I read it a bit different from El Reg.
I read the original blog post and take what he said as meaning something completely different from what el Reg's author does. Here's the quote again:
It would be a major step forward if governments and global companies would subject themselves to auditable testing and verification processes for critical components and legal processes in the countries with whom mutual trust agreements are signed.
To me one part of that says that companies producing critical components should be able to be audited by any country that both makes user of their kit and has signed the treaty, and they should be legally accountable in those countries as well. In other words, all telecoms and IT kit should be audited by all countries who want to take part in this process.
The other part of it was stated in a less clear manner, and needs to be understood in the context of the entire blog post. He seems to be saying that governments should make good security practices in private companies in critical industries legally mandatory rather than just suggesting them as a good idea. In addition, governments should share information about security problems so that they get fixed rather than quietly taking advantage of them to spy on each other.
What I take this all as meaning is that Huawei don't have a problem with countries putting their kit under a microscope looking for security issues. However, they want all other companies subject to the same rules rather than some countries using "national security" selectively as a tool of national industrial policy.