite the moot point then, won't it? May I add for the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's record that I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.
It will be quite the moot point then, won't it? May I add for the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's record that I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.
With his deep ties through out the Biden Administration, it's a brilliant move. Meng should sigh a breath of relief, she will be free soon to return to China and all US Gov charges will be dropped. Look to also see Huawei sanctions removed. Hard to buy the Chinese and Russians but American Politicians will whore themselves out for the cost of a hooker, golf game and dinner, plus a couple of points on the deal.
It's so nice to know your elected officials work for foreign powers and themselves and they say the folks who stormed the capital were the terrorists.
It's so nice to know your elected officials work for foreign powers and themselves and they say the folks who stormed the capital were the terrorists.
>It's so nice to know your elected officials work for foreign powers and themselves and they say the folks who stormed the capital were the terrorists.
Why can't it be both?
What would you call folks that violently and successfully interrupted a core democratic process of tabulating the votes from different states?
Why can't it be both?
What would you call folks that violently and successfully interrupted a core democratic process of tabulating the votes from different states?
if they "violently and successfully interrupted a core democratic process", why do you think the charges being levied against these terrorists are so light?
Why no charges of insurrection?
Why no charges of insurrection?
Obviously this wasn’t an “insurrection,” and the people using that inflammatory language are hyperventilating to crack down on dissidents. We even know that FBI agents were involved in setting this up (although the full extent of involvement is unknown). It’s no different from China or Cuba. Perhaps more insidious than what you’d see in Russia.
many of those arrested are in 23 hour solitary for the past months without any charges filed on them... ( no, this is not in Guantanamo Bay, but right here in the heart of USA, right under the nose of the 'free' press )
No substantial charges will likely be filed too, simply because the evidence is not there.
Those here on HN who had hyperventilate about freedoms and rights and such, but have maintained a studied silence in this case are being exposed as hypocrites.
As the days go on, it will be seen how much longer they will pretend to be ignorant.
No substantial charges will likely be filed too, simply because the evidence is not there.
Those here on HN who had hyperventilate about freedoms and rights and such, but have maintained a studied silence in this case are being exposed as hypocrites.
As the days go on, it will be seen how much longer they will pretend to be ignorant.
> many of those arrested are in 23 hour solitary for the past months without any charges filed on them...
Nope, you’re wrong. Please provide a link to a single case where a capitol rioter has been held longer than the legal maximum without being charged, you can only be held for 48 hours without being charged. The US is not Japan.
Have people been charged and held in solitary/23 hour a day lockdown without yet going to trial? Almost certainly, but that is an entirely different thing. It’s still terrible, but unfortunately legal.
Nope, you’re wrong. Please provide a link to a single case where a capitol rioter has been held longer than the legal maximum without being charged, you can only be held for 48 hours without being charged. The US is not Japan.
Have people been charged and held in solitary/23 hour a day lockdown without yet going to trial? Almost certainly, but that is an entirely different thing. It’s still terrible, but unfortunately legal.
> without any charges filed on them
I take this back, what I should have stated more clearly - is that the serious charges of insurrection, etc are not filed.
They were charged with whatever petty crimes, and then have been kept for months on this terrible solitary/23 hour a day lockdown.
If these are not political prisoners, what else can be?
If one does not stand for these prisoners in our own backyard, then what does that make of us?
I take this back, what I should have stated more clearly - is that the serious charges of insurrection, etc are not filed.
They were charged with whatever petty crimes, and then have been kept for months on this terrible solitary/23 hour a day lockdown.
If these are not political prisoners, what else can be?
If one does not stand for these prisoners in our own backyard, then what does that make of us?
Some of the more serious charges being levied such as "Assault on a federal officer with physical contact and intent to commit another felony" come with penalties more severe than insurrection charges.
But to be clear, there are no insurrection or terrorism related charges.
The point is it does not meet the definition of insurrection.
The point is it does not meet the definition of insurrection.
my point is that there is inconsistency between popular descriptions of jan6 and the charges.
If jan6 was as bad as many say it was, then we should expect to see not only serious indictments, but also convictions.
If jan6 was as bad as many say it was, then we should expect to see not only serious indictments, but also convictions.
