Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
Why insist?
My link mentioned Burgess and tackled his claims head on.
My link pointed to the US military aspect in Australia and yours simply confirmed it. Read what you yourself quoted!
As for China's militarization, the articles I gave you claimed that the US had encircled China with 40 military bases. Are you surprised that China is taking its territorial protection seriously? Please be serious. As I said, you are incapable of seeing things from a Chinese perspective and that is a massive failing. If you can't accommodate logic from both sides into your argument, if you your anti China bias can't be reigned in, you simply have no credibility. That is where you stand right now.
Do you know why the US didn't parade around that Australian report?
Because every country has their own technological resources to carry out the exact same evaluations and the UK, to give just one example, didn't share the Australian viewpoint.
On top of that, there is NO ONE that knows ICT networking networking better than the ICT manufacturers, the carriers and the standards bodies.
And guess what. No major issues have been found and Huawei has been first through the gate with virtually all the 5G standards based security certifications. The irony.
It is also the ONLY ICT manufacturer in the world which opens its gear up to such in depth scrutiny. Let me make that clear. No one undergoes the same level of scrutiny.
Huawei offered the US a licencing deal to the whole shebang. Absolutely EVERYTHING. Right down to the source code itself. The US didn't take up the offer. Why on earth not? Because Huawei 5G is not at issue here. What is at issue is a Chinese technology company (and China by extension) overtaking the US in a critical technological area.
You will find security holes, weak points, attack vectors at some point if you really dedicate enough resources to the task but that applies to EVERYONE and as has been patently demonstrated of late with the Solar Winds and Exchange problems, ICT infrastructure has not been such a problem.
In the case if Huawei, they have over 30 years of ICT operations worldwide without a single major security breach.
The US command in Iraq runs the virtual entirety of its operations over Huawei gear.
Problems? Zero!
Try to beyond your bias and hatred of China.
Have you read the transcripts of the talks yesterday in Anchorage. Valid points from the US but equally valid points from the Chinese.
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
Why insist?
My link mentioned Burgess and tackled his claims head on.
My link pointed to the US military aspect in Australia and yours simply confirmed it. Read what you yourself quoted!
Do you know why the US didn't paraded around that Australian report?
Because every country has their own technological resources to carry out the exact same resources and the UK, to give just one example, didn't share the Australian viewpoint.
On top of that, there is NO ONE that knows ICT networking networking better than the ICT manufacturers, the carriers and the standards bodies.
And guess what. No major issues have been found and Huawei has been first through the gate with virtually all the 5G standards based security certifications.
It is also the ONLY ICT manufacturer in the world which opens its gear up to such in depth scrutiny.
You will find security holes, weak points, attack vectors at some point if you really dedicate enough resources to the task but that applies to EVERYONE and as has been patently demonstrated of late with the Solar Winds and Exchange problems, ICT infrastructure has not been such a problem.
In the case if Huawei, they have over 30 years of ICT operations worldwide without a single major security breach.
The US command in Iraq runs the virtual entirety of its operations over Huawei gear.
Problems? Zero!
Try to beyond your bias and hatred of China.
Have you read the transcripts of the talks yesterday in Anchorage. Valid points from the US but equally valid points from the Chinese.
Try to get some balance into things.
"Valid points from the U.S. but equally valid points from the Chinese"
Nope. I heard a lot of whataboutisms from the Chinese Diplomats, but basically, lots of theater directed towards Xi Jinping back home
BTW, if you want to have an understanding of the close connection of the U.S. and Australia, you need to go back 80 years to the War in the Pacific, and get an understanding of the geography of the South Pacific. Then you'll have an understanding of why there are rotations of 2500 Marines in Darwin, and an expanding base.
Interesting observation. The U.S. supplies lines to Australia during WWII from Hawaii were 5500 miles long (7500 miles from Los Angeles), and Taiwan, which was then in the hands of the Japanese, was less than 2500 miles away. Britain shipped to Australia via the Suez Canal and around the Horn of Africa, both extremely difficult and dangerous routes.
All of those supplies lines were threatened by Axis powers. Of course Australia should be concerned about it's security.
It really isn't important anymore if you understand what National Security entails, because those decisions are out of your hands, and more to the point, now out of Huawei's.
If you think that China's "equally" valid points are comforting to the EU, I believe that you will be sadly mistaken. If anything, I'm of the opinion that Germany is at a tipping point, due to the overall cost of working with China on trade. That Huawei is barely clinging to the German market, makes China's bluster more of a threat than anything that the U.S. could do.
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
Why insist?
My link mentioned Burgess and tackled his claims head on.
My link pointed to the US military aspect in Australia and yours simply confirmed it. Read what you yourself quoted!
Do you know why the US didn't paraded around that Australian report?
Because every country has their own technological resources to carry out the exact same resources and the UK, to give just one example, didn't share the Australian viewpoint.
On top of that, there is NO ONE that knows ICT networking networking better than the ICT manufacturers, the carriers and the standards bodies.
And guess what. No major issues have been found and Huawei has been first through the gate with virtually all the 5G standards based security certifications.
It is also the ONLY ICT manufacturer in the world which opens its gear up to such in depth scrutiny.
You will find security holes, weak points, attack vectors at some point if you really dedicate enough resources to the task but that applies to EVERYONE and as has been patently demonstrated of late with the Solar Winds and Exchange problems, ICT infrastructure has not been such a problem.
In the case if Huawei, they have over 30 years of ICT operations worldwide without a single major security breach.
The US command in Iraq runs the virtual entirety of its operations over Huawei gear.
Problems? Zero!
Try to beyond your bias and hatred of China.
Have you read the transcripts of the talks yesterday in Anchorage. Valid points from the US but equally valid points from the Chinese.
Try to get some balance into things.
"Valid points from the U.S. but equally valid points from the Chinese"
Nope. I heard a lot of whataboutisms from the Chinese Diplomats, but basically, lots of theater directed towards Xi Jinping back home
BTW, if you want to have an understanding of the close connection of the U.S. and Australia, you need to go back 80 years to the War in the Pacific, and get an understanding of the geography of the South Pacific. Then you'll have an understanding of why there are rotations of 2500 Marines in Darwin, and an expanding base.
Interesting observation. The U.S. supplies lines to Australia during WWII from Hawaii were 5500 miles long (7500 miles from Los Angeles), and Taiwan, which was then in the hands of the Japanese, was less than 2500 miles away. Britain shipped to Australia via the Suez Canal and around the Horn of Africa, both extremely difficult and dangerous routes.
All of those supplies lines were threatened by Axis powers. Of course Australia should be concerned about it's security.
It really isn't important anymore if you understand what National Security entails, because those decisions are out of your hands, and more to the point, now out of Huawei's.
If you think that China's "equally" valid points are comforting to the EU, I believe that you will be sadly mistaken. If anything, I'm of the opinion that Germany is at a tipping point, due to the overall cost of working with China on trade. That Huawei is barely clinging to the German market, makes China's bluster more of a threat than anything that the U.S. could do.
The world has changed a lot over the last 80 years. And is still changing. Move with the times!
The Japanese aren't the enemy anymore. Nor are the Germans. Your bias again.
Ever thought that the US has played a major role in world destabilisation over the recent decades? Probably not, right?
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Guess what, my Country (India) currently has Trump replica (read right wing extremist) in power. And people in USA have thrown the right wing extremist government from power, but we will be stuck with this government for at least 3 more years. Democracy is under threat not from external forces, but due to people believing in extremists (both left and right) within the country.
On the part about India sees China as enemy - Yes, we share border with China (which Trump was not aware of!!!) and have had border issues with China for a long time. About USA vs China, the reasons for sour relationships does not seem like a military one, rather an economical one. So it would be better if Quad countries focused on actually improving their own economies, instead of escalating the military tensions.
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
Why insist?
My link mentioned Burgess and tackled his claims head on.
My link pointed to the US military aspect in Australia and yours simply confirmed it. Read what you yourself quoted!
Do you know why the US didn't paraded around that Australian report?
Because every country has their own technological resources to carry out the exact same resources and the UK, to give just one example, didn't share the Australian viewpoint.
On top of that, there is NO ONE that knows ICT networking networking better than the ICT manufacturers, the carriers and the standards bodies.
And guess what. No major issues have been found and Huawei has been first through the gate with virtually all the 5G standards based security certifications.
It is also the ONLY ICT manufacturer in the world which opens its gear up to such in depth scrutiny.
You will find security holes, weak points, attack vectors at some point if you really dedicate enough resources to the task but that applies to EVERYONE and as has been patently demonstrated of late with the Solar Winds and Exchange problems, ICT infrastructure has not been such a problem.
In the case if Huawei, they have over 30 years of ICT operations worldwide without a single major security breach.
The US command in Iraq runs the virtual entirety of its operations over Huawei gear.
Problems? Zero!
Try to beyond your bias and hatred of China.
Have you read the transcripts of the talks yesterday in Anchorage. Valid points from the US but equally valid points from the Chinese.
Try to get some balance into things.
"Valid points from the U.S. but equally valid points from the Chinese"
Nope. I heard a lot of whataboutisms from the Chinese Diplomats, but basically, lots of theater directed towards Xi Jinping back home
BTW, if you want to have an understanding of the close connection of the U.S. and Australia, you need to go back 80 years to the War in the Pacific, and get an understanding of the geography of the South Pacific. Then you'll have an understanding of why there are rotations of 2500 Marines in Darwin, and an expanding base.
Interesting observation. The U.S. supplies lines to Australia during WWII from Hawaii were 5500 miles long (7500 miles from Los Angeles), and Taiwan, which was then in the hands of the Japanese, was less than 2500 miles away. Britain shipped to Australia via the Suez Canal and around the Horn of Africa, both extremely difficult and dangerous routes.
All of those supplies lines were threatened by Axis powers. Of course Australia should be concerned about it's security.
It really isn't important anymore if you understand what National Security entails, because those decisions are out of your hands, and more to the point, now out of Huawei's.
