On April 24, the UK decided that the Chinese company Huawei will be able to build part of the 5G cellular network in the country. It's a big decision because 5G (a new type of super-fast connection) is very important and because in recent months there has been a lot of talk about Huawei (one of the world's largest telecommunications companies) and its alleged links with the Chinese government. In particular, the United States believes that Huawei is acting on behalf of the Chinese government and that it is therefore dangerous to entrust the company with something as crucial as the 5G network of one's own country. These are accusations that have not been proven, but on which the United States is very insistent, which, together with the United Kingdom, is part of the “Five Eyes”, an agreement between five English-speaking countries for the exchange of information between their respective intelligence agencies.
In recent days, the UK's decision has been talked about mainly because, due to a leak of news relating to that decision, Prime Minister Theresa May fired Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson. But that's another story. The really important thing is that the UK has chosen, despite the United States' disagreement, to entrust a major role in the future of its technology system to a Chinese company whose ties to its government are in fact not entirely clear. The recent decision – taken after a meeting attended by May and many of his ministers – certainly represents a clear victory for Huawei, but according to the Economist it is also an “ingenious compromise” for the United Kingdom and a model for all. the other large countries that may soon find themselves deciding on the same topic.
To begin with, the Economist explained that the agreement provides for Huawei “to participate in the construction of the network, but that the company will not be allowed to take care of the most important parts of the system”. It means that Huawei will manage secondary and “non-essential” parts of the system. The Economist then added that the British decision “is by no means a betrayal” but that it is a wise choice, because it uses Huawei's expertise but decides to do so in a controlled and limited way. According to the British weekly, this is the right choice both from a technical and a geopolitical point of view.
As for the technical aspects: Huawei is big and competent, giving up collaborating with it entirely could mean having a less effective or more expensive network. And above all, even by choosing other companies, there would still have been national security risks, because, writes the Economist, every system, of any kind, can suffer cyber-attacks. A company like Huawei isn't the only way the Chinese government could use to hack, spy on or influence other countries. Russia, for example, already does this, and there is no large and powerful Russian telecommunications company operating in the UK or the US. Then there are the geopolitical aspects: the Economist writes that by renouncing Huawei, the United Kingdom would have been cut off from “a global and open trading system” and that “countries must have economic relations among themselves, even if they are rivals”.
The Economist also identifies three principles that “the United Kingdom and other countries should observe in such a situation”:
“Continuous control”. Cyber attacks typically occur because there are flaws in the code that computer systems depend on to function. The best way to prevent systems from being tampered with or bypassed is to have those who know how to do them do them, take great care and keep them checked and updated. “A limitation of Huawei's activities”. As mentioned, Huawei will play a role in the making of British 5G, but it won't do everything and it won't handle the more sensitive aspects of British 5G. “A U-turn is always possible.” The Economist writes that the right option is “to mitigate the possible risks posed by Huawei and at the same time avoid a trade war with China. This is why it is right to try to collaborate with Huawei but it is also right, as the United Kingdom can do (since Huawei deals with “non-essential” parts), to guarantee the possibility of being able to change your mind in the future, if it were to be ascertained that, in fact, Huawei is a dangerous company.
