今年早些时候，《财富》杂志（Fortune）曾报道，中国电信设备制造商华为公司（Huawei）曾努力在美国参与私营协议的竞争。但到目前为止，由于美国对国家安全问题的担忧，这家发展迅速的公司在美却频频受挫。去年，这家设备制造商的年销售额已经达到了270亿美元。

    而近期，《财富》杂志获悉，华为对外事务副总裁威廉•普拉莫呼吁公司的美国员工团结起来，代表公司争取公平竞争的地位。《财富》日前获取了一份邮件，普拉莫在这封主题为“行使权利，支持华为”的邮件中号召公司的美国员工向国会代表联名上书。

    这一事件的起因是什么？美国众议院情报委员会（House Intelligence Committee）最近宣布，正在对中国的电信设备制造商进行调查。普拉莫在给公司员工的邮件中表示，美国密歇根州共和党众议员、情报委员会主席麦克•罗杰斯在调查名单中特别提到了华为、中兴通讯（ZTE）两家公司。中兴目前在中国香港上市，也在调查之列。

    普拉莫在给员工的邮件中号召他们，敦促议员们“对全球供应链所带来的威胁进行开放的、全面的、基于事实的考量，而不是针对集成商或终端解决方案供应商”。（言外之意：如果华为会带来安全挑战，在中国开展业务、聘用中国工程师的美国公司岂不是同样也会带来安全忧患？）

    不过普拉莫明确表示，希望美国国会停止对华为的“特别关照”。他在信中附上了一份信函样例（完整内容见下文），希望员工寄给他们支持的议员。信函的内容不断提醒读者，华为是一家正在快速发展的公司，有望创造更多的工作岗位。信中写到：“我希望大家能注意到，国会的所作所为可能会对我与我的美国同事，以及其他国家同事的生计和家庭幸福带来潜在的威胁。”目前，华为在美国本土有1,500名员工，在全球的员工人数达到了120,000人。

    以下为信函样例全文。普拉莫希望员工以各自的名义发送给国会议员：

    尊敬的<插入姓名>阁下：

    本人<插入姓名>以您的选民<若收件人为不在同一选区的情报委员会会员，则可用“一名美国公民”>的身份给您致信。我希望您能够注意到，国会目前的行为可能会对我与我的美国同事，以及其他国家同事的生活和家庭幸福带来潜在的威胁。

    Earlier this year Fortune chronicled China-based telecom equipment maker Huawei's efforts to win private contracts in the United States. Thus far the fast-growing gear maker, which last year had sales of $27 billion, has been thwarted by national security concerns.

    Now FORTUNE has learned that external relations VP William Plummer is asking Huawei's US employees to rally on behalf of the company. In an email obtained by Fortune, with the subject line "Exercising your Rights—Support of Huawei," Plummer asks US employees of the company to consider writing to their Congressional reps.

    At issue? A recently-announced U.S. House Intelligence Committee investigation into China-based telecom gear providers. According to Plummer's note to employees, Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, specifically calls out Huawei. ZTE, another gear maker whose shares trade in Hong Kong, is also named in the investigation.

    Plummer's email to employees suggests that they encourage their representatives to pursue "an open, full and fact-based consideration of the threats presented by global supply chains, regardless of the integrator or end-solution supplier." (Tranlsation: Couldn't an American company with operations and engineers in China be just as likely a challenge to security as Huawei?)

    But Plummer clearly wants to Congress to lay off Huawei. His sample letter (full text below the fold) for employees to forward to their lawmakers, reminds the reader that Huawei is a growing company and a potential job creator. "I wanted to bring to your attention an ongoing Congressional activity that potentially threatens my livelihood and my family's well-being, as well as those of my American and other colleagues," the sample letter says. Huawei has more than 1,500 employees in the U.S., and 120,000 worldwide.

    Here's the complete text of the letter Plummer suggests employees personalize and send to their Congressional leaders:

    Dear: The Honorable <insert name>

    My name is <insert name> and I am writing to you as one of your constituents <or, "as an American," if addressed to an Intelligence Committee Member not from your District> living in <insert hometown.> I wanted to bring to your attention an ongoing Congressional activity that potentially threatens my livelihood and my family's well-being, as well as those of my American and other colleagues.

    本人目前在华为公司工作。该公司总部位于中国，是一家年营业收入达280亿美元、拥有120，000名员工的跨国电信公司。公司为全球140多个市场提供信息与通信技术解决方案。全球50大电信服务提供商中，有45家采用了华为的信息与通信技术。

    尽管华为在美国已经取得了一定的发展，但是由于华为的中国背景引发的所谓的“国家安全顾虑”，公司在美国开展业务的能力不时遭到挑战。但实际上，类似的顾虑从未有过任何实证，而且华为也从未从享受到正当法律程序带来的保障。华为无法理解公司受到的种种指控，也无从为自己辩护。

    2011年11月17日，美国众议院情报委员会宣布，将对中国电信设备制造商提供给美国运营商的解决方案进行调查，查证它们是否为间谍行为打开了方便之门，是否威胁到美国的关键基础设施。该委员会主席明确提出，华为将成为此次调查的目标。

    针对网络安全的顾虑确实存在，但是鉴于所有供应商提供的电信解决方案都是全球性的产物，不仅包含中国，还包括世界其他地区的数据源和代码，因此，安全考虑应当针对所有电信解决方案供应商。就这一点而言，情报委员会应对全球供应链所带来的威胁进行开放的、全面的、基于事实的考虑，而不是仅仅针对集成商或终端解决方案供应商。而且，这样的方式可以催生一个真正非政治性的解决方案，为美国的网络、数据和听信服务连续性提供安全保护，同时维护市场竞争。

    作为您的选民<若收件人为不在同一选区的情报委员会会员，则可用“一名美国公民”>，我吁请您敦促情报委员会利用公众和私营企业专家在电信、安全、竞争和贸易方面的知识，以公平、透明的方式展开审查，进而得出符合事实的结论。

    诚挚的问候

    <插入姓名>

    译者：阿龙/汪皓

    I work for Huawei Technologies, a $28 billion, 120,000-person multinational telecommunications company based in China which provides information and communications technology solutions to 45 of the world's top 50 telecommunications service providers in over 140 markets across the planet.

    While Huawei has made modest inroads in the U.S., due to concerns related to our Chinese heritage, our ability to do business in the U.S. has occasionally been challenged due to unspecified "national security concerns." Such concerns have never been substantiated and Huawei has never had the benefit of due process or to know or understand the charges against it or to otherwise defend itself.

    On November 17, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee announced an investigation into whether China-based telecommunications equipment providers supplying solutions to U.S. operators might somehow facilitate espionage or threaten America's critical infrastructure. The Committee Chairman specifically named Huawei as a target of the investigation.

    Network security concerns are very real, but, given that all telecommunications solutions from every vendor contain global - including Chinese - inputs and code, the concerns apply to each and every vendor. In this regard, the Intelligence Committee investigation offers a unique opportunity for an open, full and fact-based consideration of the threats presented by global supply chains, regardless of the integrator or end-solution provider. Indeed, such an approach will serve to foster true and non-political solutions to securing American networks, data, and communications service continuity, while preserving competition.

    As your constituent <or, "as an American," if addressed to an Intelligence Committee Member not from your District>, I call on you to encourage the Committee to leverage the knowledge of a balanced representation of public and private sector experts on telecommunications, security, competition and trade, and to conduct its review in an impartial and transparent fashion towards a fact-based outcome.

    Best regards

    <insert name>