If you think that China's "equally" valid points are comforting to the EU, I believe that you will be sadly mistaken. If anything, I'm of the opinion that Germany is at a tipping point, due to the overall cost of working with China on trade. That Huawei is barely clinging to the German market, makes China's bluster more of a threat than anything that the U.S. could do.
The world has changed a lot over the last 80 years. And is still changing. Move with the times!
The Japanese aren't the enemy anymore. Nor are the Germans. Your bias again.
Ever thought that the US has played a major role in world destabilisation over the recent decades? Probably not, right?
Try to see both sides of the coin.
You have, of course, missed the point about what's important about the War in the Pacific.
It isn't the participants, it is the obvious strategy of using the island chains to prosecute both aggression, and defense. To prevent that from happening again, Japan, U.S., Australia and India formed the Quad, to pursue interests and security in the Indo-Pacific region. China is extremely unhappy about that because their plan for expansionism is curtailed.
Ever thought that the US has played a major role in world destabilisation over the recent decades? Probably not, right?
Have you actually considered what Europe would have looked like if the U.S. had not provided support for seven decades via NATO and the UN? If the U.S. had stayed out of the war in Europe?
Likely no EU, and likely many more countries would have fallen to Communism or fascism, depending on the scenario. Europe would have fallen back into cyclical warfare, as it had for centuries.
China is not a supporter of the values of the West, so why would anyone want to risk their futures supporting China's brand of authoritarianism?
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Guess what, my Country (India) currently has Trump replica (read right wing extremist) in power. And people in USA have thrown the right wing extremist government from power, but we will be stuck with this government for at least 3 more years. Democracy is under threat not from external forces, but due to people believing in extremists (both left and right) within the country.
On the part about India sees China as enemy - Yes, we share border with China (which Trump was not aware of!!!) and have had border issues with China for a long time. About USA vs China, the reasons for sour relationships does not seem like a military one, rather an economical one. So it would be better if Quad countries focused on actually improving their own economies, instead of escalating the military tensions.
There are certainly economic issues between China and the U.S., but why would you think there would be any kind of acquiescence by either party wrt each parties values? We're talking about two opposing political systems, and the up and coming China, not sharing any values or recognition of the existing rules of order that the world has been relatively stable under?
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Just out of curiosity.
In terms opening up and and engaging the west and the world in general, can you really be so blind to the changes that China as a nation has enacted over the last 40 years?
Those changes include changes to accommodate the demands of the wider world and include IP related changes.
Take a couple of hours to actually watch the Huawei video on IP which I posted earlier on.
Resist the temptation to further derail a simple thread with your anti China rhetoric.
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Just out of curiosity.
In terms opening up and and engaging the west and the world in general, can you really be so blind to the changes that China as a nation has enacted over the last 40 years?
Those changes include changes to accommodate the demands of the wider world and include IP related changes.
Take a couple of hours to actually watch the Huawei video on IP which I posted earlier on.
Resist the temptation to further derail a simple thread with your anti China rhetoric.
FFS, it's about the ongoing human rights violations in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang region, plus the militarization of the South China Seas, Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
If China could do all of their growth without the human rights violations, or the illegal exploitation of other countries resources, such as fisheries, and refrain from using Western technology for weapons, the West would then only be able to complain about IP and mercantilism, and trade would be flowing much more smoothly.
You didn't actually listen to the comments of U.S. Secretary of State Antony; Blinken: here they are:
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Just out of curiosity.
In terms opening up and and engaging the west and the world in general, can you really be so blind to the changes that China as a nation has enacted over the last 40 years?
Those changes include changes to accommodate the demands of the wider world and include IP related changes.
Take a couple of hours to actually watch the Huawei video on IP which I posted earlier on.
Resist the temptation to further derail a simple thread with your anti China rhetoric.
FFS, it's about the ongoing human rights violations in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang region, plus the militarization of the South China Seas, Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
If China could do all of their growth without the human rights violations, or the illegal exploitation of other countries resources, such as fisheries, and refrain from using Western technology for weapons, the West would then only be able to complain about IP and mercantilism, and trade would be flowing much more smoothly.
You didn't actually listen to the comments of U.S. Secretary of State Antony; Blinken: here they are:
Bolding your text and making it enormous doesn't make your posts any more effective and whenever you begin one with 'FFS' I know you've simply run out of resources.
If what you claim were true and you truly believed in it, you would do something on a more personal and direct level but you don't.
You still buy iPhones from a company which gladly uses China to produce its products.
Apple claims it has a zero tolerance policy on many things but even Tim Cook sees the benefits of engaging China.
Your last post simply confirms your hypocrisy and blindness of the issues at hand.
In another thread I asked you to do your homework and take a look at some of the work done by Brown University.
You decided to ignore that advice but the question I now ask you is if it would be reasonable for me to judge the US solely on its abuses (for they are being carried out around the globe on a huge scale - human rights included) or if I should value other factors too before reaching a conclusion.
When your only recourse is 'FFS. It's about...' your narrow minded, short sighted view of the situation comes to the fore.
China has made changes to how it deals with IP. There will surely be further changes.
Huawei has an excellent record on IP. It may not be perfect but there isn't a single large company on the planet that doesn't run into IP related issues at some point.
You didn't bother taking a look at the video I posted in this very thread. If you had, you would have seen the former head of WIPO praising the company.
The US treatment of Huawei has nothing to do with human rights, IP or national security and everything to do with protectionism stopping China from overtaking the US in key technology areas by trying to destroy its most successful tech company.
Ah, and no I didn't 'listen' to Blinken. As I stated earlier on, in this very thread, I read the transcript of the whole thing.
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Just out of curiosity.
In terms opening up and and engaging the west and the world in general, can you really be so blind to the changes that China as a nation has enacted over the last 40 years?
Those changes include changes to accommodate the demands of the wider world and include IP related changes.
Take a couple of hours to actually watch the Huawei video on IP which I posted earlier on.
Resist the temptation to further derail a simple thread with your anti China rhetoric.
FFS, it's about the ongoing human rights violations in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang region, plus the militarization of the South China Seas, Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
If China could do all of their growth without the human rights violations, or the illegal exploitation of other countries resources, such as fisheries, and refrain from using Western technology for weapons, the West would then only be able to complain about IP and mercantilism, and trade would be flowing much more smoothly.
You didn't actually listen to the comments of U.S. Secretary of State Antony; Blinken: here they are:
Bolding your text and making it enormous doesn't make your posts any more effective and whenever you begin one with 'FFS' I know you've simply run out of resources.
If what you claim were true and you truly believed in it, you would do something on a more personal and direct level but you don't.
You still buy iPhones from a company which gladly uses China to produce its products.
Apple claims it has a zero tolerance policy on many things but even Tim Cook sees the benefits of engaging China.
Your last post simply confirms your hypocrisy and blindness of the issues at hand.
In another thread I asked you to do your homework and take a look at some of the work done by Brown University.
You decided to ignore that advice but the question I now ask you is if it would be reasonable for me to judge the US solely on its abuses (for they are being carried out around the globe on a huge scale - human rights included) or if I should value other factors too before reaching a conclusion.
When your only recourse is 'FFS. It's about...' your narrow minded, short sighted view of the situation comes to the fore.
China has made changes to how it deals with IP. There will surely be further changes.
Huawei has an excellent record on IP. It may not be perfect but there isn't a single large company on the planet that doesn't run into IP related issues at some point.
You didn't bother taking a look at the video I posted in this very thread. If you had, you would have seen the former head of WIPO praising the company.
The US treatment of Huawei has nothing to do with human rights, IP or national security and everything to do with protectionism stopping China from overtaking the US in key technology areas by trying to destroy its most successful tech company.
Ah, and no I didn't 'listen' to Blinken. As I stated earlier on, in this very thread, I read the transcript of the whole thing.
Oh course, I disagree on most of your argument, but with respect to Huawei, that ship has sailed.
UPDATE:
Germany's Green party is pretty much mirroring my opinions. How about that!
"Not surprisingly the #Greens use tough language to describe #China in their draft platform. Noteworthy: Rejection of unification with #Taiwan by force. References to #5G and protection of critical infrastructure."
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Just out of curiosity.
In terms opening up and and engaging the west and the world in general, can you really be so blind to the changes that China as a nation has enacted over the last 40 years?
Those changes include changes to accommodate the demands of the wider world and include IP related changes.
Take a couple of hours to actually watch the Huawei video on IP which I posted earlier on.
Resist the temptation to further derail a simple thread with your anti China rhetoric.
FFS, it's about the ongoing human rights violations in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang region, plus the militarization of the South China Seas, Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
If China could do all of their growth without the human rights violations, or the illegal exploitation of other countries resources, such as fisheries, and refrain from using Western technology for weapons, the West would then only be able to complain about IP and mercantilism, and trade would be flowing much more smoothly.
You didn't actually listen to the comments of U.S. Secretary of State Antony; Blinken: here they are:
Bolding your text and making it enormous doesn't make your posts any more effective and whenever you begin one with 'FFS' I know you've simply run out of resources.
If what you claim were true and you truly believed in it, you would do something on a more personal and direct level but you don't.
You still buy iPhones from a company which gladly uses China to produce its products.
Apple claims it has a zero tolerance policy on many things but even Tim Cook sees the benefits of engaging China.
Your last post simply confirms your hypocrisy and blindness of the issues at hand.
In another thread I asked you to do your homework and take a look at some of the work done by Brown University.
You decided to ignore that advice but the question I now ask you is if it would be reasonable for me to judge the US solely on its abuses (for they are being carried out around the globe on a huge scale - human rights included) or if I should value other factors too before reaching a conclusion.
When your only recourse is 'FFS. It's about...' your narrow minded, short sighted view of the situation comes to the fore.
China has made changes to how it deals with IP. There will surely be further changes.
Huawei has an excellent record on IP. It may not be perfect but there isn't a single large company on the planet that doesn't run into IP related issues at some point.
