Shenzhen, China – Huawei Technologies, China’s telecommunications giant, said on Thursday it filed a lawsuit against the United States for banning government agencies, employees and contractors from using Huawei equipment as the company attempts to fight back against perceptions it is a tool for spying by Beijing.

Speaking to reporters in the southern city of Shenzhen, Huawei Chairman Guo Ping called the ban “unconstitutional” and declared he company “never installed backdoors and never will install backdoors” in its equipment.

Guo said the US government had “mislead the American public” regarding Huawei and “never presented evidence” regarding its allegations against the company.

The ban came into effect last August as part of the Defense Authorization Act, which also placed similar restrictions on fellow Shenzhen-based telecoms equipment company ZTE.

“It is an abuse of the US lawmaking process, this strips Huawei of its due process … and goes against the very nature of the Constitution,” Guo said.

Huawei said it filed the lawsuit in the Eastern District Court in Plano, Texas where it has its US headquarters. The suit claims the company has been singled out for punishment without a chance to defend itself by a legislative act of Congress that could be considered unconstitutional, the so-called “bill of attainder”.

‘Public relations ploy’

While the move may force the US government to provide more details on the ban, most legal analysts see the action more as a public relations gambit for Huawei, which has found its global image shattered over the last year amid increasing scepticism about its close ties to the Chinese government.

“It’s a good public relations ploy for Huawei for various reasons,” said Jerome A Cohen, a New York University law professor and Council of Foreign Relations senior fellow.

“Although unlikely to win the suit, it may cause the US to reveal more data and spell out arguments for the exclusion of Huawei,” Cohen said. “I don’t think the bill of attainder gambit will work [however].”

Christopher Balding, an associate professor at the Fulbright University Vietnam, who recently left Shenzhen after nine years as an economics professor at the HSBC Business School of Peking University, said Huawei needs to be more transparent about its company and perceived ties to the Communist Party in Beijing.

“[The lawsuit] seems more like a ploy to make their case than a real change of character,” Balding told Al Jazeera.

“If they wanted to alleviate questions about their ownership structure, it would be easy to put information into the public domain to address those concerns but they continue to refuse to do so.”

Huawei has been pulling out all the stops on the public relations front.

Reuters reported on March 7 that at least 10 senior journalists have been approached by headhunters hired by the company, offering annual packages of $200,000. A reporter who writes for Al Jazeera in Shenzhen was also approached by Huawei-connected headhunters with exactly the same offer.

International blowback

The US is pressuring other allies that are part of the “Five-Eyes” intelligence alliance – including the United Kingdom, Germany and Canada – to ban Huawei products, urging them to bar Huawei from participating in the rollout of fifth-generation [5G] mobile networks in their countries.

Bans on government use of Huawei products have already been issued in Australia and New Zealand since the US action.

Huawei is also embroiled in a legal tussle over the December 1 arrest of Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou by Canadian authorities after an extradition request from the US over allegations of bank and wire fraud related to breaches of US-imposed sanctions on Iran.

Meng is the daughter of Ren Zhengfei, founder and CEO of Huawei, who recently said in a rare interview that the company would never share information with Beijing.

Meng, who is on bail and living at her Vancouver home, appeared in court on Wednesday to argue against the extradition, saying the request was politically motivated. 

During the proceedings they referred to US President Donald Trump’s Twitter remarks in December when he alluded to dropping the extradition request if the US and China reached a trade deal. 

The two superpowers are currently conducting video-conferencing negotiations to reduce trade friction after Washington delayed a deadline to increase tariffs by 25 percent on about $200bn in Chinese products last week.

Huawei, which insists it is a private company and not at the bidding of the government in Beijing, has also denied its equipment can be used for intrusion under Chinese cybersecurity and national security laws. 

But legal experts at global law firms who asked not to be identified said those laws do spell out how the government can compel telecommunications companies to open their systems for snooping.

Spying accusations

Chinese authorities have emerged as staunch defenders of Huawei.

Canadian citizens Michael Kovrig, a former diplomat and currently an analyst with Brussels-based international conflict monitoring think-tank Crisis Group, and Michael Spavor, a businessman and consultant, were detained after Meng’s arrest.

On Monday, China accused them of spying.

