The Huawei issue and its impact on PNG

Huawei Technologies has dominated international headlines this week and for a few weeks now. The company has been accused of spying and defrauding. But the company and the Chinese government have both denied all accusations.

The news about the heads of US intelligence agencies warning American citizens not to use products and services made by Chinese tech giants Huawei and ZTE was reported in early 2018. Both companies have since been monitored very closely.

FBI Director Chris Wray was concerned about the risk of allowing any company that belongs to a foreign government who do not share similar values to gain positions of power inside the country's telecommunications networks. He said this will give them the capacity to maliciously modify or steal information. Furthermore, he said they will have the capacity to conduct undetected espionage.

According to Forbes, the company's CFO and its subsidiaries Skycom and Huawei Device USA now face criminal charges for bank fraud, wire fraud, violating US sanctions against Iran and conspiring to obstruct justice. This has affected the global image of the company.  

PNG should be concerned about the undetected espionage claim. In our interest to develop our capability to use information and communication technology to support our growth, we have contracted the aid of Huawei. The 5500 km network of submarine cables linking the 14 coastal towns will help make the internet accessible to many citizens.

In reference to the concern by Wray: should we continue to do business with Huawei? Should we believe the accusations made by Western spy agencies? Should we ban Huawei in PNG? Should we use our own spy agencies and research institutions to conduct an independent assessment of the issue to help us make a better decision?

If we want our own spy agencies and research institutions to conduct an independent assessment, then comes the question of capacity. At the moment, PNG's spy agencies and research institutions do not have the expertise and the resources to comprehensively assess what is happening and provide sound advice for decision making.

PNG cannot use the Foreign Affairs and Defence Parliamentary Committee. This important institution has not in the last few years conducted any form of investigation into any matter related to foreign affairs and defence. There is no detailed investigative report on their webpage as evidence of the committee fulfilling its mandated function.

Our universities and research institutions are under funded. They do not have the expertise to advice the government on a regular basis. More money is needed to build research capacity and fund research projects.  

As tax payers, we have no idea what the different spy agencies are doing. There is no report of them advising the government on security matters that are external as well as internal. In reference to the a series of uprisings; from the destruction of Chinese owned businesses in 2009, to the latest burning of a plane in the Southern Highlands, police intelligence and the national intelligence organization have failed to prevent such security issues.

Unlike in the US or Australia where the intelligence community has a voice. Our intelligence community is non-existent. They are rarely summoned by the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee to report about security issues. Also the Committee does not scrutinize the functions of our spy agencies.

The decision by Minister Duma to turn down the offers made by Western countries is based on principle. He said it is about honor and integrity, why should PNG allow other countries to patronize us. He did not give any facts or figures including academic arguments to nullify the accusation of spying.

The question now is: should PNG continue to use the Duma approach to make a decision on the future of the PNG-Huawei partnership? 

Since November 2018, many Western media outlets have portrayed Huawei as a sinking ship. Our neighbours, Australia and New Zealand, as part of the five-eyes intelligence alliance have both banned Huawei from providing 5G technology. 

Even though, Australia did not explicitly name Huawei. They made the statement that companies who are likely to be subjected to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government would no longer be allowed to provide 5G technology.

This leads to the point made by Michelle Greenstein of RT America in her discussion with Rick Sanchez. She said the US-led five-eyes intelligence alliance is working behind the scenes to contain Huawei in the interest of stunting China's technological development and breaking their lead in wireless communication technology. The 5G war is another dimension of the power-play between the US and China.

We have witness first hand another dimension of the power-play when we hosted the APEC summit. As the host nation, we were not able to issue the Era Kone Statement because one power did not agree with the wordings in a particular segment which criticized their trade practices.

The main point raised by Greenstein should be viewed with an open mind by our decision makers. Huawei is said to be the second-largest smartphone maker in the world which is Chinese owned. We also have Australia, our traditional ally, sitting on the other side of the fence. Thus, whatever decision we make will have an impact on one or the other.

We should now ask: is the Duma approach a win-win for PNG? Will Australia continue to treat us fairly if we decide to take the Duma approach? Will China blacklist us if we back-flip and run to Australia?

The Huawei issue could be a silver lining for PNG. We can take the Duma approach and continue to work with Huawei. But remind Huawei of the counter offer and pressure them to to build a high quality national broadband network for us. The national broadband network together with infrastructure projects from the "One Bridge, One Road' initiative could be catalyst for greater social development in PNG.