You didn't bother taking a look at the video I posted in this very thread. If you had, you would have seen the former head of WIPO praising the company.
The US treatment of Huawei has nothing to do with human rights, IP or national security and everything to do with protectionism stopping China from overtaking the US in key technology areas by trying to destroy its most successful tech company.
Ah, and no I didn't 'listen' to Blinken. As I stated earlier on, in this very thread, I read the transcript of the whole thing.
Oh course, I disagree on most of your argument, but with respect to Huawei, that ship has sailed.
UPDATE:
Germany's Green party is pretty much mirroring my opinions. How about that!
"Not surprisingly the #Greens use tough language to describe #China in their draft platform. Noteworthy: Rejection of unification with #Taiwan by force. References to #5G and protection of critical infrastructure."
Well strike me down with a feather!
The Green Party (one of the most Hawkish in Germany) 'pretty much' mirrors your opinion!
How about you actually read what was included in the tweet in German because Huawei wasn't even mentioned and on the subject of 5G, did you understand what was said?
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Just out of curiosity.
In terms opening up and and engaging the west and the world in general, can you really be so blind to the changes that China as a nation has enacted over the last 40 years?
Those changes include changes to accommodate the demands of the wider world and include IP related changes.
Take a couple of hours to actually watch the Huawei video on IP which I posted earlier on.
Resist the temptation to further derail a simple thread with your anti China rhetoric.
FFS, it's about the ongoing human rights violations in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang region, plus the militarization of the South China Seas, Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
If China could do all of their growth without the human rights violations, or the illegal exploitation of other countries resources, such as fisheries, and refrain from using Western technology for weapons, the West would then only be able to complain about IP and mercantilism, and trade would be flowing much more smoothly.
You didn't actually listen to the comments of U.S. Secretary of State Antony; Blinken: here they are:
Bolding your text and making it enormous doesn't make your posts any more effective and whenever you begin one with 'FFS' I know you've simply run out of resources.
If what you claim were true and you truly believed in it, you would do something on a more personal and direct level but you don't.
You still buy iPhones from a company which gladly uses China to produce its products.
Apple claims it has a zero tolerance policy on many things but even Tim Cook sees the benefits of engaging China.
Your last post simply confirms your hypocrisy and blindness of the issues at hand.
In another thread I asked you to do your homework and take a look at some of the work done by Brown University.
You decided to ignore that advice but the question I now ask you is if it would be reasonable for me to judge the US solely on its abuses (for they are being carried out around the globe on a huge scale - human rights included) or if I should value other factors too before reaching a conclusion.
When your only recourse is 'FFS. It's about...' your narrow minded, short sighted view of the situation comes to the fore.
China has made changes to how it deals with IP. There will surely be further changes.
Huawei has an excellent record on IP. It may not be perfect but there isn't a single large company on the planet that doesn't run into IP related issues at some point.
You didn't bother taking a look at the video I posted in this very thread. If you had, you would have seen the former head of WIPO praising the company.
The US treatment of Huawei has nothing to do with human rights, IP or national security and everything to do with protectionism stopping China from overtaking the US in key technology areas by trying to destroy its most successful tech company.
Ah, and no I didn't 'listen' to Blinken. As I stated earlier on, in this very thread, I read the transcript of the whole thing.
Oh course, I disagree on most of your argument, but with respect to Huawei, that ship has sailed.
UPDATE:
Germany's Green party is pretty much mirroring my opinions. How about that!
"Not surprisingly the #Greens use tough language to describe #China in their draft platform. Noteworthy: Rejection of unification with #Taiwan by force. References to #5G and protection of critical infrastructure."
Well strike me down with a feather!
The Green Party (one of the most Hawkish in Germany) 'pretty much' mirrors your opinion!
How about you actually read what was included in the tweet in German because Huawei wasn't even mentioned and on the subject of 5G, did you understand what was said?
I'm smart enough to not need to read german, and prescient enough to see which way the wind is blowing, and it looks like the Greens policies are popular.
I've been telling you that China is facing blowback to its policies throughout the world, and you've ignored that. You are probably unaware of how popular the Biden Administration multilateral approach to foreign policy, given the previous Trump Administrations go it alone policies.
Have you ever considered that it is you that is out of step with the world?
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Just out of curiosity.
In terms opening up and and engaging the west and the world in general, can you really be so blind to the changes that China as a nation has enacted over the last 40 years?
Those changes include changes to accommodate the demands of the wider world and include IP related changes.
Take a couple of hours to actually watch the Huawei video on IP which I posted earlier on.
Resist the temptation to further derail a simple thread with your anti China rhetoric.
FFS, it's about the ongoing human rights violations in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang region, plus the militarization of the South China Seas, Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
If China could do all of their growth without the human rights violations, or the illegal exploitation of other countries resources, such as fisheries, and refrain from using Western technology for weapons, the West would then only be able to complain about IP and mercantilism, and trade would be flowing much more smoothly.
You didn't actually listen to the comments of U.S. Secretary of State Antony; Blinken: here they are:
Bolding your text and making it enormous doesn't make your posts any more effective and whenever you begin one with 'FFS' I know you've simply run out of resources.
If what you claim were true and you truly believed in it, you would do something on a more personal and direct level but you don't.
You still buy iPhones from a company which gladly uses China to produce its products.
Apple claims it has a zero tolerance policy on many things but even Tim Cook sees the benefits of engaging China.
Your last post simply confirms your hypocrisy and blindness of the issues at hand.
In another thread I asked you to do your homework and take a look at some of the work done by Brown University.
You decided to ignore that advice but the question I now ask you is if it would be reasonable for me to judge the US solely on its abuses (for they are being carried out around the globe on a huge scale - human rights included) or if I should value other factors too before reaching a conclusion.
When your only recourse is 'FFS. It's about...' your narrow minded, short sighted view of the situation comes to the fore.
China has made changes to how it deals with IP. There will surely be further changes.
Huawei has an excellent record on IP. It may not be perfect but there isn't a single large company on the planet that doesn't run into IP related issues at some point.
You didn't bother taking a look at the video I posted in this very thread. If you had, you would have seen the former head of WIPO praising the company.
The US treatment of Huawei has nothing to do with human rights, IP or national security and everything to do with protectionism stopping China from overtaking the US in key technology areas by trying to destroy its most successful tech company.
Ah, and no I didn't 'listen' to Blinken. As I stated earlier on, in this very thread, I read the transcript of the whole thing.
Oh course, I disagree on most of your argument, but with respect to Huawei, that ship has sailed.
UPDATE:
Germany's Green party is pretty much mirroring my opinions. How about that!
"Not surprisingly the #Greens use tough language to describe #China in their draft platform. Noteworthy: Rejection of unification with #Taiwan by force. References to #5G and protection of critical infrastructure."
Well strike me down with a feather!
The Green Party (one of the most Hawkish in Germany) 'pretty much' mirrors your opinion!
How about you actually read what was included in the tweet in German because Huawei wasn't even mentioned and on the subject of 5G, did you understand what was said?
I'm smart enough to not need to read german, and prescient enough to see which way the wind is blowing, and it looks like the Greens policies are popular.
I've been telling you that China is facing blowback to its policies throughout the world, and you've ignored that. You are probably unaware of how popular the Biden Administration multilateral approach to foreign policy, given the previous Trump Administrations go it alone policies.
Have you ever considered that it is you that is out of step with the world?
Ah! So that's your way of saying you didn't in fact read the German text that you were quoting through the tweet.
Why you feel the impulse to link to an article on the fortunes of the Green Party is beyond me.
Do you think I'm not aware of that?
Let me insist. Make an effort to actually read what you are quoting!
I try very hard not to delve into politics. I don't often speak about China either. Yes, I get it that Huawei is often intrinsically linked to the wider geopolitical situation and therefore politics can be hard to side step but you have a tendency to go overboard and use Huawei/China as the same thing.
They are not.
Now, re-read what you quoted through the tweet and tell me what you think it said about 5G, Germany and the Green Party.
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Just out of curiosity.
In terms opening up and and engaging the west and the world in general, can you really be so blind to the changes that China as a nation has enacted over the last 40 years?
Those changes include changes to accommodate the demands of the wider world and include IP related changes.
Take a couple of hours to actually watch the Huawei video on IP which I posted earlier on.
Resist the temptation to further derail a simple thread with your anti China rhetoric.
FFS, it's about the ongoing human rights violations in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang region, plus the militarization of the South China Seas, Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
If China could do all of their growth without the human rights violations, or the illegal exploitation of other countries resources, such as fisheries, and refrain from using Western technology for weapons, the West would then only be able to complain about IP and mercantilism, and trade would be flowing much more smoothly.
You didn't actually listen to the comments of U.S. Secretary of State Antony; Blinken: here they are:
Bolding your text and making it enormous doesn't make your posts any more effective and whenever you begin one with 'FFS' I know you've simply run out of resources.
If what you claim were true and you truly believed in it, you would do something on a more personal and direct level but you don't.
You still buy iPhones from a company which gladly uses China to produce its products.
Apple claims it has a zero tolerance policy on many things but even Tim Cook sees the benefits of engaging China.
Your last post simply confirms your hypocrisy and blindness of the issues at hand.
In another thread I asked you to do your homework and take a look at some of the work done by Brown University.
You decided to ignore that advice but the question I now ask you is if it would be reasonable for me to judge the US solely on its abuses (for they are being carried out around the globe on a huge scale - human rights included) or if I should value other factors too before reaching a conclusion.
When your only recourse is 'FFS. It's about...' your narrow minded, short sighted view of the situation comes to the fore.
China has made changes to how it deals with IP. There will surely be further changes.
Huawei has an excellent record on IP. It may not be perfect but there isn't a single large company on the planet that doesn't run into IP related issues at some point.
You didn't bother taking a look at the video I posted in this very thread. If you had, you would have seen the former head of WIPO praising the company.
