[ad_1]
The United States has launched a global diplomatic offensive to dissuade its allies from collaborating with Chinese telecommunications company Huawei, which is leading the 5G high-tech network. This technology is necessary because of how it will improve network speed, which will enhance the potential of many emerging technologies.
US officials have warned that China could force companies owned by its citizens to insert backdoors into their technology and use them for spying or cyberattacking purposes.ks. Huawei insists Rejects concern, citing a lack of evidence for the prosecution. The broader global willingness to work with Huawei and other Chinese companies has been mixed, but seems to be more predictably shaped by the immediate geopolitical interest and economic necessity, rather than by the preferences of US leadership.
Huawei, as well as the Chinese company ZTE, have already been not allowed to take part in 5G projects in the United States through the Defense Authorization Act signed by President Trump in August 2018. The Trump Government made this decision as a result of a report to Congress 2012 and the subsequent intelligence badessments who believed that Huawei could pose a threat to national security. Following this decision, the United States lobbied its allies to prevent Huawei from taking part in the construction of future telecommunication networks.
Much of this effort has been focused on Europe, Huawei's second largest market outside of China and home to many of the closest allies in the United States. The results were mixed. Many European countries have expressed caution about Huawei's participation in their telecommunication networks, but few have opted for an outright ban. Even the United Kingdom, The closest security partner to the United States, has not followed in his footsteps. GermanyEurope's largest economy, also proposed further examination, but no ban.
This has more serious consequences for the United States in the context of NATO countries, where the use of Chinese equipment in telecommunications infrastructure could pose a direct threat to their interests. If China becomes more and more integrated with Europe in this respect, it could potentially influence the positions of their governments so as to weaken the links between the transatlantic allies.
Reluctant allies in Asia
American allies in Asia are also caught in the middle. Australia and New Zealand have already banned Huawei from receiving government contracts in critical infrastructure, and they have been joined on this front by Japan by the end of 2018. China's relations with these three countries are complicated by the fact that Beijing is the largest trading partner of each country, even though it is universally viewed with suspicion. Australia and New Zealand worked to reduce Chinese influence in their political systemsand Japan has been locked in a dispute (for decades?) with China over the status of the uninhabited Spratley Islands. In the end, everyone chose to ban Huawei's security, which is closely tied to Washington's, in the face of potential economic losses.
This is further reinforced by a treaty of mutual cooperation between the United States and Japan, as well as by the intelligence alliance ANZUS and Five Eyes with Australia and New Zealand. Their economies are also more economically robust than their counterparts in the region, which could offer them greater protection against China's retaliation.
The other American allies in Asia have not been so quick to lock Huawei out of their markets. Huawei is already a major provider telecommunications equipment in Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore. The largest telecommunications provider in the Philippines, Globe Telecom, for example, has ad that it will continue its plans to roll out 5G service, insisting that the partnership with Huawei is important for economic competitiveness. However, each took a position similar to that of its European counterparts, to do the exercise caution when dealing with Chinese companies.
US claims that Huawei and other Chinese companies pose an unacceptable risk to security are mainly based on hypothetical concerns. This argument has not been particularly convincing for its Asian allies. For example, India, a potential and mistrustful strategic ally with respect to Beijing, has clear a ban on Huawei would not happen. Indian officials say Western technology and telecommunication companies are also using Chinese equipment in their designs. Yet these companies are not considered to pose a security threat similar to that of Huawei, a Chinese-owned private company.
Can the United States divide China from its neighbors?
The United States has long established security ties with several Pacific countries while trying to strengthen their links with other. However, without the similar interdependence that exists to a greater degree with allies like Japan, others in the region might feel less inclined to adopt his Huawei vision. Negotiating China for many of them could do more harm by inviting retaliatory measures than by the only potential risk that Huawei could bring.
This does not mean that countries that refuse to activate Huawei are blind to the risks that can accompany Chinese investments and the growing influence. Malaysia, while at variance on a Huawei ban, showed will reject the Chinese investment when it was deemed contrary to his interests.
This situation represents an opportunity for the United States to move China's neighbors away from their orbit. However, it would be difficult to bring them closer to a US front against Huawei without providing unequivocal evidence of its danger or offering an alternative to Huawei's technology to develop 5G networks.
It is unlikely that the United States can deny China's leading role in the global development of 5G, especially with words only. Huawei may pose a threat to security, as US officials claim, but putting pressure on his allies to rely only on his words will not help to cope with the risks. The Huawei and 5G development campaign is just the latest example of the difficulties Washington has faced in countering China's innovative growth. Without offering a compelling alternative to support rhetoric, the United States risks losing significant global influence.
Source link
