US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has again criticised the UK government’s decision to allow Huawei involvement in the construction of their 5G network, when speaking in London.

Speaking at the Centre of Policy Studies, Pompeo invoked the name of Margaret Thatcher, asking “would the Iron Lady be silent when China violates the sovereignty of nations, through corruption and coercion?”

This is in reaction to Theresa May’s decision to allow the Chinese company to aid the construction of ‘non-core’ parts of the 5G infrastructure. Some reports suggest the Prime Minister followed advice from a report published by the National Cyber Security Centre, an arm of GCHQ. It stated that Huawei’s threats to the future of the 5G network could be handled and minimised.

This decision has proven divisive, meeting strong condemnation and leading to the Prime Minister sacking Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson over a National Security Council leak.

It has also met staunch US criticism, as Pompeo said that his thoughts were “well known” regarding Huawei’s involvement, and urged the UK government to resist the company’s wishes.

He sees the attempt to intervene in the construction of the UK’s 5G network as an effort to “divide western alliances through bits and bytes, not bullets and bombs”, to use the infrastructure for political leverage.

Pompeo concluded by urging the UK to re-consider its position on the matter, as it threatens the ability to share vital intelligence within trusted networks to such partners as the US.

When receiving questions after his speech, Pompeo commented that the nature of Anglo-American economic and defence ties could be reconsidered if the UK pushes ahead with it’s plans for Huawei.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt remarked that the UK would never take actions or steps that would jeopardise intelligence dissemination amongst Five Eyes states (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand).

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

43 COMMENTS

  1. “as it threatens the ability to share vital intelligence within trusted networks ”

    There it is again. What networks? There are links between GCHQ and the NSA and doubtless the other agencies SS / SIS that do not run on public networks, which are separate WANs, apart from the public communications network.

    Where is it said that Huawei will be providing parts for these networks?

    The public 5G network is separate, is it not? So how does it threaten intelligence sharing?

    Why are HMG even considering Huawei? Is their kit cheaper? Better? Why is the UK not following other 5 UKUSA nations and other western allies?

    • @Daniele Mandelli – Its an American politician doing what American politicians do. Exaggerate a situation so they can project a threat. Nice friends to have that prefer threats to persuasion but this seems to be a Republican trait these days. As the article says the PM is only following GCHQ reports and recommendations on allowing HuaWei limited access to certain infrastructure and that would be ‘manageable’. This looks like the Americans saying ‘You do as we say to the letter!’.

      I am seeing a pattern here as we had Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing the rounds in Ireland and threatening the UK would get no FTA unless we did as the EU demanded over the Irish Border.

      Maybe Pelosi and Pompeo should remember that it is bad form for a foreign power to intervene in the internal affairs of another state. As Pompeo mentions Maggie maybe he should be reminded she would have told him where to put his ‘advice’. As she told Haig his predecessor in ’82.

      • I agree Chris, concerning the American attitude.

        I consider the threat to reconsider co operation to be hollow. GCHQ NSA are hand in glove, they would be equally damaged by any restriction, and they know it.

        Along with Pine Gap, their main oversees facility at Menwith Hill is on British soil, what would happen if HMG says stuff you then pack up and clear off. Same for Cyprus, same for Diego Garcia.

        Their own intelligence collection is damaged. Badly.

        The SIS has wider links in the Middle East than the CIA, due to our long standing involvement in the region. Case in point being the liaison with the Northern Alliance in 2001 in Afghanistan, when it was the SIS who had the connections, not CIA.

        They should have greater respect for an ally.

        That said, I remain extremely concerned though as American attitudes or not the UKUSA link up in the fields of Intelligence, Nuclear technology, submarine operations, stealth and wider aviation tech, and special forces is an absolute bedrock of UK security and I don’t want to see it damaged.

        Especially over some damned Chinese comms equipment most of the western world is rejecting on security grounds!

        Let us hope May does not wreck the special relationship as well, and both sides calm down with cool heads working things out behind the scenes.

      • I think your right on all those points Chris, but I cannot believe why HMG would even consider allowing the Chinese into our 5G system under any circumstances especially if the Pakistani municipal traffic camera allegations are true and the suggestion that certain equipment used in system / network testings are left inside control boxes by the company.

      • ‘Maybe Pelosi and Pompeo should remember that it is bad form for a foreign power to intervene in the internal affairs of another state’.