The US treatment of Huawei has nothing to do with human rights, IP or national security and everything to do with protectionism stopping China from overtaking the US in key technology areas by trying to destroy its most successful tech company.
Ah, and no I didn't 'listen' to Blinken. As I stated earlier on, in this very thread, I read the transcript of the whole thing.
Oh course, I disagree on most of your argument, but with respect to Huawei, that ship has sailed.
UPDATE:
Germany's Green party is pretty much mirroring my opinions. How about that!
"Not surprisingly the #Greens use tough language to describe #China in their draft platform. Noteworthy: Rejection of unification with #Taiwan by force. References to #5G and protection of critical infrastructure."
Well strike me down with a feather!
The Green Party (one of the most Hawkish in Germany) 'pretty much' mirrors your opinion!
How about you actually read what was included in the tweet in German because Huawei wasn't even mentioned and on the subject of 5G, did you understand what was said?
I'm smart enough to not need to read german, and prescient enough to see which way the wind is blowing, and it looks like the Greens policies are popular.
I've been telling you that China is facing blowback to its policies throughout the world, and you've ignored that. You are probably unaware of how popular the Biden Administration multilateral approach to foreign policy, given the previous Trump Administrations go it alone policies.
Have you ever considered that it is you that is out of step with the world?
Ah! So that's your way of saying you didn't in fact read the German text that you were quoting through the tweet.
Why you feel the impulse to link to an article on the fortunes of the Green Party is beyond me.
Do you think I'm not aware of that?
Let me insist. Make an effort to actually read what you are quoting!
I try very hard not to delve into politics. I don't often speak about China either. Yes, I get it that Huawei is often intrinsically linked to the wider geopolitical situation and therefore politics can be hard to side step but you have a tendency to go overboard and use Huawei/China as the same thing.
They are not.
Now, re-read what you quoted through the tweet and tell me what you think it said about 5G, Germany and the Green Party.
...the pertinent paragraphs in the Green Party's platform
USA The transatlantic partnership must be renewed, Europeanized, multilateral and oriented towards clear common values and democratic goals - with a strong common impetus for global climate policy. We want to work together for global human rights protection and a rules-based world order and agree on how to deal with authoritarian states such as China and Russia. The EU and its Member States must assume more foreign and security policy responsibility themselves.
China We demand that China put an end to its blatant human rights violations, for example in Xinjiang and Tibet, and increasingly also in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, a constructive climate dialogue with China is needed. We want to use our trade relations with China to demand fair market access for foreign investment, legal certainty and a level playing field. We will work on close European and transatlantic coordination with China, especially in the areas of 5G expansion and protection of critical infrastructure.
As poorly written as that last sentence is, I don't think that is as supportive of Huawei Telecom as it appears, based on the context of the previous paragraph, but you are certainly free to disagree.
"With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
Nah, I'm thinking that there really isn't much support at all for allowing Huawei, but Merkel doesn't want to stir up China, and will leave that to her successor.
"The German government is preparing a massive investment plan to boost the development of local telecoms firms, in an effort to pivot away from dominant suppliers like China's Huawei.
The plan, dubbed the "joint proposal for action" by the ministries of interior, economy, research and transport, and seen by POLITICO, lays out how the government plans to spend €2 billion in funding from its larger coronavirus recovery stimulus program presented in June.
"The prosperity and competitiveness of Germany and Europe will increasingly depend on mastering new communication technologies," the proposal said, adding that this would "require a common political and industrial commitment at national and European level."
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Just out of curiosity.
In terms opening up and and engaging the west and the world in general, can you really be so blind to the changes that China as a nation has enacted over the last 40 years?
Those changes include changes to accommodate the demands of the wider world and include IP related changes.
Take a couple of hours to actually watch the Huawei video on IP which I posted earlier on.
Resist the temptation to further derail a simple thread with your anti China rhetoric.
FFS, it's about the ongoing human rights violations in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang region, plus the militarization of the South China Seas, Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
If China could do all of their growth without the human rights violations, or the illegal exploitation of other countries resources, such as fisheries, and refrain from using Western technology for weapons, the West would then only be able to complain about IP and mercantilism, and trade would be flowing much more smoothly.
You didn't actually listen to the comments of U.S. Secretary of State Antony; Blinken: here they are:
Bolding your text and making it enormous doesn't make your posts any more effective and whenever you begin one with 'FFS' I know you've simply run out of resources.
If what you claim were true and you truly believed in it, you would do something on a more personal and direct level but you don't.
You still buy iPhones from a company which gladly uses China to produce its products.
Apple claims it has a zero tolerance policy on many things but even Tim Cook sees the benefits of engaging China.
Your last post simply confirms your hypocrisy and blindness of the issues at hand.
In another thread I asked you to do your homework and take a look at some of the work done by Brown University.
You decided to ignore that advice but the question I now ask you is if it would be reasonable for me to judge the US solely on its abuses (for they are being carried out around the globe on a huge scale - human rights included) or if I should value other factors too before reaching a conclusion.
When your only recourse is 'FFS. It's about...' your narrow minded, short sighted view of the situation comes to the fore.
China has made changes to how it deals with IP. There will surely be further changes.
Huawei has an excellent record on IP. It may not be perfect but there isn't a single large company on the planet that doesn't run into IP related issues at some point.
You didn't bother taking a look at the video I posted in this very thread. If you had, you would have seen the former head of WIPO praising the company.
The US treatment of Huawei has nothing to do with human rights, IP or national security and everything to do with protectionism stopping China from overtaking the US in key technology areas by trying to destroy its most successful tech company.
Ah, and no I didn't 'listen' to Blinken. As I stated earlier on, in this very thread, I read the transcript of the whole thing.
Oh course, I disagree on most of your argument, but with respect to Huawei, that ship has sailed.
UPDATE:
Germany's Green party is pretty much mirroring my opinions. How about that!
"Not surprisingly the #Greens use tough language to describe #China in their draft platform. Noteworthy: Rejection of unification with #Taiwan by force. References to #5G and protection of critical infrastructure."
Well strike me down with a feather!
The Green Party (one of the most Hawkish in Germany) 'pretty much' mirrors your opinion!
How about you actually read what was included in the tweet in German because Huawei wasn't even mentioned and on the subject of 5G, did you understand what was said?
I'm smart enough to not need to read german, and prescient enough to see which way the wind is blowing, and it looks like the Greens policies are popular.
I've been telling you that China is facing blowback to its policies throughout the world, and you've ignored that. You are probably unaware of how popular the Biden Administration multilateral approach to foreign policy, given the previous Trump Administrations go it alone policies.
Have you ever considered that it is you that is out of step with the world?
Ah! So that's your way of saying you didn't in fact read the German text that you were quoting through the tweet.
Why you feel the impulse to link to an article on the fortunes of the Green Party is beyond me.
Do you think I'm not aware of that?
Let me insist. Make an effort to actually read what you are quoting!
I try very hard not to delve into politics. I don't often speak about China either. Yes, I get it that Huawei is often intrinsically linked to the wider geopolitical situation and therefore politics can be hard to side step but you have a tendency to go overboard and use Huawei/China as the same thing.
They are not.
Now, re-read what you quoted through the tweet and tell me what you think it said about 5G, Germany and the Green Party.
...the pertinent paragraphs in the Green Party's platform
USA The transatlantic partnership must be renewed, Europeanized, multilateral and oriented towards clear common values and democratic goals - with a strong common impetus for global climate policy. We want to work together for global human rights protection and a rules-based world order and agree on how to deal with authoritarian states such as China and Russia. The EU and its Member States must assume more foreign and security policy responsibility themselves.
China We demand that China put an end to its blatant human rights violations, for example in Xinjiang and Tibet, and increasingly also in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, a constructive climate dialogue with China is needed. We want to use our trade relations with China to demand fair market access for foreign investment, legal certainty and a level playing field. We will work on close European and transatlantic coordination with China, especially in the areas of 5G expansion and protection of critical infrastructure.
As poorly written as that last sentence is, I don't think that is as supportive of Huawei Telecom as it appears, based on the context of the previous paragraph, but you are certainly free to disagree.
"With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
Nah, I'm thinking that there really isn't much support at all for allowing Huawei, but Merkel doesn't want to stir up China, and will leave that to her successor.
"The German government is preparing a massive investment plan to boost the development of local telecoms firms, in an effort to pivot away from dominant suppliers like China's Huawei.
The plan, dubbed the "joint proposal for action" by the ministries of interior, economy, research and transport, and seen by POLITICO, lays out how the government plans to spend €2 billion in funding from its larger coronavirus recovery stimulus program presented in June.
"The prosperity and competitiveness of Germany and Europe will increasingly depend on mastering new communication technologies," the proposal said, adding that this would "require a common political and industrial commitment at national and European level."
At last.
This is a perfect example of how your bias clouds your view.
You presented your argument through the words of a third party who used a tweet with a snippet of text which you didn't even bother to read! You simply took the covering text and ran with it. You were happy you had enough to cover your needs.
Except of course that it wasn't, because the text didn't 'mirror' your opinion on China Huawei and 5G at all.
If anything it was as far away from your opinion as it could get on 5G because they were speaking of coordination with China.
So what did you do after finding yourself up the creek without a paddle ?
Damage control. No problem with that. That, at least is logical.
Your only recourse is to say the text was poorly worded.
Not the best idea. If it was badly worded why did you quote it in the first place? Yes, we all know the answer to that one. You hadn't bothered to read what you were pushing!
But, of course, it wasn't poorly worded at all! It was a prepared party statement, not something scribbled on a napkin over a German sausage sandwich.
Then you try to 'hide' your admission by stuffing in yet more quoted text.
Only a good idea if that text truly helps support your case.
Unfortunately for you, it doesn't. You need a refresher on EU technological policy.
What you quoted isn't limited to China or communications technology. It isn't even new!
