On Monday, Mike Burgess, the director-general of the Australian Signals Directorate, gave a speech at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s national security dinner in Canberra.
He defended the government’s decision in August to ban Chinese telecommunications giants from Australia’s 5G network on the grounds of national security.
Burgess did not mention China or any specific Chinese companies in his speech; he only mentioned “high-risk vendors” and concerns over foreign espionage or interference and cybersecurity.
However, his reference to high-risk vendors was clearly aimed at China’s Huawei Technologies Co (華為) and ZTE Corp (中興通訊), both of which were shut out of Australia’s 5G network.
Historically, Australia had protected the sensitive information and functions at the core of its telecommunications networks by confining its high-risk vendors to the edge of our networks, Burgess said.
He said that his agency had discussed ways in which foreign vendors, such as Huawei or ZTE, could be included in non-core, peripheral aspects of the planned 5G network, but, in the end, it was decided that their high level of integration means that “the distinction between core and edge collapses in 5G networks,” leaving the entire network open to vulnerabilities even by the use of foreign companies in peripheral functions.
The US and Australia have made moves to keep Chinese companies out of crucial cyberinfrastructure networks. The UK, Canada and New Zealand have been less circumspect. Together, these five countries form the Five Eyes alliance intelligence sharing group. This has implications for the potential security vulnerabilities within the group.
Most countries conduct espionage against others, whether friend or foe.
However, the high level of control and influence the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) exerts over China’s private sector in general, and the tech sector in particular, makes Chinese tech companies all the more problematic.
An article in the Strategist, the analysis site of the independent think tank the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, raised concerns about the “deeper fusion between the party-state apparatus and business enterprises” in China, including new legal frameworks that could require Huawei and other private businesses to support Chinese intelligence activities.
According to the article, every major Chinese tech company, Huawei included, has in the past few years been required to establish a party branch or committee, and that these party committees can exert influence over a company’s decisionmaking with little transparency.
Article 7 of China’s National Intelligence Law states that: “All organizations and citizens shall, in accordance with the law, support, cooperate with and collaborate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of national intelligence work they are aware of.”
Article 12 states that national intelligence agencies have the power to “establish cooperative relationships with relevant individuals and organizations, and entrust them to undertake relevant work.”
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs was not happy with Australia’s decision, accusing it of ideological bias against Chinese companies.
This has nothing to do with bias: It is a rational precaution to a real threat to national security.
The CCP needs to understand that the tight control it insists on exerting over all aspects of its organizations, whether in the state or private sectors, subjects its companies to legitimate suspicion from other countries.
China, especially under President Xi Jinping (習近平), is increasingly being regarded as an adversary by many countries, including the US and Australia.
The CCP has the right to govern its own nation as it pleases, but it cannot expect to do so without its choices impacting the ability of its companies to conduct business with their foreign counterparts, especially when this business entails legitimate national security concerns.
This is just one more example of how the CCP’s model of governance is detrimental to China’s development and engagement with the international community.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS