Where does the future of telecommunication lie? 5G has revolutionized how we use our technology. Standing for 5thgeneration, 5G is 100x faster is transmission of information than what we are currently used to. This technology is developed by a Chinese company called Huawei. What is at stake here is who controls the future of technology?

Huawei is the largest telecommunications network provider in the world meaning that in fact many of the already large networks around the world, like AT&T and the Verizons of the world rely on Huawei technology. They’re also the world’s second largest provider of smartphones, selling more than apple does. However, there is an important security issue here which lies in Huawei’s ties to the Chinese government.

The first tension between the US government and Huawei was in 2012 when the congress warned the private sector to refrain from using Huawei and ZTE as they suspected them to provide Chinese government access to U.S. data or U.S. telecommunication networks if their technology were to be widely adopted.

The current transmission system works through large cell towers that transmit signals over vast areas. The new 5G system uses small boxes that could be affixed to the top or the side of a building to transmit information faster over a shorter range. More important than the system itself is what is being transmitted which includes sensitive personal as well as business information about one’s company or controlling of devices within an organization including big machinery. Most importantly, is the transmission of sensitive government information about defense.  

The real fear here is that China could pull ahead of the United States on technology and innovation dominance. Also, due to Huawei’s strong ties to the Chinese government, US officials are concerned that these strong networks are built to gather information and effectively spy on the US government and the Americans. Traditionally China has been much more involved in its economy and its big companies sometimes owning big stakes in those companies.  They also require large corporations to provide information to intelligence officials.

US’ response was to pass a defense spending bill which barred federal agencies and the contractors they work with from using Huawei technology. This move could have significant financial repercussions for Huawei as the US government in their largest consumer. The Justice Department has also filed two lawsuits arguing that the company has violated U.S. sanctions against Iran and that the company has stolen intellectual property from T-Mobile specifically, but from U.S. companies.

In response, Huawei has retaliated with a lawsuit of itself accusing Congress of behaving unconstitutionally when it banned Huawei technology from federal agencies saying that Congress doesn’t have the ability to penalize a specific company when that company has not actually been found guilty of any wrongdoing.

5G is a network used globally and the whole world is pulled into this debate. The U.S. has mounted a really aggressive campaign to convince other countries that Huawei poses a serious threat. For instance, just recently, the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the U.S. could withhold intelligence from countries that use Huawei technology. Both Japan and Australia have taken strong stances against Huawei. However, A different reaction is seen across Europe. More specifically, Angela Merkel in Germany has publicly announced that she is not inclined to ban a company just because of the country that they come from. The European states do see Huawei as a threat, but their response isn’t an outright ban but a close monitoring of the company. Additionally, the reaction of the US is perceived as an effort to preserve their economic and technological leadership as opposed to an issue of national security. President Trump has actually suggested that the mentioned DOJ charges could be dropped as part of its trade negotiations with China. In other words, Huawei is a bargaining chip on the table.

What is highlighted here is how political these multinational corporations are. If there is a security issue at stake, how closely tied is Huawei to the Chinese government and why is the US government going to battle with a multinational corporation? Economics and politics have always been very closely tied and this example is the best depiction of how far governments are willing to go to preserve their trade dominance- in this case their technological innovation hegemony- or to use their companies as political agents to serve political goals.

Two readings, in particular, have caught my attention and I find them extremely relevant. We began the course with the study of realism and last week covered the concept of hegemonic stability theory.

Our earlier reading specifically focused on different strands of Structural Realism. Having only known about classical realism and the general components of realism, which includes self-interested motives in pursuit of power in an anarchic world, I had a hard time identifying with which theory I identified with. As I talked about in my first blog, my background as an Iranian girl, naturally drew me to realist ideas; That all countries are after their own self-interest and Iran, having been isolated for so many years from the global community, must also be in pursuit of military expansion and gaining more power. However, I also believe that a selfish anarchic system can only lead to destructive competition. I believe in cooperation but one that is done in the self- interest of a state. In fact, through cooperation, the interests of states are more easily achieved. Having had this view of politics, naturally, defensive structural realism was the strand that stood out to me the most. Another element that distinguishes defensive realists from the other strands is their stand on hegemony. Defensive realists are not in pursuit of maximizing their power as they believe it will put them at a greater risk. As the name suggests their approaches are more defensive and conservative in an attempt to reach their self-interest.

On the other hand, we discussed the concept of hegemonic stability theory which states that in the presence of a hegemon- Pax Britannica, the hegemony of Great Britain and Pax Americana, the current period of American hegemony- the world is more stable and is at peace. Being a realist I disagree with the above statement. Even though the world might appear to be at peace,  in my opinion, the absence of war does not necessarily bring forward peace.

In the world of today, countries go to war by destroying each other’s economy through sanctions, by isolating countries by forming exclusive coalitions and by engaging in proxy wars. Additionally, countries can still be in tension in the absence of war.

As the reading by Kobane suggests, the world does need leadership, however, I believe, that a single hegemon would not necessarily take this position, but instead would misuse their position in pursuit of their interest. There are many states in today’s world with different interests, some of which contradicts with that of American values. The United States cannot possibly act as neutral hegemon in pursuit of collective gains and world peace while maintaining its hegemony.

Additionally, it is very tempting for any individual- in the view of realism the state- with great powers, not to use their power for their personal gains. Intuitively, in order to remain powerful, they must be in pursuit of their self-interest rather than making sacrifices and engaging as the referee or the leader of the world. I argue that the United States hasn’t acted as a leader or a referee but more so as a strong state who is powerful enough to attain its goals and execute its plans.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!