The EU has a stated goal of technological independence. It started years ago with the EU processor initiative. That goal isn't geared towards limiting China. It is geared towards achieving independence on a technological level. Independence from China but also the US and anywhere else where dependencies exist.
As for a common EU foreign policy approach, that is a far more complex issue but nothing new. Look up the role of Javier Solana within the EU. We are talking 1999!
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Just out of curiosity.
In terms opening up and and engaging the west and the world in general, can you really be so blind to the changes that China as a nation has enacted over the last 40 years?
Those changes include changes to accommodate the demands of the wider world and include IP related changes.
Take a couple of hours to actually watch the Huawei video on IP which I posted earlier on.
Resist the temptation to further derail a simple thread with your anti China rhetoric.
FFS, it's about the ongoing human rights violations in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang region, plus the militarization of the South China Seas, Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
If China could do all of their growth without the human rights violations, or the illegal exploitation of other countries resources, such as fisheries, and refrain from using Western technology for weapons, the West would then only be able to complain about IP and mercantilism, and trade would be flowing much more smoothly.
You didn't actually listen to the comments of U.S. Secretary of State Antony; Blinken: here they are:
Bolding your text and making it enormous doesn't make your posts any more effective and whenever you begin one with 'FFS' I know you've simply run out of resources.
If what you claim were true and you truly believed in it, you would do something on a more personal and direct level but you don't.
You still buy iPhones from a company which gladly uses China to produce its products.
Apple claims it has a zero tolerance policy on many things but even Tim Cook sees the benefits of engaging China.
Your last post simply confirms your hypocrisy and blindness of the issues at hand.
In another thread I asked you to do your homework and take a look at some of the work done by Brown University.
You decided to ignore that advice but the question I now ask you is if it would be reasonable for me to judge the US solely on its abuses (for they are being carried out around the globe on a huge scale - human rights included) or if I should value other factors too before reaching a conclusion.
When your only recourse is 'FFS. It's about...' your narrow minded, short sighted view of the situation comes to the fore.
China has made changes to how it deals with IP. There will surely be further changes.
Huawei has an excellent record on IP. It may not be perfect but there isn't a single large company on the planet that doesn't run into IP related issues at some point.
You didn't bother taking a look at the video I posted in this very thread. If you had, you would have seen the former head of WIPO praising the company.
The US treatment of Huawei has nothing to do with human rights, IP or national security and everything to do with protectionism stopping China from overtaking the US in key technology areas by trying to destroy its most successful tech company.
Ah, and no I didn't 'listen' to Blinken. As I stated earlier on, in this very thread, I read the transcript of the whole thing.
Oh course, I disagree on most of your argument, but with respect to Huawei, that ship has sailed.
UPDATE:
Germany's Green party is pretty much mirroring my opinions. How about that!
"Not surprisingly the #Greens use tough language to describe #China in their draft platform. Noteworthy: Rejection of unification with #Taiwan by force. References to #5G and protection of critical infrastructure."
Well strike me down with a feather!
The Green Party (one of the most Hawkish in Germany) 'pretty much' mirrors your opinion!
How about you actually read what was included in the tweet in German because Huawei wasn't even mentioned and on the subject of 5G, did you understand what was said?
I'm smart enough to not need to read german, and prescient enough to see which way the wind is blowing, and it looks like the Greens policies are popular.
I've been telling you that China is facing blowback to its policies throughout the world, and you've ignored that. You are probably unaware of how popular the Biden Administration multilateral approach to foreign policy, given the previous Trump Administrations go it alone policies.
Have you ever considered that it is you that is out of step with the world?
Ah! So that's your way of saying you didn't in fact read the German text that you were quoting through the tweet.
Why you feel the impulse to link to an article on the fortunes of the Green Party is beyond me.
Do you think I'm not aware of that?
Let me insist. Make an effort to actually read what you are quoting!
I try very hard not to delve into politics. I don't often speak about China either. Yes, I get it that Huawei is often intrinsically linked to the wider geopolitical situation and therefore politics can be hard to side step but you have a tendency to go overboard and use Huawei/China as the same thing.
They are not.
Now, re-read what you quoted through the tweet and tell me what you think it said about 5G, Germany and the Green Party.
...the pertinent paragraphs in the Green Party's platform
USA The transatlantic partnership must be renewed, Europeanized, multilateral and oriented towards clear common values and democratic goals - with a strong common impetus for global climate policy. We want to work together for global human rights protection and a rules-based world order and agree on how to deal with authoritarian states such as China and Russia. The EU and its Member States must assume more foreign and security policy responsibility themselves.
China We demand that China put an end to its blatant human rights violations, for example in Xinjiang and Tibet, and increasingly also in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, a constructive climate dialogue with China is needed. We want to use our trade relations with China to demand fair market access for foreign investment, legal certainty and a level playing field. We will work on close European and transatlantic coordination with China, especially in the areas of 5G expansion and protection of critical infrastructure.
As poorly written as that last sentence is, I don't think that is as supportive of Huawei Telecom as it appears, based on the context of the previous paragraph, but you are certainly free to disagree.
"With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
Nah, I'm thinking that there really isn't much support at all for allowing Huawei, but Merkel doesn't want to stir up China, and will leave that to her successor.
"The German government is preparing a massive investment plan to boost the development of local telecoms firms, in an effort to pivot away from dominant suppliers like China's Huawei.
The plan, dubbed the "joint proposal for action" by the ministries of interior, economy, research and transport, and seen by POLITICO, lays out how the government plans to spend €2 billion in funding from its larger coronavirus recovery stimulus program presented in June.
"The prosperity and competitiveness of Germany and Europe will increasingly depend on mastering new communication technologies," the proposal said, adding that this would "require a common political and industrial commitment at national and European level."
At last.
This is a perfect example of how your bias clouds your view.
You presented your argument through the words of a third party who used a tweet with a snippet of text which you didn't even bother to read! You simply took the covering text and ran with it. You were happy you had enough to cover your needs.
Except of course that it wasn't, because the text didn't 'mirror' your opinion on China Huawei and 5G at all.
If anything it was as far away from your opinion as it could get on 5G because they were speaking of coordination with China.
So what did you do after finding yourself up the creek without a paddle ?
Damage control. No problem with that. That, at least is logical.
Your only recourse is to say the text was poorly worded.
Not the best idea. If it was badly worded why did you quote it in the first place? Yes, we all know the answer to that one. You hadn't bothered to read what you were pushing!
But, of course, it wasn't poorly worded at all! It was a prepared party statement, not something scribbled on a napkin over a German sausage sandwich.
Then you try to 'hide' your admission by stuffing in yet more quoted text.
Only a good idea if that text truly helps support your case.
Unfortunately for you, it doesn't. You need a refresher on EU technological policy.
What you quoted isn't limited to China or communications technology. It isn't even new!
The EU has a stated goal of technological independence. It started years ago with the EU processor initiative. That goal isn't geared towards limiting China. It is geared towards achieving independence on a technological level. Independence from China but also the US and anywhere else where dependencies exist.
As for a common EU foreign policy approach, that is a far more complex issue but nothing new. Look up the role of Javier Solana within the EU. We are talking 1999!
Like I said, the sentence doesn't read like the rest of the paragraphs, but context is everything. "close European and transatlantic coordination with China", doesn't leave much room since the U.S. has banned Huawei, and Canada, while not having an actual ban in place, certainly can't be happy about the treatment of Canadian "hostages" Spavor and Kovrig by China.
I agree with you that the EU's goal isn't limited to China, and I'm fine with that; it's good policy. But you have to be delusional to think that Huawei is going to make a comeback in the EU.
As far as my bias clouding my view, since you arrived here in the forums, Huawei has only seen more and more resistance in the EU; some from pressure from the U.S. and Australia, but the most recent coming from pushback against China due primarily to human rights violations. I seem to be quite a bit more accurate in prognosticating Huawei future than you have been.
Last time I heard, Apple was involved in far more patent disputes than Huawei. And I mean by a huge margin.
Perhaps because all such claims would have to be litigated in China, where the plaintiff would be sure to lose?
Does Huawei actually pay anyone else for their IP?
I know that China is notoriously cavalier about IP - I know that even cash strapped Russia is reluctant to sell them weapons systems because they know that China is a vast photocopy machine and they'll soon see clones being sold by China to other countries.
Interestingly, there was, for awhile, a block on allowing CFM (GE / Safran) LEAP aircraft engines to be sold into China, because their technological advancement could be reverse engineered to military applications.
Now, Ukraine, under pressure from the U.S., has decided to nationalize its aircraft engine business, instead of allowing China's acquisition of it:
China has been on a massive IP acquisition campaign for decades, coercing, stealing, or attempting to buy technology they need to be self sufficient, but the world has wised up to their militarism and mercantilism. Huawei go caught up in that as well, and initially Australia, then the U.S., and finally many countries in the EU reversed course on allowing Huawei into their critical infrastructure.
That avon b7 keeps protesting that is due to his inability to understand National Security, and yes, China is lax, to say the least, in its protection of foreign IP. The Biden Administration will change some aspects of U.S. trade policy, but expect that China will continue to get deserved scrutiny from the rest of the world.
I don't protest.
I simply point out where you are wrong.
It is supremely ironic that you dump the coercion label in here while simultaneously talking about the UK's change of tack on Huawei.
That decision was not taken on the back of any technological evaluation because that particular risk assessment had already been presented.
Nope. This was US coercion of a supposed ally. And while National Security is a concept ALL nations have to deal with, it is laughable when a country attempts to impose its own concerns extraterritorially.
Wrong.
It was Australia that initiated all of this not the U.S., though the U.S. certainly carried the baton later.
"In 2018, Australia became the first state in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to issue security guidance obliging its telecommunications carriers to avoid purchasing fifth-generation (5G) equipment or services from the Chinese firm Huawei. Canberra’s decision underscored the ongoing debate within the alliance over whether to try to manage or eliminate entirely the potential risks of espionage and sabotage brought by foreign involvement in national 5G networks."
