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.
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
China has successfully held its Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, with 53 of 55 countries from the African Union (AU) participating. The two countries that did not participate were Eswatini and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which have no diplomatic relations with China. Twenty-four leaders were reported to have participated. Despite African countries complaining about summit fatigue, with recent summits held with Russia, Italy, South Korea, the US and Indonesia, as well as Japan next month, they still turned up in large numbers in Beijing. China’s ability to attract most of the African leaders to a summit demonstrates that it is still being
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
RSS