        Literally ROFL at this hypocritical screed.

        Britain has made a career in interfering in other countries internal affairs from Palestine to Cyprus by way of Czechoslovakia.

        • @ Iqbal – Palestine and Cyprus were not ‘interfered with’ at all. The British (and French come to that) became involved in both following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire after a war. Sadly this is what happens when countries go to war – one side loses.

          In the case of Cyprus after three centuries of Ottoman rule between 1571 and 1878 it was placed under the UK’s administration based on the Cyprus Convention in 1878 and was formally annexed by the UK in 1914. It was granted independence in 1960.

          And where on earth did the UK ever get involved in Czechoslovakia? Indeed many people criticise the UK for NOT declaring war when Hitler marched into that country and waiting until he invaded Poland referring to that inaction as the ‘Munich Betrayal’.

    • I think one of the problems is the interaction between the secure network and the public networks. Unfortunately, Government workers do not have a separate mobile phone network (land line – yes) so must using the public one. They can use encrypted phones to hide conversations and data. However, this still must be sent through the relay towers which work on a “pull, save, push” technique. So when you use your phone, your data is transmitted on one frequency to a tower then temporarily recorded to be rebroadcast on a different frequency to the next tower. This is where the risk is centred, as anyone can record the data as it passes through the relay tower and with time could break the encryption. Also at some point there will be a fixed hard line from the tower to say GCHQ which allows the mobile phone to connect to a email server etc, so again there’s a risk that the data can be recovered.

      I don’t believe that this is a wholly financial attack on Huawei (who have been significantly undercutting state providers by the way). It’s because Huawei have State oversight and to some point control. The State can at anytime demand access to their network. So in theory could gain access to data, or more importantly turn off the network.

      • Thanks Davey I did not know the details on the
        Interaction between mobile and GTN.

        Thank you. If true what the hell is HMG playing at?

      • And the point on state oversight is a good one, as our telecoms providers are also compelled to provide certain data to HMG.

      • Yes. Turning off the network with a hidden kill switch is a concern as is collecting data for later decryption attempts..

        Also, even if the encryption is solid, worthwhile intel can still often be gained from endpoint analysis, i.e. who called whom, how often and for how long. I don’t think that it’s widely known (but not secret) but much of Bletchley Park’s work before they could crack Enigma and other codes, and even afterwards, involved traffic (metadata) analysis. With more modern data mining techniques I suspect that more subtle useful traffic patterns might be detectable which could lead to actionable information.

        • Well GCGQ NSA do all of that already Julian so it stands to reason the Chinese can too.

          Which itself should be enough to preclude them from our infrastructure.

          I wonder if it will ever come to light just what HMG is playing at?

          • Not just “doing all of that already” – GCHQ, or rather its predecessors, have been doing it since the 1940s or even 1930s hence my reference to Bletchley Park! I was trying to add to DaveyB’s explanation of the various ways our networks could be compromised even without needing to crack encryption. The Chinese definitely can and I’m sure do do sophisticated analysis of metadata.

      • Thats illuminating and probably explains (which I only heard yesterday and have no details) that Vodaphone has already reportedly detected questionable activity in some of its European network regarding Huawei equipment. One presumes that it is not simply GCHQ et al where the fears lie (thats probably negligible no doubt) but far wider data movements involving all manner of companies and businesses working on both sensitive economic and most worryingly defence projects.

        As for why Huawei, the simple fact is that their technology is presently more advanced and cheaper than alternatives in terms of 5g rather like its difficult to find alternatives to Qualcomm silicon in both 4g and 5g in terms of silicon. Should be a big warning to us to not allow Chinese companies in particular, but not exclusively, to dominate areas of Hi Tech that we all need. Especially when the company was created by a prominent member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.

        • The incident you are referring to wasn’t the one Bloomberg reported, was it, where there was a supposed backdoor found in Huawei routers on the Vodafone network in Italy? I believe that turned out to be a Telnet-based remote debug interface used during development work that someone had forgotten to remove.

    • The 5G network will be part of the wider system. Yes there are separate secure communications for very important things but many MOD workers will be using public systems and any obvious weakness is a problem. Huawei is a danger in this respect as it has proven that it can not really be trusted on security. Many of their infrastructure devices have major flaws that are either put there on purpose or are due to a lack of good procedures. Either way they are a threat. Add to that the fact that all Chinese companies are required by Chinese law to aid attacks on Chinas enemies and it is probably a bad idea to let them do any infrastructure work.

      • Lee all above on point, but let me suggest you modify your last sentence to “very” bad… thank you.

    • Backdoor into UK telecoms is not a good idea. I’m not even going to join in the speculation as to why. Bad move. We elect our politicians to make sensible decisions based on security advise. I hope for all our sakes people are telling them and they are listening.

  3. Per my previous comments on this site – we will only be able to take a different path from our most important strategic partner for so long before they (rightly) begin to question the status.

    UK sides with Iran and EU against US
    UK side with Huawei and China, against the US and other 5 eyes participants

    We have a lot to lose here and pretty much nothing to gain…it’s a failing strategy driven by an ideology set hard in the FCO and Downing Street.

    • @bilythefish – So what if they question the ‘status’? We have nothing of which to be ashamed and are a major player in global Intelligence. But we cannot and must not buy friendship. And personally I trust GCHQ and the invisible people if they say limited use of HuaWei hardware is ‘manageable’ and therefore secure. They are the people who keep us safe every day of the year.

      One could also paint the picture as:
      * USA unilaterally breaks an International Treaty with the UK, EU and Iran
      * USA dictates use of HuaWei to its 5 Eyes partners as part of its trade war with China.
      * Australia and Canada follow the USA diktats over HuaWei to protect their own trade relationships with the USA

      Disagreeing with the USA is not a crime. Friends can tell each other there are other ways round a problem. Thatcher disagreed with Reagan often but Reagan and the USA respected us and our views unlike now with Trump and Republicans caring nothing for anyone but their image at home. Which they of course call ‘The World’.

      If they want to take their toys and play elsewhere let them and they lose a key global, experienced intelligence partner who gives them as much as they give us which comes with key intelligence sites across the globe. I am sure Mr Putin would be greatly pleased at the weakening of ‘The West’. But I would rather not be dictated to by some bullying nation which consistently screws up on the international stage and lose some intelligence. After all how do we know they give us ALL their intelligence anyway? I suspect Israel gets more and of a higher quality.

      Of course I also realise that Trump may just play hardball with the UK for his home constituency and the Special Relationship is over. So be it. We are mutually beneficial partners not the 51st State of the Union. But I suspect the majority of Americans would be appalled if he alienated their consistently closest and best and often ONLY ally when the sh*t has hit the fan.

      • I do think the US is correct on this one. The UK intelligence services have not said they think we should install Huawei equipment they have said that as long as it is limited then it is manageable. That does not fill me with hope as “manageable” means more work for our Security services as they will need to continue to audit the equipment more rigorously. Why bother when there are other suppliers that do not pose as high a risk?

        • I guess similar ‘experts’ of a different flavour advised that cladding of the nature on Grenfell was ‘manageable’ too. Problem with various British Governments and indeed other bodies they have been so often been proved wrong at a later date when the costs to the Nation have been substantially beyond any proposed savings. I don’t know if in this particular case there is real concerns or its US bluster for the most part just saying that I have little faith in anything our politicians and advisors claim especially in light of recent events.

          • Would be interesting to know who the alternative suppliers would be (American I wonder) and what the related costs and delays might be in this matter should we all look else where. I guess if all the West decided to stick together any delay would not impact on individual states that much if at all, the rest I can’t really make a guess upon. I do guess that Britain looking for post Brexit advances in Asia might might feel the risk more worth taking than many others. Not sure what Italys take is considering their frowned upon big deals with China in support of their Belt and Roads initiative.

      • Chris, all those comments are the basic description of the relationship with the US as it stands. I’s a deplorable situation for us to have withsucjh an ally, or be treated by them in this way. However, I just cannot imagine allowing the Chinese into more UK infrastructure, they are worse than the US by a massive degree. All those arguments are appropriate as to the Chinese.

        • @James Harrington – Well I am not sure we have ever had a ‘Special Relationship’ with the Chinese or indeed that we founded their country. That isn’t to defend what is a harsh communist regime but I just think we need to ask more questions about where this HuaWei ‘issue’ fits in the US vs China trade war Trump has initiated entirely for home consumption. Who has decided HuaWei is the threat it is? And if it is not secure for our use at low levels of infrastructure why have the security people (on whom the USA allegedly rely) found it to be acceptable? As usual people seem to fall in behind the American position as the perceived wisdom without considering that their may be other influences taking place.