In January this year, the UK Government broke ranks with its Five Eyes allies, confirming that Huawei would be involved in building part of its 5G network. The decision defied warnings from the United States that “if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information sharing and intelligence sharing we have been talking about, and that could undermine the alliance, or at least our relationship with that country.” Britain’s stance was also out of step with the declared positions of Australia and New Zealand. One US official decried the UK’s decision to put technological and economic expediency ahead of Five Eyes solidarity as a “sucker punch” on “an absolutely key issue at a critical juncture.”
"The condemnation of allies and growing domestic political pressure has since provoked a reversal in the UK position on Huawei. In mid-July, British Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport,Oliver Dowden, announced that buying new Huawei equipment would be banned after December 2020 and that all existing Huawei technology would be removed from 5G networks by the end of 2027. Many consider the timeframe too long, and also note that Britain’s earlier position was made virtually untenable after the US banned semiconductors that rely on US chip technology from provisioning Huawei without US government permission. Nonetheless, there is relief among the Five Eyes community that a consistent position on the use of Huawei for critical infrastructure has ultimately emerged. (For its part, Canada has not yet officially prohibited Huawei technology in its 5G build, but many observers consider it inevitable following Britain’s change of heart."
The Huawei episode illustrates the challenges of keeping the alliance together in the face of growing pressure from China. Why, despite all the warnings, was the UK prepared to compromise such an important and longstanding alliance? Certainly, the comparative cheapness of Huawei technology was a consideration, but many commentators have also pointed to the very adept way that Huawei – and Chinese interests more broadly – have infiltrated the British establishment and bought influence at the highest levels. Before the ban, Huawei’s UK board boasted some of the biggest names in British industry – among them Lord Browne (former CEO of British Petroleum), Sir Andrew Cahn (former head of UK Trade and Investment) and Sir Mike Rake (former president of the UK Confederation of Industry). The UK is by no means unique in this regard. While Australia has, to date, taken a tougher line towards China, it is not for want of Chinese attempts to buy influence. Huawei was the biggest sponsor of overseas travel for members of the Australian parliament between 2010 and early 2018, and in recent years, Huawei’s Australia’s board has boasted the services of former foreign Minister Alexander Downer, former Premier of Victoria John Brumby, and a former Rear Admiral of Australian Navy John Lord.
It seems inevitable that the Huawei episode will be just the first of many tests to Five Eye’s solidarity as China seeks to parlay economic power into geopolitical influence, and the United States responds in kind. So far, Australia has shown itself most willing to follow the US’s more hawkish lead. In September, the Australian government passed legislation barring state governments from reaching agreements with foreign powers deemed to be ‘not in the national interest.’ The first casualty of the Australian government’s new powers will almost certainly be the Victorian government’s 2019 agreement to participate in Beijing’s signature Belt and Road infrastructure-building initiative (BRI). By contrast, New Zealand signed onto the BRI in 2019. When the Five Eyes countries attempted to put forward a unified front condemning the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong earlier this year, New Zealand demurred. The eventual statement had only four signatories – the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
In a post-COVID world the difficulty of keeping all Five Eyes allies on the same strategic page is only going increase. Small, export-reliant, and now heavily indebted countries like NZ cannot afford to jeopardize trade with China. Indeed, New Zealand need only look across the Tasman Sea to know that taking a tougher stance towards Beijing can have immediate economic repercussions. Similarly, the Victorian Labor government’s MOU with Beijing suggests a change in partisan government at the national level could well see Australia split from the US and adopt a more accommodating position toward China. Canada too, may not be so unflinching the next time China slaps a ban on Canadian canola or sentences Canadian citizens to death on dubious charges. In sum, it seems very unlikely that the Five Eyes alliance will hang together as naturally and seamlessly as it did during the unipolar period of the immediate post-Cold War era.
It's not like China hasn't been playing hardball as well, but as I have stated in the past, human rights violations, and the takeover of Hong Kong early by the PRC, have tilted the arguments against China.
So, Canada and New Zealand haven't moved forward on Huawei, but they haven't outright banned them yet either, while the U.K.
"Most worryingly, fears have mounted over the involvement of Huawei and a decision has been taken to exclude them from Britain’s 5G network. A new bill has been proposed which will see the UK government take over control of the 5G networkand stop private companies from self-regulating.
Telecoms providers will therefore stop installing Huawei equipment and it is likely this will take effect in September 2021. But what will the impact of Huawei’s 5G ban have on the UK and could there be long-term ramifications?"
Completely unable to commit to a decision, all driven by trade with China.
"And yet, as a leader within Europe and a supporter of democratic values and level playing fields in trade, Germany’s stubborn refusal to ban Huawei places it in an awkward position when it comes to international efforts to cooperate on 5G. Existing ideas, such as the UK’s D-10 club of democracies, the United States’ Clean Network Initiative, or the proposed Technology 10 alliance, each share the goal of reducing China’s dominance in 5G and tech infrastructure. The EU’s own 5G toolbox, which Germany supports, calls for “a coordinated approach” to 5G network security both domestically and across the EU. But Germany cannot easily advocate international cooperation on emerging tech if it forges its own path on Huawei. Berlin’s Huawei indecision will only embolden smaller nations with less robust economies to point to the German example in choosing the more budget-friendly Chinese kit for their domestic 5G networks.
Berlin’s choice will also have implications for NATO. With Germany seeking to shore up and encourage America’s recommitment to the organisation, the decisive indecisiveness it has adopted on Huawei is a step backwards in re-engaging with Washington. On 5G, leading NATO members like the US and Germany should be championing efforts to ensure uninterrupted interoperability through bloc-wide standards and minimum network security requirements. This coordination from the outset is necessary because 5G will give the alliance new opportunitiesfor data- and intelligence-sharing as well as allowing it to take advantage of new technologies based on advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. But with advanced network connectivity comes heightened network vulnerability, and NATO can only realise the full potential of 5G if there is coordination across all member countries.
With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
I'm done with arguing about Huawei, but it is clear that Huawei has hit its high water mark in telecom in the West, and is on a descent.
Good. Enough of supporting China's authoritarian expansionism, and blatant mercantilism, that almost succeeded in killing competition in 5G, but failed.
Oh dear.
Firstly, I was not wrong in anything I said and I didn't even touch on who was 'first' to do anything.
If you really can't see that the UK was coerced your bias is blinding you.
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
If you go looking around for Enemies, you will find one eventually.
Funny, but even India sees China as an enemy, and is part of the Quad, which China sees as an enemy as well.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
Just out of curiosity.
In terms opening up and and engaging the west and the world in general, can you really be so blind to the changes that China as a nation has enacted over the last 40 years?
Those changes include changes to accommodate the demands of the wider world and include IP related changes.
Take a couple of hours to actually watch the Huawei video on IP which I posted earlier on.
Resist the temptation to further derail a simple thread with your anti China rhetoric.
FFS, it's about the ongoing human rights violations in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang region, plus the militarization of the South China Seas, Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
If China could do all of their growth without the human rights violations, or the illegal exploitation of other countries resources, such as fisheries, and refrain from using Western technology for weapons, the West would then only be able to complain about IP and mercantilism, and trade would be flowing much more smoothly.
You didn't actually listen to the comments of U.S. Secretary of State Antony; Blinken: here they are:
Bolding your text and making it enormous doesn't make your posts any more effective and whenever you begin one with 'FFS' I know you've simply run out of resources.
If what you claim were true and you truly believed in it, you would do something on a more personal and direct level but you don't.
You still buy iPhones from a company which gladly uses China to produce its products.
Apple claims it has a zero tolerance policy on many things but even Tim Cook sees the benefits of engaging China.
Your last post simply confirms your hypocrisy and blindness of the issues at hand.
In another thread I asked you to do your homework and take a look at some of the work done by Brown University.
You decided to ignore that advice but the question I now ask you is if it would be reasonable for me to judge the US solely on its abuses (for they are being carried out around the globe on a huge scale - human rights included) or if I should value other factors too before reaching a conclusion.
When your only recourse is 'FFS. It's about...' your narrow minded, short sighted view of the situation comes to the fore.
China has made changes to how it deals with IP. There will surely be further changes.
Huawei has an excellent record on IP. It may not be perfect but there isn't a single large company on the planet that doesn't run into IP related issues at some point.
You didn't bother taking a look at the video I posted in this very thread. If you had, you would have seen the former head of WIPO praising the company.
The US treatment of Huawei has nothing to do with human rights, IP or national security and everything to do with protectionism stopping China from overtaking the US in key technology areas by trying to destroy its most successful tech company.
Ah, and no I didn't 'listen' to Blinken. As I stated earlier on, in this very thread, I read the transcript of the whole thing.
Oh course, I disagree on most of your argument, but with respect to Huawei, that ship has sailed.
UPDATE:
Germany's Green party is pretty much mirroring my opinions. How about that!
"Not surprisingly the #Greens use tough language to describe #China in their draft platform. Noteworthy: Rejection of unification with #Taiwan by force. References to #5G and protection of critical infrastructure."
Well strike me down with a feather!
The Green Party (one of the most Hawkish in Germany) 'pretty much' mirrors your opinion!
How about you actually read what was included in the tweet in German because Huawei wasn't even mentioned and on the subject of 5G, did you understand what was said?
I'm smart enough to not need to read german, and prescient enough to see which way the wind is blowing, and it looks like the Greens policies are popular.
I've been telling you that China is facing blowback to its policies throughout the world, and you've ignored that. You are probably unaware of how popular the Biden Administration multilateral approach to foreign policy, given the previous Trump Administrations go it alone policies.
Have you ever considered that it is you that is out of step with the world?
Ah! So that's your way of saying you didn't in fact read the German text that you were quoting through the tweet.
Why you feel the impulse to link to an article on the fortunes of the Green Party is beyond me.
Do you think I'm not aware of that?
Let me insist. Make an effort to actually read what you are quoting!
