America is seeing threats behind every tree
- By Brad Franklin
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, October 11, 2012
The U.S. has been understandably jumpy since that fateful day when America was attacked on its home turf in September 2001. However, to suggest that Chinese high-tech firms making economic inroads into the U.S. pose a security risk is a bit of a stretch. This fear presupposes that the Chinese companies are in cahoots with the Chinese government to take part in some sort of attack against America. China's Foreign Ministry says no, and mounting evidence seems to support China's denial.
A House of Representatives report says American companies should avoid doing business with Huawei Technologies Ltd. and ZTE Corp., China's two leading technology firms, because they pose a national security threat to the United States. The report also advises U.S. regulators to block mergers and acquisitions with these Chinese companies, even though they are among the world's leading suppliers of telecommunications equipment and mobile phones. The argument is that the Chinese could load their electronic components with some form of spyware that, if used in government computer systems or other communications equipment in the U.S., could supply valuable espionage information back to China. The justification for this conclusion is that cyber-attacks from several months ago apparently had origins implicating Chinese involvement.
For starters, let's look at the committee's reasoning. The attacks they cite were real, and attempted to gain intelligence and business information from the U.S., and it may even be correct to say they originated in China. While incriminating at face value, these attacks have not been linked to the two Chinese companies named in the report. All that exists is a hazy underlying fear that the Chinese government may have had a hand in coordinating the attacks.
Cyber-attacks on various U.S. institutions that targeted government documents are known to originate in both foreign countries as well as within the continental United States. The hackers, as they're called, seem to do this simply because they can and their motives appear to be varied. To leap from this established understanding of cyber-espionage to quickly casting doubt on two successful Chinese electronics firms smacks a little of being afraid of the boogie-man under the bed. The boogie-man may exist and caution is prudent, but hauling out a big gun to shoot it is probably unwise.
I suggest that timing the report's release from the House Intelligence Committee has more to do with internal conditions at home than real threats from abroad.
The American economy, along with the financial situations in many other countries, is in rough shape. For that matter, China isn't doing all that well either with the World Bank having just downgraded Asia's financial outlook. However, there is an understandable tendency in the U.S. to circle the wagons when things go wrong, and raising the spectre of an outside threat is one way to divert attention from the real problem: people need jobs, businesses feel threatened and uncertain and no one is quite sure where the mighty American financial machine is headed. It is generally felt that things will get better, although the economy will continue to languish over the short-term, and having a convenient outside target for collective angst is useful.
This is an election year in the U.S., and China will welcome a new generation of senior leaders. More specifically, the relationship between the U.S. and China has become an election issue in the race for the U.S. presidency. Neither President Barack Obama nor challenger Mitt Romney is overtly suggesting that China poses an espionage threat, but Romney is making much of saying that Obama is not being tough enough on China over human rights issues. This focuses attention on American foreign affairs and China's growing stature in foreign policy. Pundits in the U.S. have opined that the real election issue is the economy, and the committee report ties the two together. It would probably be wrong to suggest that the report has been released in a partisan attempt to influence the outcome of the election, although it's interesting to note that there are 12 Republican members and just eight Democrats on the committee, and Mr. Romney is a Republican.
Speaking on economic issues, Romney has also made statements to the effect that sending jobs offshore by buying manufactured goods from China is not what he would do if he could change things. On its face that's a fair comment, although it conveniently ignores some economic realities. After all, we're talking about campaign speeches here. The committee report leaves out the economic benefits associated with having Huawei Technologies Ltd. and ZTE Corp. do robust business with the U.S. Certainly the Chinese companies would make money but Chinese acquisitions in the U.S. would also mean money and jobs in America, two things that the country badly needs. Several years ago the threat to the American economy appeared to come from Japanese car companies that were flooding the U.S. market with Hondas and Toyotas. Today there are huge manufacturing plants in America cranking out almost every type of Japanese automobile (Mazdas are still made in Japan) and using American workers who take home American paychecks to do it.
If America wants to guard against using foreign-made parts in government computers, that's one thing. If the government is being advised to block all activities by two successful high-tech companies just because they are Chinese is quite different. In the somewhat murky world of international espionage, nothing is ever very clear and many things are possible, but on this issue I think the U.S. needs to relax. The Chinese companies want to expand and make money. The U.S. should be reasonably protective but should be more interested in positive economic activity than frightened of the Chinese boogie-man.
Brad Franklin is a former political reporter, newscaster and federal government employee in Canada. He is a regular columnist for China's English Salon magazine and lives on Vancouver Island.
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)