Asked whether other countries such as Australia that have been pushing back on using Huawei technologies could face similar legal action in the future, Elena Collinson, a senior project and research officer at the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology in Sydney, said even if it did the likelihood of success would be low.

“Huawei Australia stated last year they would ‘take all possible measures to protect our legal rights and interests’ in response to the Australian government’s decision to block Huawei from participating in the rollout of Australia’s 5G network,” Collinson said.

“While we might not be able to rule out completely the potential for Huawei to bring a case against the Australian government on the ban, there would be probably be limited scope for any such action to succeed,” she added.

Collinson said Australian courts have generally been reluctant to weigh in on executive decisions related to national security there, nor would there be much scope for Huawei to base a lawsuit on breaches of a 1988 bilateral investment treaty between the two.

Imports of coal from Australia have recently been caught up in the northern port of Dalian over environmental inspections, causing concerns a ban had been implemented.

China’s foreign ministry last month denied there was any ban. Spokesperson Geng Shuang said coal that did not meet the country’s environmental standards had been found in recent years, so this was part of general quality-and-safety inspections.

Image: Joan Cros/NurPhoto via Getty Images

President Donald Trump’s former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen turned over documents to the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday showing that his false 2017 testimony to the panel about negotiations for a Trump Tower in Moscow was edited, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Cohen was transporting what appeared to be a tranche of documents when he arrived on Capitol Hill Wednesday morning for his second closed-door interview with the committee since pleading guilty to lying to the panel about the timing of the negotiations for the Trump Tower Moscow project. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told reporters that Cohen provided documents to the committee, but he did not respond to questions about Cohen’s latest disclosure to investigators. A spokesman for Schiff declined to comment.

Story Continued Below

In a public hearing before the House Oversight and Reform Committee last week, Cohen said Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s attorneys, edited his false statement about the Trump Tower Moscow project. Sekulow said that claim was “completely false.”

Cohen’s appearance before the Intelligence panel on Wednesday capped off four days of marathon interviews over the past week with the House Intelligence and Oversight panels, in addition to the Senate Intelligence Committee, as part of congressional investigators’ wide-ranging probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election and other related matters. Cohen spent more than 16 hours testifying before the House Intelligence panel over a two-day period.

“Mr. Cohen cooperated fully with the Committee, answered every question we asked of him during both interview sessions, and provided important testimony and materials relevant to the core of our probe and that will allow us to advance our investigation substantially,” Schiff said after Cohen’s Wednesday testimony.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), a member of the Intelligence and Oversight panels, said that after spending three full days with Cohen, “my impression is he comes across as credible. Obviously we have to wait and test all of his assertions. But he was specific, consistent and I thought he came across as credible.”

In brief remarks to reporters, Cohen pledged to “continue to cooperate to the fullest extent of my capabilities.” Schiff left the door open to future requests for documents, and Cohen’s attorneys said their client would answer any additional questions from lawmakers.

“He remains committed to telling the truth and cooperating with authorities,” said Lanny Davis, one of Cohen’s lawyers.

Republicans have sought to paint Cohen as an untrustworthy witness given that he has pleaded guilty to crimes that include lying to Congress. They have also accused Democrats of tampering with witnesses. On Wednesday, Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) sent a letter to Cohen asking him about his conversations with Schiff in advance of his testimony. Turner said it would be inappropriate if there were “extensive meetings, discussions, preparation, and/or coordination between you and Democratic Members and Democratic staff.”

In response, Patrick Boland, a spokesman for the committee, dismissed Turner’s letter.

“We are running a professional investigation in search of the facts, and we welcome the opportunity to meet with potential witnesses in advance of any testimony to determine relevant topics to cover in order to make productive use of their time before the Committee,” Boland said. “Despite this professed outrage by Republicans, it’s completely appropriate to conduct proffer sessions and allow witnesses to review their prior testimony before the Committee interviews them — such sessions are a routine part of every serious investigation around the country, including congressional investigations.”

Schiff has said publicly that he and Cohen discussed Trump’s attacks on him and his family, which had initially prompted Cohen to postpone his testimony before the panel.

Cohen is set to report to prison on May 6 to serve a three-year sentence for crimes including lying to Congress, tax fraud, and campaign-finance violations in connection with hush-money payments to an adult-film actress who claimed she had an affair with Trump.