I try very hard not to delve into politics. I don't often speak about China either. Yes, I get it that Huawei is often intrinsically linked to the wider geopolitical situation and therefore politics can be hard to side step but you have a tendency to go overboard and use Huawei/China as the same thing.
They are not.
Now, re-read what you quoted through the tweet and tell me what you think it said about 5G, Germany and the Green Party.
...the pertinent paragraphs in the Green Party's platform
USA The transatlantic partnership must be renewed, Europeanized, multilateral and oriented towards clear common values and democratic goals - with a strong common impetus for global climate policy. We want to work together for global human rights protection and a rules-based world order and agree on how to deal with authoritarian states such as China and Russia. The EU and its Member States must assume more foreign and security policy responsibility themselves.
China We demand that China put an end to its blatant human rights violations, for example in Xinjiang and Tibet, and increasingly also in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, a constructive climate dialogue with China is needed. We want to use our trade relations with China to demand fair market access for foreign investment, legal certainty and a level playing field. We will work on close European and transatlantic coordination with China, especially in the areas of 5G expansion and protection of critical infrastructure.
As poorly written as that last sentence is, I don't think that is as supportive of Huawei Telecom as it appears, based on the context of the previous paragraph, but you are certainly free to disagree.
"With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
Nah, I'm thinking that there really isn't much support at all for allowing Huawei, but Merkel doesn't want to stir up China, and will leave that to her successor.
"The German government is preparing a massive investment plan to boost the development of local telecoms firms, in an effort to pivot away from dominant suppliers like China's Huawei.
The plan, dubbed the "joint proposal for action" by the ministries of interior, economy, research and transport, and seen by POLITICO, lays out how the government plans to spend €2 billion in funding from its larger coronavirus recovery stimulus program presented in June.
"The prosperity and competitiveness of Germany and Europe will increasingly depend on mastering new communication technologies," the proposal said, adding that this would "require a common political and industrial commitment at national and European level."
At last.
This is a perfect example of how your bias clouds your view.
You presented your argument through the words of a third party who used a tweet with a snippet of text which you didn't even bother to read! You simply took the covering text and ran with it. You were happy you had enough to cover your needs.
Except of course that it wasn't, because the text didn't 'mirror' your opinion on China Huawei and 5G at all.
If anything it was as far away from your opinion as it could get on 5G because they were speaking of coordination with China.
So what did you do after finding yourself up the creek without a paddle ?
Damage control. No problem with that. That, at least is logical.
Your only recourse is to say the text was poorly worded.
Not the best idea. If it was badly worded why did you quote it in the first place? Yes, we all know the answer to that one. You hadn't bothered to read what you were pushing!
But, of course, it wasn't poorly worded at all! It was a prepared party statement, not something scribbled on a napkin over a German sausage sandwich.
Then you try to 'hide' your admission by stuffing in yet more quoted text.
Only a good idea if that text truly helps support your case.
Unfortunately for you, it doesn't. You need a refresher on EU technological policy.
What you quoted isn't limited to China or communications technology. It isn't even new!
The EU has a stated goal of technological independence. It started years ago with the EU processor initiative. That goal isn't geared towards limiting China. It is geared towards achieving independence on a technological level. Independence from China but also the US and anywhere else where dependencies exist.
As for a common EU foreign policy approach, that is a far more complex issue but nothing new. Look up the role of Javier Solana within the EU. We are talking 1999!
Like I said, the sentence doesn't read like the rest of the paragraphs, but context is everything. "close European and transatlantic coordination with China", doesn't leave much room since the U.S. has banned Huawei, and Canada, while not having an actual ban in place, certainly can't be happy about the treatment of Canadian "hostages" Spavor and Kovrig by China.
I agree with you that the EU's goal isn't limited to China, and I'm fine with that; it's good policy. But you have to be delusional to think that Huawei is going to make a comeback in the EU.
As far as my bias clouding my view, since you arrived here in the forums, Huawei has only seen more and more resistance in the EU; some from pressure from the U.S. and Australia, but the most recent coming from pushback against China due primarily to human rights violations. I seem to be quite a bit more accurate in prognosticating Huawei future than you have been.
You have not been remotely more accurate at prognosticating Huawei's future.
You have failed time and time again to even understand the company, its business model and achievements.
Huawei's current problems in its ICT and CBG divisions are solely the fruit of US extraterritorial intervention.
Huawei is acting to remedy those problems.
I can assure you that it will take time but it will happen, and far sooner than anyone may have imagined.
One of those steps is obviously what this thread is about. Others, such as expanding cloud and AI operations have been announced. Yet more, (automotive field and supporting infrastructure) are open secrets.
The total elimination of US based technology in silicon endeavours is currently in progress. There are even rumours (which personally I don't give much credit to) of a 5nm Kirin, built by Samsung and devoid of US technology. Still, the rumor is there. We'll see.
Meanwhile Honor is operating without restrictions as a spin off. Do you doubt it will return to the fold at some point?
And in spite of all this, it looks like revenues for 2020 are up. Annual report is due any day now.
Comments
Here's mine;
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-usa-5g-specialreport/special-report-hobbling-huawei-inside-the-u-s-war-on-chinas-tech-giant-idUSKCN1SR1EU
"In early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing’s bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.
The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game."
The U.S. Marines have been operating out of Darwin since late 2011.
https://www.pacom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2391314/us-marines-complete-their-ninth-rotation-in-australia/
"DARWIN, NT, Australia -- U.S. Marines have completed the ninth iteration of Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. Marines that comprised the 2020 rotation have departed Australia and returned to their home stations.
“This year’s rotation was a testament to the strong alliance between Australia and the United States,” said U.S. Marine Col. David Banning, commanding officer for MRF-D. “We were able to effectively complete the rotation even while operating under the threat of COVID-19.”
MRF-D is designed to increase interoperability with the Australian Defence Force (ADF), engage with regional partners and allies, and provide a forward-deployed force capable of responding to crisis within the Indo-Pacific region."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-usa/australia-says-u-s-plans-to-build-military-infrastructure-idUSKCN1UP0GY
SYDNEY (Reuters) - The United States is planning to build additional military infrastructure in Australia once Congress gives approval to the U.S. Navy for $211.5 million, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said on Tuesday.
The plans for a bigger U.S. footprint in Australia come at a time when the Western allies have become increasingly concerned by China’s efforts to expand its influence in the Pacific.
“The development of facilities will support the Force Posture Initiatives,” Payne told Sky News, referring to agreements reached in 2011 between the United States and Australia to enhance their defense relationship.
Those initiatives entail 2,500 U.S. Marines training in Australia each year, and regular joint training between the allies’ air forces.
All of this is because of China's militarization.
My link mentioned Burgess and tackled his claims head on.
My link pointed to the US military aspect in Australia and yours simply confirmed it. Read what you yourself quoted!
As for China's militarization, the articles I gave you claimed that the US had encircled China with 40 military bases. Are you surprised that China is taking its territorial protection seriously? Please be serious. As I said, you are incapable of seeing things from a Chinese perspective and that is a massive failing. If you can't accommodate logic from both sides into your argument, if you your anti China bias can't be reigned in, you simply have no credibility. That is where you stand right now.
Do you know why the US didn't parade around that Australian report?
Because every country has their own technological resources to carry out the exact same evaluations and the UK, to give just one example, didn't share the Australian viewpoint.
On top of that, there is NO ONE that knows ICT networking networking better than the ICT manufacturers, the carriers and the standards bodies.
And guess what. No major issues have been found and Huawei has been first through the gate with virtually all the 5G standards based security certifications. The irony.
It is also the ONLY ICT manufacturer in the world which opens its gear up to such in depth scrutiny. Let me make that clear. No one undergoes the same level of scrutiny.
Huawei offered the US a licencing deal to the whole shebang. Absolutely EVERYTHING. Right down to the source code itself. The US didn't take up the offer. Why on earth not? Because Huawei 5G is not at issue here. What is at issue is a Chinese technology company (and China by extension) overtaking the US in a critical technological area.
You will find security holes, weak points, attack vectors at some point if you really dedicate enough resources to the task but that applies to EVERYONE and as has been patently demonstrated of late with the Solar Winds and Exchange problems, ICT infrastructure has not been such a problem.
In the case if Huawei, they have over 30 years of ICT operations worldwide without a single major security breach.
The US command in Iraq runs the virtual entirety of its operations over Huawei gear.
Problems? Zero!
Try to beyond your bias and hatred of China.
Have you read the transcripts of the talks yesterday in Anchorage. Valid points from the US but equally valid points from the Chinese.
Try to get some balance into things.
How can that be?
Well, maybe Authoritarian China really is a threat to democracies.
"Valid points from the U.S. but equally valid points from the Chinese"
Nope. I heard a lot of whataboutisms from the Chinese Diplomats, but basically, lots of theater directed towards Xi Jinping back home
BTW, if you want to have an understanding of the close connection of the U.S. and Australia, you need to go back 80 years to the War in the Pacific, and get an understanding of the geography of the South Pacific. Then you'll have an understanding of why there are rotations of 2500 Marines in Darwin, and an expanding base.
Interesting observation. The U.S. supplies lines to Australia during WWII from Hawaii were 5500 miles long (7500 miles from Los Angeles), and Taiwan, which was then in the hands of the Japanese, was less than 2500 miles away. Britain shipped to Australia via the Suez Canal and around the Horn of Africa, both extremely difficult and dangerous routes.
All of those supplies lines were threatened by Axis powers. Of course Australia should be concerned about it's security.
It really isn't important anymore if you understand what National Security entails, because those decisions are out of your hands, and more to the point, now out of Huawei's.
If you think that China's "equally" valid points are comforting to the EU, I believe that you will be sadly mistaken. If anything, I'm of the opinion that Germany is at a tipping point, due to the overall cost of working with China on trade. That Huawei is barely clinging to the German market, makes China's bluster more of a threat than anything that the U.S. could do.
