Trump’s Failed Bullying: Britain Accepts 5G Huawei Technology
It is
strikingly bullying and bullish. US officials have been less than
reserved in their threats about what Britain’s proposed dealings with
Huawei over admitting it to its 5G network might entail. Three
Republican Senators – Tom Cotton of Arkansas, John Cornyn of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida – have taken it upon themselves in the circus of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump to send a letter
to the UK’s National Security Council, not to mention cool notes to a
whole swathe of UK ministers, including the Attorney General, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Defence.
The language is
terse and unequivocal. “The company’s actions show a clear record of
predatory and problematic behaviour.” For the sake of the “US-UK
special relationship and the health and wellbeing of a well-functioning
market”, it was “in the best interest of the United Kingdom” to exclude
Huawei.
The letter is also
noteworthy for doing the opposite of what it claims to. “We do not want
to feed post-Brexit anxieties by threatening a potential US-UK free
trade agreement when it comes to Congress for approval. Nor do we want
to have to review US-UK intelligence sharing.” Except that they do.
Within the Trump
administration, officials are also keen to sound the note of warning,
flavoured with threat, though the voice is a touch discordant. US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin
is a regular on the critical circuit warning that admitting Huawei to
the fold is much like admitting thieves to the party. But were Huawei
to be scrubbed from contention of applying its 5G technology to Britain,
the US would “dedicate a lot of resources” of getting a trade deal done
and dusted with it.
Those in London
know that a hypocrisy is in the making. Despite the righteous stand
being maintained in Congress and some in the Trump administration,
opponents against a full freezing out of Huawei can be found. They have
sanctuary in the Departments of Defense and Treasury. The concern
here, as the Wall Street Journal notes,
is that not allowing US firms to ship to Huawei will squeeze revenue in
a competitive market. For one thing, it will chill progress in
research in the field that might enable money and research to be spent
on developing better alternatives. According to Defense Secretary Mark Esper, speaking
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington,
“We have to be conscious of sustaining those [technology] companies’
supply chains and those innovators. That’s the balance we have to
strike.”
Keeping up their letter writing obsession on Huawei, Rubio and Cotton, this time with Senator Ben Sasse
of Nebraska to keep them company, badgered Esper for an explanation.
“Huawei is an arm of the Chinese Communist Party and should be treated
as such.”
The British have
been rather surly on this; the suggestion that the US have priority in
being listened to over a balanced deal that might be struck with a
dominant Chinese company, albeit heavily subsided by an authoritarian
regime, is grating. Besides, no UK official would willingly compromise
the digital channels of communications with Washington by letting in a
potential digital burglar. The approach of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, as with much else, is to puzzle and dare.
On Tuesday, Johnson approved the limited use of Huawei equipment
in the country’s fifth-generation mobile phone networks, albeit
designating it a “high risk vendor”. (The designation suggests that
Britain’s ministers are concerned enough to regard the company as
subject to Beijing’s direction.) The UK National Security Council
signed off on the arrangement, but only to a market share of 35 percent
within the 5G infrastructure.
Sensitive core
functions will also remain out of reach for the Chinese giant, including
networks in the Critical National Infrastructure and “sensitive
geographic locations, such as nuclear sites and military bases”.
According to a government press release,
UK ministers “determined that UK operators should put in place
additional safeguards to exclude high risk vendors from parts of the
telecoms network that are critical to security.” Guidance on the matter
will be sought from the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).
Some concession has
been made by means of a promise on the part of the UK that its
ministers liaise with fellow “five eyes” alliance members – US,
Australia, Canada and New Zealand – on developing alternatives in
future.
The true victor
here is Huawei, even if the victory seems clipped. It is being treated
as the innovator-in-chief in a technology market that has become
addictive and hyper-competitive. To ban Huawei is to spit in the face of
speedy progress. To ban Huawei, goes this line of reasoning, is to
prevent the development of 5G and cognate broadband technologies by
anywhere up to two or three years.
We are also left
with some speculation as to how the technology developments will
unfold. As ITV’s political editor Robert Peston maintains with relevant acuity,
“The problem is that for 5G, important data processing – such as for a
new generation of driverless cars – may well migrate outside of the core
network to the periphery.”
The gamble being
made here, as Peston reiterates, is that Huawei’s market share falls
over time, something that can only happen if the UK brings in other
providers (Samsung and NEC) and make all equipment interoperable. Given
Britain’s fabulously bad record in dealing with such infrastructure
decisions, marked by bungles and poor choices, this is anybody’s bet.
The sense of
British pride, mighty as it is, is evident. While they remain dupes of
international relations politics when it comes to backing Washington on
various fronts, the Huawei threat was one step too far. Perhaps it said
as much about Washington’s fears than it does about Britain’s own
confidence: that it can strike a balance with Huawei better than others
can. As the Johnson government boasts, the NCSC had “carried a
technical and security analysis” that offered “the most detailed
assessment in the world of what is needed to protect the UK’s digital
infrastructure.” Huawei may well burst that bubbly presumption in time.
*
Note to readers: please click the share
buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists.
Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark
was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures
at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
Featured image is from CGTN
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Dr. Binoy Kampmark, Global Research, 2020
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
No comments:
Post a Comment