AFP via Getty Images
China’s desperation to defend under-fire Huawei has escalated again this week, with a mix of threats and taunts as the knock-on affects of Washington’s latest sanctions become clearer. “For some people in the U.S.,” a spokesperson for Beijing said on June 10, “there are only two types of people: those who take orders from the U.S. and join it in its attacks against China, and those who don't because they are coerced by China. Such a view is simply narrow-minded and hilarious.”
The issue that’s front and centre here is whether the U.K. will reverse its decision to allow Huawei’s technology into its 5G network. The tug-of-war between Washington and Beijing over Huawei’s U.K. role has been an ever-present in this technology Cold War. When Huawei secured the decision, Washington was furious.
In truth, there was always likely to be a review of the U.K. decision—there are too many security hawks in the governing Conservative Party insisting on some form of time limit. The emerging backlash against China’s alleged disinformation campaign on coronavirus had just added fuel to the fire. And now the latest U.S. sanctions have presented a new security vulnerability that did not exist before. Replacing U.S. tech with Chinese equivalents, runs the theory, is a security game-changer.
Recognizing this new reality, Beijing threatened the U.K. with ramifications that “ripple far beyond technological concerns,” in the event of a reversal. Taking to state-controlled media, China warned that any “significant escalation of discriminative government interference, [will] almost certainly meet retaliatory responses from Beijing.” This was quickly followed with threats to pull Chinese support for major infrastructure builds in the U.K., including new nuclear plans and the HS2 rail link.
And then Washington stepped into the fray. On June 9, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement to say “the U.S. stands with our allies and partners against the Chinese Communist Party’s coercive bullying tactics.” Pompeo referenced the nuclear power plant threat as well as reported Chinese pressure on Britain’s HSBC to support new Hong Kong security laws. “Shenzhen-based Huawei,” Pompeo said, “is an extension of the Chinese Communist Party’s surveillance state.”
Pompeo and his advisers had repeatedly shuttled between Washington and London in the lead-up to the U.K. Huawei decision in January. That was the time when threats over national security collaboration and intelligence sharing were in the headlines, as the U.S. made clear the repercussions of any Huawei deal. But what are the alternatives, was U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s response at the time.
“Beijing’s aggressive behavior shows why countries should avoid economic over-reliance on China,” Pompeo said, referencing the political threats Beijing reportedly made against Denmark last year, and Australia just this week—which was warned it “will pay an unbearable price” if it sides with America. Pompeo offered to fill any China-shaped gap in the U.K. “The U.S. stands ready to assist our friends in the U.K. with any needs they have, from building secure and reliable nuclear power plants to developing trusted 5G solutions that protect their citizens’ privacy.”
And so the U.K. review of its Huawei decision has become a focal point for the west’s reevaluation of its reliance on Chinese technology and supply chains. The security review was welcomed by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who said countries in the west “cannot ignore the consequences of the rise of China,” adding that “it's even more important that we stand together, North America and Europe together, because we cannot manage this alone.”
“China pursues a defense policy that is defensive in nature,” Beijing’s spokesperson responded to Stoltenberg’s remarks. “We hope NATO can continue viewing China in the correct way, regarding China's development in a rational manner, and contributing to upholding international and regional security and stability. China is ready to enhance dialogue with NATO on the basis of equality and mutual respect.”
Just as in the build-up to the original U.K. decision on Huawei 5G last summer, and the confirmation of that in January, this has become totemic, a hugely symbolic statement over the security of Chinese tech. The U.K. is America’s primary security and intelligence ally, a cornerstone of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing group. Countries around the world will look to its decision. If the U.K., following its security review, with all its experience and expertise says it can no longer mitigate the risks associated with Huawei, other countries will find it more difficult to say they can.
Washington knows this, Beijing knows this, Shenzhen knows this. That’s why there is now an intense Huawei media and PR campaign in the U.K. to again stress its long-term ties to the U.K., its investments and install-base. Huawei is saying that nothing has changed, the basis behind the original decision still stands. The line appears to be that this is all geopolitics and has nothing to do with Huawei or security.
As this intense last week came to an end, U.K. peers in the House of Lords—with the support of hawkish parliamentarians—upped the stakes still further, tabling a proposed amendment to an in-process bill to ban Huawei over the alleged involvement of the company’s Chinese suppliers in Xinjiang. The U.K. government wants this cleared away as it continues its own review—but those hawks say they've learned a lesson from last time, that they will not be held at bay.
The U.K. has a dire recession on its hands and can ill afford the cost of delays or a rip and replace program on its 5G rollout. At the same time, the politics have become treacherous. In reality, it will come down to security advice. If the U.K.’s agencies continue to say that Huawei is a risk that can be managed, despite reports of potential new vulnerabilities, then the government can continue to fudge. But if the security advice changes, the government will have nowhere left to go. Public opinion in the U.K. has now hardened against China, those politics have changed.
