Home > Embassy News
U.S. Security concerns about Huawei are bunk: it just wants to smother competitors
2019/02/28

On February 27, The Hill Times published a signed article by Ambassador Lu Shaye titled "U.S. Security concerns about Huawei are bunk: it just wants to smother competitors". Here is the full text:

For some time now, there have been rampant remarks that Huawei's equipment poses threats to the national security of Western countries.

The United States was the first to announce that it would exclude Huawei's equipment from its domestic 5G market. Among the Five Eyes intelligence alliance members, Australia and New Zealand have followed suit, while Canada and the United Kingdom have not yet decided.

A few days ago, senior U.S. officials even went as far as lobbying in Europe, requesting its European allies not to use Huawei's equipment.

The U.S. has been fabricating and hyping to the world security issues related to Huawei's telecom gear.

Firstly, this has contributed to inadvertent advertising for Huawei, which is one of the best in the field of 5G technologies.

The construction of the global 5G network is growing. Ericsson, Nokia, and Cisco are all outstanding performers, apart from Huawei. The U.S. has repeatedly exaggerated the security risks of Huawei's 5G technology, causing countries around the world, and especially their network operators, to pay more attention to the prospects of their 5G construction.

According to media reports, in terms of 5G technology, Huawei's advantage over its competitors is obvious. Telecom operators in some countries have stated that if Huawei's 5G equipment is excluded, their domestic 5G construction will be delayed by one to two years. Some experts even admitted frankly that only Huawei's equipment  has qualified as 5G gear. Huawei's director has also publicly stated that the company has signed up far more 5G equipment contracts than any other competitor.

Moreover, Huawei's technology is unique in that it combines 5G with microwave technology, which other manufacturers have not yet achieved.

The general public did not know this, but thanks to the U.S. hype it's now known to the world.

Secondly, in squeezing Huawei out, the U.S. is not really concerned about its national security threats, but is actually attempting to suppress its competitors through political interference. Although the intelligence departments of the U.S.-led Five Eyes alliance have claimed that Huawei's equipment poses threats to national security, no evidence has been provided so far.

They accuse Huawei of having close ties with the Chinese government and conducting espionage for Chinese authorities. One of the reasons for these accusations is that China's National Intelligence Law requires organizations and individuals to co-operate with national intelligence work. In this regard, both the Chinese government and Huawei have made clarifications. Recently, the former head of the British GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) penned a column in the Financial Times stating that GCHQ never found evidence of malicious Chinese state cyber activity through Huawei.

It is international practice to safeguard national security through legislation. U.S. law itself requires telecom operators to co-operate with government intelligence agencies. Similar laws and regulations have also been stipulated in Five Eyes members and Western countries such as France and Germany. These legal provisions were exactly the ones China consulted during the formulation of its National Intelligence Law.

The countries accusing the Chinese government of using Huawei's apparatus to conduct espionage are the ones engaging in espionage using telecom gear themselves. Let's not forget about what was revealed about the PRISM program a few years ago. The attack by U.S. and other countries' intelligence agencies is not based on real national security concerns, but is meant to crowd out Huawei and create unfair competition conditions to benefit their own domestic telecom equipment companies.

Thirdly, excluding Huawei from the construction of the 5G network may not help safeguard the national security of concerned countries. Huawei's equipment never posed and will not pose threats to national security. Rather, it will cause inconvenience to the large-scale surveillance of citizens and foreign countries conducted by the intelligence agencies of certain countries. From what the PRISM incident revealed, the U.S. relies on the telecom networks of relevant countries to conduct extensive spying activities on its citizens and allies. One of the reasonable explanations of the U.S. and other countries' fear of Huawei's equipment is that if relevant countries all use Huawei's equipment in the 5G era, the spying system that has cost U.S. and other intelligence agencies massive amounts of money will become deaf and blind. Besides, if these agencies want to break through the security settings of Huawei's equipment, they will have to work harder and encounter more difficulties in operation. Huawei has promised to invest more funds in further enhancing its equipment security. The intelligence agencies of the U.S. and other Western countries are unwilling to see this.

The good news is that relevant countries have positively changed their attitudes toward Huawei's participation in the construction of the 5G network in the past few days, saying that they will not exclude Huawei's equipment. This is the right choice. After all, 5G technology should not be exclusively owned by one or several countries; it should be a product of exchanges and co-operation among countries. Blocking Huawei may mean missing the express train of the 5G era.

Suggest to a Friend :   
Print