Did you miss the conviction with a 8 month prison sentence a few days ago? Other convictions are in the pipeline.
Highlighting the remarkably long sentence for “interrupting an official proceeding” actually undermines your argument.
A permanent war among plebs - well, I do not want any part of it. I might as well hang-out with Tony and collect some Fentanyl money.
>What would you call folks that violently and successfully interrupted a core democratic process of tabulating the votes from different states?
Are you referring to the Politicians you vote for that violently spread war and interrupt core democratic process all over the world?
It's not both because the folks in power (and their supporters) are the ones who are exaggerating everything to obfuscate their own criminal behavior.
Are you referring to the Politicians you vote for that violently spread war and interrupt core democratic process all over the world?
It's not both because the folks in power (and their supporters) are the ones who are exaggerating everything to obfuscate their own criminal behavior.
The first time I heard that name (as a non US citizen) was in a documentary about breitbart.com founder Andrew Breitbart, who apparently did not like the guy. I found this article about Podesta (on breitbart, so take that with a grain of salt, or an entire salt mine): https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/11/04/remembering-an...
Looks like Podesta is everything the 'Drain-the-swamp' Trump supporters hate. This deal is probably fueling a lot of debate on their social platforms right now.
Looks like Podesta is everything the 'Drain-the-swamp' Trump supporters hate. This deal is probably fueling a lot of debate on their social platforms right now.
furgooswft13(1)
>Looks like Podesta is everything the 'Drain-the-swamp' Trump supporters hate.
Yet not a peep from the same people about swamp creatures Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn.
Yet not a peep from the same people about swamp creatures Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn.
Welcome to the power grid CCP!
I would really appreciate if HiSilicon once again was allowed to fab via TSMC.
Fine if the US doesn't want to buy any of Huawei's products, but for us in the rest of the world. Please allow us.
Fine if the US doesn't want to buy any of Huawei's products, but for us in the rest of the world. Please allow us.
That's TSMC's decision to stop activity with a sanctioned entity. Since they aren't under US jurisdiction they are free to resume it at any time.
No, current US sanctions against huawei says, any entity using US origin technology cannot fabricate Hisilicon chips. While TSMC is not headquartered in the US, they use US origin technology. For example, ASML EUV machines contain US origin tech, or they use Applied Materials, LAM research machines heavily on their production line. I am not sure how deep it goes, maybe even if the manufacturing line uses Intel CPUs also counts. That is for the legal experts to explain. As result, TSMC is under US jurisdiction with respect to this particular ruling. Maybe TSMC can risk it and supply Huawei, but US could retaliate by sanctioning them. At the end of the day, TSMC can't operate without US origin tech; if they can't get EUV machines or LAM machines, they are dead as well. So the choice is clear. And I am sure TSMC wants to be on good record with the US anyway.
You're mistaken. TSMC has no choice but to stop manufacturing for Huawei as TSMC's EUV tech is using US R&D that they and ASML have licenses from US research labs many years ago.
Hmmm. Mega-lobbyist. Brother worked for both Obama and Bill Clinton. Takes job with Huawei.
Nope, nothing going on here. At least not in comparison to Hunter Biden's art sales and Ukranian petro job.
Nope, nothing going on here. At least not in comparison to Hunter Biden's art sales and Ukranian petro job.
Honestly, Hunter Biden's art is quite good.
I think that attack is foolish really. There are all kinds of crazy prices being paid for collectables right now.
I think that attack is foolish really. There are all kinds of crazy prices being paid for collectables right now.
Allowing the buyers to remain anonymous is problematic.
The Ukranian no-skills job was suspicious, now allowing people to basically give the president's son gobs of money without being identified is beyond the pale.
The Ukranian no-skills job was suspicious, now allowing people to basically give the president's son gobs of money without being identified is beyond the pale.
comcast lobbyist, too
iratic0(1)
I guess everyone has a price.
Speak for yourself
My point was more that the trope about people having a price seems to be pretty true.
Very transparent for some one that is going to work with the country representatives.
Corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
China has realized what Russia knows so well. You don't compete with the USA, it's cheaper and more effective to buy its politicians.