The Japanese aren't the enemy anymore. Nor are the Germans. Your bias again.
Ever thought that the US has played a major role in world destabilisation over the recent decades? Probably not, right?
Try to see both sides of the coin.
On the part about India sees China as enemy - Yes, we share border with China (which Trump was not aware of!!!) and have had border issues with China for a long time. About USA vs China, the reasons for sour relationships does not seem like a military one, rather an economical one. So it would be better if Quad countries focused on actually improving their own economies, instead of escalating the military tensions.
It isn't the participants, it is the obvious strategy of using the island chains to prosecute both aggression, and defense. To prevent that from happening again, Japan, U.S., Australia and India formed the Quad, to pursue interests and security in the Indo-Pacific region. China is extremely unhappy about that because their plan for expansionism is curtailed.
Have you actually considered what Europe would have looked like if the U.S. had not provided support for seven decades via NATO and the UN? If the U.S. had stayed out of the war in Europe?
Likely no EU, and likely many more countries would have fallen to Communism or fascism, depending on the scenario. Europe would have fallen back into cyclical warfare, as it had for centuries.
China is not a supporter of the values of the West, so why would anyone want to risk their futures supporting China's brand of authoritarianism?
There are certainly economic issues between China and the U.S., but why would you think there would be any kind of acquiescence by either party wrt each parties values? We're talking about two opposing political systems, and the up and coming China, not sharing any values or recognition of the existing rules of order that the world has been relatively stable under?
In terms opening up and and engaging the west and the world in general, can you really be so blind to the changes that China as a nation has enacted over the last 40 years?
Those changes include changes to accommodate the demands of the wider world and include IP related changes.
Take a couple of hours to actually watch the Huawei video on IP which I posted earlier on.
Resist the temptation to further derail a simple thread with your anti China rhetoric.
FFS, it's about the ongoing human rights violations in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang region, plus the militarization of the South China Seas, Indian Ocean and South Pacific.
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2020/09/china-tibet-and-the-uighurs-a-pattern-of-genocide/
If China could do all of their growth without the human rights violations, or the illegal exploitation of other countries resources, such as fisheries, and refrain from using Western technology for weapons, the West would then only be able to complain about IP and mercantilism, and trade would be flowing much more smoothly.
You didn't actually listen to the comments of U.S. Secretary of State Antony; Blinken: here they are:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/03/19/us-china-tense-meeting-alaska-bts-vpx.cnn
If what you claim were true and you truly believed in it, you would do something on a more personal and direct level but you don't.
You still buy iPhones from a company which gladly uses China to produce its products.
Apple claims it has a zero tolerance policy on many things but even Tim Cook sees the benefits of engaging China.
Your last post simply confirms your hypocrisy and blindness of the issues at hand.
In another thread I asked you to do your homework and take a look at some of the work done by Brown University.
You decided to ignore that advice but the question I now ask you is if it would be reasonable for me to judge the US solely on its abuses (for they are being carried out around the globe on a huge scale - human rights included) or if I should value other factors too before reaching a conclusion.
So here you go. I'll do your homework for you:
Served on a plate:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
I hope that doesn't cause you any indigestion.
When your only recourse is 'FFS. It's about...' your narrow minded, short sighted view of the situation comes to the fore.
China has made changes to how it deals with IP. There will surely be further changes.
Huawei has an excellent record on IP. It may not be perfect but there isn't a single large company on the planet that doesn't run into IP related issues at some point.
You didn't bother taking a look at the video I posted in this very thread. If you had, you would have seen the former head of WIPO praising the company.
The US treatment of Huawei has nothing to do with human rights, IP or national security and everything to do with protectionism stopping China from overtaking the US in key technology areas by trying to destroy its most successful tech company.
Ah, and no I didn't 'listen' to Blinken. As I stated earlier on, in this very thread, I read the transcript of the whole thing.
UPDATE:
Germany's Green party is pretty much mirroring my opinions. How about that!
"Not surprisingly the #Greens use tough language to describe #China in their draft platform. Noteworthy: Rejection of unification with #Taiwan by force. References to #5G and protection of critical infrastructure."
The Green Party (one of the most Hawkish in Germany) 'pretty much' mirrors your opinion!
How about you actually read what was included in the tweet in German because Huawei wasn't even mentioned and on the subject of 5G, did you understand what was said?
I'm smart enough to not need to read german, and prescient enough to see which way the wind is blowing, and it looks like the Greens policies are popular.
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/kiran-bowry-germany-green-party-policy-strategy-elections-2021-environment-news-18171/
I've been telling you that China is facing blowback to its policies throughout the world, and you've ignored that. You are probably unaware of how popular the Biden Administration multilateral approach to foreign policy, given the previous Trump Administrations go it alone policies.
Have you ever considered that it is you that is out of step with the world?
Why you feel the impulse to link to an article on the fortunes of the Green Party is beyond me.
Do you think I'm not aware of that?
Let me insist. Make an effort to actually read what you are quoting!
I try very hard not to delve into politics. I don't often speak about China either. Yes, I get it that Huawei is often intrinsically linked to the wider geopolitical situation and therefore politics can be hard to side step but you have a tendency to go overboard and use Huawei/China as the same thing.
They are not.
Now, re-read what you quoted through the tweet and tell me what you think it said about 5G, Germany and the Green Party.
USA
The transatlantic partnership must be renewed, Europeanized, multilateral and oriented towards clear common values and democratic goals - with a strong common impetus for global climate policy. We want to work together for global human rights protection and a rules-based world order and agree on how to deal with authoritarian states such as China and Russia. The EU and its Member States must assume more foreign and security policy responsibility themselves.
China
We demand that China put an end to its blatant human rights violations, for example in Xinjiang and Tibet, and increasingly also in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, a constructive climate dialogue with China is needed. We want to use our trade relations with China to demand fair market access for foreign investment, legal certainty and a level playing field. We will work on close European and transatlantic coordination with China, especially in the areas of 5G expansion and protection of critical infrastructure.
As poorly written as that last sentence is, I don't think that is as supportive of Huawei Telecom as it appears, based on the context of the previous paragraph, but you are certainly free to disagree.
https://ecfr.eu/article/what-germanys-new-cyber-security-law-means-for-huawei-europe-and-nato/
"With this draft law, Berlin has effectively punted down the road a definitive decision on 5G. How the legislation will look in its final form remains to be seen, but Berlin’s preference for Beijing’s tech over Brussels’ wishes is clear. Should the German government fail to take concrete action to block Huawei from its networks, the new law will put Germany at odds with key allies on an issue that has deep implications for security, defence, and the economy."
Nah, I'm thinking that there really isn't much support at all for allowing Huawei, but Merkel doesn't want to stir up China, and will leave that to her successor.
and this;
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-huawei-telecoms-plan/
"The German government is preparing a massive investment plan to boost the development of local telecoms firms, in an effort to pivot away from dominant suppliers like China's Huawei.
The plan, dubbed the "joint proposal for action" by the ministries of interior, economy, research and transport, and seen by POLITICO, lays out how the government plans to spend €2 billion in funding from its larger coronavirus recovery stimulus program presented in June.
"The prosperity and competitiveness of Germany and Europe will increasingly depend on mastering new communication technologies," the proposal said, adding that this would "require a common political and industrial commitment at national and European level."
This is a perfect example of how your bias clouds your view.
You presented your argument through the words of a third party who used a tweet with a snippet of text which you didn't even bother to read! You simply took the covering text and ran with it. You were happy you had enough to cover your needs.
Except of course that it wasn't, because the text didn't 'mirror' your opinion on China Huawei and 5G at all.
If anything it was as far away from your opinion as it could get on 5G because they were speaking of coordination with China.
So what did you do after finding yourself up the creek without a paddle ?
Damage control. No problem with that. That, at least is logical.
Your only recourse is to say the text was poorly worded.
Not the best idea. If it was badly worded why did you quote it in the first place? Yes, we all know the answer to that one. You hadn't bothered to read what you were pushing!
But, of course, it wasn't poorly worded at all! It was a prepared party statement, not something scribbled on a napkin over a German sausage sandwich.
Then you try to 'hide' your admission by stuffing in yet more quoted text.
Only a good idea if that text truly helps support your case.
Unfortunately for you, it doesn't. You need a refresher on EU technological policy.
What you quoted isn't limited to China or communications technology. It isn't even new!
The EU has a stated goal of technological independence. It started years ago with the EU processor initiative. That goal isn't geared towards limiting China. It is geared towards achieving independence on a technological level. Independence from China but also the US and anywhere else where dependencies exist.
As for a common EU foreign policy approach, that is a far more complex issue but nothing new. Look up the role of Javier Solana within the EU. We are talking 1999!
I agree with you that the EU's goal isn't limited to China, and I'm fine with that; it's good policy. But you have to be delusional to think that Huawei is going to make a comeback in the EU.
As far as my bias clouding my view, since you arrived here in the forums, Huawei has only seen more and more resistance in the EU; some from pressure from the U.S. and Australia, but the most recent coming from pushback against China due primarily to human rights violations. I seem to be quite a bit more accurate in prognosticating Huawei future than you have been.
You have failed time and time again to even understand the company, its business model and achievements.
Huawei's current problems in its ICT and CBG divisions are solely the fruit of US extraterritorial intervention.
Huawei is acting to remedy those problems.
I can assure you that it will take time but it will happen, and far sooner than anyone may have imagined.
One of those steps is obviously what this thread is about. Others, such as expanding cloud and AI operations have been announced. Yet more, (automotive field and supporting infrastructure) are open secrets.
The total elimination of US based technology in silicon endeavours is currently in progress. There are even rumours (which personally I don't give much credit to) of a 5nm Kirin, built by Samsung and devoid of US technology. Still, the rumor is there. We'll see.
Meanwhile Honor is operating without restrictions as a spin off. Do you doubt it will return to the fold at some point?
And in spite of all this, it looks like revenues for 2020 are up. Annual report is due any day now.