US Vilifies Huawei to Coopt Australia
Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 22 July 2013
by Mei Xinyu (link to original)
U.S. politicians are once again accusing [Chinese telecommunications company] Huawei of espionage. This time, the allegations are coming from former National Security Agency and CIA Director Michael Hayden. On July 19, he claimed in the Australian Financial Review that Huawei had passed confidential information to the Chinese government; that it would be unacceptable to allow Huawei to build the backbone architecture of the domestic telecommunications network of the U.S.; and that U.S. ally Australia should also adhere to this line of thinking. As was the case for all past spying accusations against Huawei and ZTE [another Chinese telecommunications multinational] by U.S. and British officials, Hayden has offered no evidence whatsoever to support his serious claims, except his "professional judgment."
American politicians have groundlessly vilified China's top companies and trampled upon Uncle Sam's self-proclaimed moral and legal principles; the world is accustomed to seeing this. In a post PRISM-gate world, it has become somewhat more understandable why U.S. politicians have consistently accused Huawei and ZTE of espionage. After all, in the eyes of a rogue, everyone is a rogue. What deserves attention is why Hayden would choose to air his views in this mainstream Australian financial newspaper. It seems certain that factions in the U.S. want to pressure Australia into antagonizing its biggest customer.
Sino-Australian economic and trade relations have grown quickly upon an excellent foundation; Australia is able to supply large amounts of the resources that China needs. The two nations are even in the process of negotiating a free trade agreement. Australia has always been a recipient of large-scale Chinese foreign direct investment, mainly in the areas of commodities and primary processing. The problem is that, for many years, certain forces have sought to a build an alliance centered on the U.S. and Britain to contain China; to better carry out this strategy, they need Australia to act as their "unsinkable aircraft super carrier" of the western Pacific Ocean.
Many years ago, Australia's then Defense Minister Alexander Downer clearly expressed that if war erupted in the Taiwan Strait, the U.S. could not automatically count on Australian assistance. These words indicate a desire for Australia to shed its external shackles and pursue its own national interests independently. Such a policy orientation could provide a solid foundation for the continued development of Sino-Australian relations. But there are always those who seek to derail Australia's integration into East Asia and turn it instead into a bridgehead for the containment of East Asia, especially China. Of course, how this would harm the interests of the Australian people is not part of their consideration. Thus for them, sowing discord between Australia and China is the natural choice.
There are also forces within Australia itself that advocate getting tangled up with the U.S. and Britain. In 2009, during the drafting of the Defense White Paper, there was vigorous debate among the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies. The faction led by Michael Pezzullo believed that the growth in Chinese military power was a threat to U.S. military hegemony in east Asia, while U.S. dominance was an important factor for Asia's stability as well as Australia's security. Senior intelligence official Peter Varghese and others believed that China's military expansion was but a natural reaction to the threat posed by U.S. naval might in the Pacific. In the end, the final version of the Defense White Paper called for an investment of $70 billion over the following 20 years to strengthen Australia's defense, using the "China threat" as an excuse to justify a military buildup.
In light of all this, neither Hayden's attempt to sell the "Huawei threat" to Australia nor the attempt to use the spurious "China threat" to bind Australia to the Anglo-American bloc is surprising. The question for Australians is which path best suits their interests: to coexist with China, their biggest customer, in peace and friendship or to antagonize China on behalf of American interests.
The author is a researcher at the Ministry of Commerce's Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
American politicians have groundlessly vilified China's top companies and trampled upon Uncle Sam's self-proclaimed moral and legal principles; the world is accustomed to seeing this. In a post PRISM-gate world, it has become somewhat more understandable why U.S. politicians have consistently accused Huawei and ZTE of espionage. After all, in the eyes of a rogue, everyone is a rogue. What deserves attention is why Hayden would choose to air his views in this mainstream Australian financial newspaper. It seems certain that factions in the U.S. want to pressure Australia into antagonizing its biggest customer.
Sino-Australian economic and trade relations have grown quickly upon an excellent foundation; Australia is able to supply large amounts of the resources that China needs. The two nations are even in the process of negotiating a free trade agreement. Australia has always been a recipient of large-scale Chinese foreign direct investment, mainly in the areas of commodities and primary processing. The problem is that, for many years, certain forces have sought to a build an alliance centered on the U.S. and Britain to contain China; to better carry out this strategy, they need Australia to act as their "unsinkable aircraft super carrier" of the western Pacific Ocean.
Many years ago, Australia's then Defense Minister Alexander Downer clearly expressed that if war erupted in the Taiwan Strait, the U.S. could not automatically count on Australian assistance. These words indicate a desire for Australia to shed its external shackles and pursue its own national interests independently. Such a policy orientation could provide a solid foundation for the continued development of Sino-Australian relations. But there are always those who seek to derail Australia's integration into East Asia and turn it instead into a bridgehead for the containment of East Asia, especially China. Of course, how this would harm the interests of the Australian people is not part of their consideration. Thus for them, sowing discord between Australia and China is the natural choice.
There are also forces within Australia itself that advocate getting tangled up with the U.S. and Britain. In 2009, during the drafting of the Defense White Paper, there was vigorous debate among the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies. The faction led by Michael Pezzullo believed that the growth in Chinese military power was a threat to U.S. military hegemony in east Asia, while U.S. dominance was an important factor for Asia's stability as well as Australia's security. Senior intelligence official Peter Varghese and others believed that China's military expansion was but a natural reaction to the threat posed by U.S. naval might in the Pacific. In the end, the final version of the Defense White Paper called for an investment of $70 billion over the following 20 years to strengthen Australia's defense, using the "China threat" as an excuse to justify a military buildup.
In light of all this, neither Hayden's attempt to sell the "Huawei threat" to Australia nor the attempt to use the spurious "China threat" to bind Australia to the Anglo-American bloc is surprising. The question for Australians is which path best suits their interests: to coexist with China, their biggest customer, in peace and friendship or to antagonize China on behalf of American interests.
The author is a researcher at the Ministry of Commerce's Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.