John Bresnahan contributed to this report.

Image: Jack morse / mashable

Guatemala City – For decades, Raul de Jesus Gomez fought for justice for his brother Ramiro, killed in a 1982 massacre in northern Guatemala. Now, he is fighting to keep the perpetrators behind bars.

The year Gomez was born marked the beginning of the 1960-1996 civil war between the army and leftist guerrilla forces. He was just a young child when his family moved to Dos Erres, a farming community in the Peten department. By the time Gomez was in his 20s, the military’s scorched earth campaign was in full swing.

All told, the armed conflict left 200,000 dead and 45,000 disappeared. According to a United Nations-backed truth commission, military forces carried out acts of genocide in several indigenous Mayan regions.

The truth commission documented 663 massacres. One of them was in Dos Erres, where Kaibiles special forces killed more than 200 men, women, children and infants on December 6, 1982.

“My older brother died there. He was massacred by the soldiers,” Gomez told Al Jazeera.

Gomez is part of a growing chorus of opposition to legislative initiatives in Guatemala and El Salvador that would grant broad amnesty to perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

Guatemala bill

In Guatemala, a bill to reform the National Reconciliation Law passed in the wake of the 1996 peace accords is making its way through a divided congress. The second of three readings of the amnesty bill took place Wednesday, sparking passionate interventions on both sides. 

Motions presented Wednesday to send the bill back to a commission and to consult the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the bill both failed. The third debate and final vote could be scheduled as early as next week.

The bill would order the release within 24 hours of more than 30 military and paramilitary men convicted of forced disappearance, rape, massacres and other war-time atrocities. It would also shut down current and future trials.

Six soldiers each sentenced to thousands of years in prison for the Dos Erres massacre are among those who will walk free should the bill pass.

“As victims, we hope that bill does not prevail,” said Gomez.

Proponents of the bill argue the measure is necessary for the country to move forward. They claim left-wing interference in the judicial branch has led to biased and politically motivated prosecution of military officials. Many deny crimes against humanity occurred.

The amnesty bill “would put an end to ideological persecution and the business of reparations,” congress president Alvaro Arzu tweeted on Wednesday. 

Congressman Amilcar Pop, an indigenous rights lawyer, rejects the arguments of amnesty advocates. Only one guerrilla fighter is among the convicts, but the ratio is roughly in line with the truth commission’s findings, he said. The commission concluded the military carried out 93 percent of atrocities and guerrilla forces only three percent. 

“Crimes during combat are not on trial and that is important to recognise,” Pop told Al Jazeera.

“What there are are attacks on civilians, minors, women, and even newborns killed in massacres,” he said.

El Salvador initiative

In neighbouring El Salvador, a similar legislative initiative is the subject of growing controversy. An ad hoc commission of politicians is working on a draft bill to grant amnesty to perpetrators of war crimes.

The 1979-1992 armed conflict between the Salvadoran military and leftist guerrilla forces left an estimated 75,000 people dead and thousands disappeared.

As in Guatemala, the Salvadoran military’s scorched earth and counterinsurgency campaigns included the targeting of civilians and massacres of whole villages. Also as in Guatemala, a truth commission concluded the military was responsible for the vast majority of atrocities.

Over the course of the conflict, the United States government provided billions of dollars and funding to the Salvadoran government.

A 1993 amnesty law prevented the prosecution of war crimes, but the country’s Supreme Court struck it down in 2016. The ruling facilitated the current trial of high-level military officials for the December 1981 El Mozote massacre of nearly 1,000 villagers by a special forces battalion. More than half of the victims were children.  

Survivors and relatives of victims of the El Mozote massacre are among the dozens of groups speaking out against attempts to bring back the amnesty. A bill to that effect would “generate a dysfunctional societal model based on impunity”, according to a statement on Wednesday by the National Commission for the Search of Disappeared Persons during the Armed Conflict.

The protests of Salvadoran survivors and human rights groups have been echoed by international organisations. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet spoke out against Guatemala’s amnesty bill earlier this year and has now also condemned its incipient counterpart in El Salvador.

“Amnesties for the most serious crimes under international law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, are contrary to international law,” Bachelet said in a statement Wednesday.

“By effectively granting impunity to those guilty of serious crimes, it would make repetition of similar crimes more likely,” she said.