          Trump (much as I defend his right to be POTUS) has proven to be a total liability on the world stage. Trade war with the EU that impacts on us, treaties with NAFTA and Iran just abandoned at will and insulting Tweets against its closest ally. But then the USA has never ‘done foreign policy’ very well since WWII and has proved quite capable of dropping international partners in the mire if it so chooses. Suez where they obeyed the Israelis and the Falklands where they batted for the Argies for example. I recall they invaded British Territory in Grenada and forgot to let the Head of State of that country and of their closest ally (HM The Queen) know of their intentions. Mind the 386th US Press Corps did a magnificent job setting up cameras on that beach.

          Americans generally are not too clued up about what goes on outside the USA and I say that with a friendly smile at my many American friends who say the same thing. The UK has always had a better and wider knowledge of world affairs and has deeper roots in most of the world. We just need to challenge the Americans on what this is really all about.

    • I read only the other day just how concerned other 5 eyes members are that New Zealand are getting into bed with the Chinese. The Canadians in particular that New Zealand unlike the EU and others refused to criticise China’ arrest of two Canadians in response to the Canadian’s arrest of the Huawei Chief Financial Officer on a US warrant. China is putting a lot of pressure on small vulnerable countries especially in the pacific and New Zealand has fallen for the bait of Chinese investment in the Country and its use for political influence thereafter. A little ironic therefore that New Zealand expressed concern about the leak from the UK National Security Council… or maybe not.

  6. Reminds me of the USA’s Suez Crisis blackmail. “Special Relationship” my arse!

    However, I do happen to agree with him NOT to use Huawei.

    So on balance, a neutral report 🙂

  8. The issue is wider than this network, China has an avowed aim to dominate the world using mercantilism, in the fields of both production and knowledge. Mercantilism is literally war by other means it’s as great a threat to the west as Russian nuclear missiles.

    If anyone thinks this is hyperbole just consider for one moment how a small island with a population of 30-40 million came to rule the greatest empire the world has ever known. It was not through military aggression and overwhelming military power( although military and political power had its place in the mix) It was through victory in the areas of mercantilism (overwhelming your opposition both economically and technologically).

    China has been deploying this play book for the past 20 years and the west (because of neoliberal “market supremacy” dogma) have been letting them get away with.

    I can’t tell you how much l loath and disagree with Donald Trumps politics on most levels, but he has one thing very right and that’s China is and has been in a state of war by other means (mercantilism) with the west for 20 years and we have almost let them win.

    If we support and continue to spend all our money letting them develop new technologies for us, destroy our own critical industrial base as we buy cheap from China, allow them to control our infrastructure and technologies we will be a client state of a totalitarian super power within one generation.

    We must actively manage China’s: systematic stealing of western IP, placing nations in economic and dept slavery, infuence in our universities and knowledge based infrastructure and all other critical systems to our states security and power.

    We of all nations should understand that power and domination does not always come purely from military power. We know what they are doing, it’s even enshrined in their laws.

      • Yes very interesting, it goes back to my point of how China is using the old British imperial handbook. Using private companies and capital, that in true are NGOs or arms of the state in all but name (a 21st century iteration of the east India company).

        The really sad thing is it takes a recipient nations ruling classes to be complicit for this type of mercantilism to really work. Britain would never have been able to rule the Indian sub continent through the application of military power (it would have required millions of men under arms), instead it ruled through the application of capital to gain consent of the Indian ruling classes who benefited in both wealth and security of position.

        It’s exactly what China are doing now.

        It’s very interesting to see how the present nation states are acting out many different historic models of geopolitical interactions at present. The most worrying lesson is that India was once the wealthiest (both as market and produce) power block on the world stage by a long way, but had significant political structural issues, military aggressive (but smaller) neighbours and (a long way from its own area of influence) the rise of (the then) most influential geopolitical power ever seen and master of war by other means (that was us).

  10. Is THeresa May of her rocker , no answer please. If our closest allies are fearfull then we should be too,
    This is the sort off decision that Corbyn would make not a Conservative Government. One despairs.

    • Corbyn, would be less likely to do this as he is not a neoliberal and is therefore not dogmatically required to buy the cheapest and follow the market even if it harms our nation.

      Not saying his other ideas don’t have dangers, but this one is most deffo a neoliberal stupidness not a communist one.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here