Trump's Chinese Telecom Protectionism Always Seems To Be Lacking Evidence

from the facts-matter dept

If you hadn't noticed by now, the Trump administration has made blacklisting Chinese telecom companies one of its top priorities. That's been most notably exemplified by the administration's attacks on Huawei, which is repeatedly cited as an asset of the Chinese government without much in the way of proof. From pressuring U.S. carriers to drop plans to sell Huawei phones to the FCC's decision to ban companies from using Huawei gear if they want to receive federal subsidies, this effort hasn't been subtle. A harder, broader ban is supposedly looming in the wings.

There's no doubt that Huawei, like AT&T here in the states, isn't a shining beacon of ethical behavior. At the same time, the dulcet undertones justifying much of the blacklisting is based on the premise that the company spies on Americans on a massive scale. Yet nobody has provided evidence of that. In the slightest. In fact, one 18-month investigation into Huawei in 2011 (the last time we had a similar epidemic of hand-wringing on this subject) found that there was no evidence supporting that claim. As in, at all:

"We knew certain parts of government really wanted” evidence of active spying, said one of the people, who requested anonymity. “We would have found it if it were there."

Also ignored is that U.S. hardware vendors like Cisco have a very long history of trying to gin up hysteria on Capital Hill on this front among lawmakers who aren't too keen on, well, facts:

"What happens is you get competitors who are able to gin up lawmakers who are already wound up about China,” said one Hill staffer who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. “What they do is pull the string and see where the top spins."

Again, it's certainly possible that Huawei has spied on Americans, but shouldn't somebody actually provide the smallest bit of public evidence of that fact before we blacklist a company from the better part of a continent? Wouldn't we demand the same if the shoe was on the other foot? The UK and Germany have been skeptical of the US claims, noting they've also yet to see hard evidence proving the scope of the claims. As such, they've taken steps to tighten up security in general, instead of stumbling down the facts-optional protectionism rabbit hole.

Fast forward to last week when the FCC announced it would be banning China Mobile from doing business in the US:

"After a lengthy review of the application and consultation with the U.S. intelligence community, in 2018, the Executive Branch agencies recommended that the FCC deny China Mobile USA’s application due to substantial national security and law enforcement concerns that cannot be resolved through an agreement with the company (called “voluntary mitigation”). Notably, this is the first time the Executive Branch has ever recommended that the FCC deny an application due to national security concerns. Based on this recommendation and the full public record in this proceeding, I have determined that approving this application would not serve the public interest. At our May meeting, the Commission therefore will vote on an Order that would deny China Mobile USA’s application."

Given the Trump administration's relationship to factual reality, that it was the "first" to deny a telecom application on national security grounds doesn't actually mean anything. What was the nature of the identified threat? How severe was it? Where was it discovered? Can you provide the slightest shred of data supporting this claim? Even in redacted form? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Again, it's entirely possible China Mobile is a surveillance threat. But again, why not make at least some of that information public? The problem with the all-too-patriotic and unquestioning press and analyst repetition of these claims (and that is the general tone of US coverage) is that it opens the door to letting government and US industry disguise protectionism as national security. And when you press for evidence, those pushing the agenda hide behind government secrecy. Hopefully it's not too hard to see how this is a problem, or to understand that demanding a bit more (any?) actual evidence isn't really a steep ask.

But the press, oblivious to its own patriotism, tends to parrot these claims without much in the way of hard questions. Or without providing much meaningful context.

For example, you'd be hard pressed to find many stories on Huawei that mention that Americans are so happy to install poorly secured internet of things devices on their home and business networks, foreign intelligence organizations probably don't even need to own the core infrastructure. Or that there's an absolute universe of other Chinese-made hardware embedded in everything from your home router to your not-so-smart refrigerator we apparently don't seem nearly as perplexed by. Or that the United States engages in most of the dubious behavior we have routinely accused China of.

That the "US engages in much of this same behavior and probably shouldn't be giving lectures on surveillance ethics" isn't intended as whataboutism. There's a genuine problem at the heart of this issue: if the US press doesn't demand a factual, transparent public accounting of the Chinese surveillance threat, the door is opened wide to lobbyists eager to disguise protectionism as national security. Companies like Cisco, who simply don't want to compete with cheaper Chinese hardware, have been exploiting this dysfunction for years. And the press, with a few occasional exceptions, has been happy to lend a hand.

Filed Under: china, evidence, fcc, protectionism, telecom
Companies: china mobile