Wu Are We?

The struggle going on, inside the Tory Party, over the Wuawei decision, is not just about whether its a good idea to allow a company that is closely tied to the Chinese state to have a significant role in providing the UK's 5G infrastructure. That infrastructure is about more than just providing internet services. It is about the way a whole series of smart devices will be networked across the economy. What is really taking place, inside the Tory Party, with this debate, is a struggle over different visions of what Britain should be, and who it should be aligned with, in coming years. Ironically, being aligned with China is not one of those options. The opposition being mounted by Ian Duncan Smith, and others, is really about a group of right-wing Tory MP's who want to shift Britain into an alignment with the US, and away from its alignment with the EU. Their campaign to leave the EU, was part of that long-term strategy.

The argument over Wuawei is a bit facile. Let's assume that Wuawei, on behalf of the Chinese state, could use some back door in its hardware to bring the UK economy to a halt. Why would it do that? The truth is that the Chinese economy, and the Chinese state, requires the UK economy, as with the US economy, the EU economy and so on, to be functioning properly, and efficiently, because, on that basis, Chinese companies are best able to obtain markets for their products. If the UK, EU or US even goes into recession that means that the market for those trillions of dollars of Chinese exports dries up, which means less profits for Chinese companies, Chinese workers laid off, less taxes for the Chinese state, and social unrest that state has to deal with. Its true that, in time of war, there might be reason for China to take such action, but no such war currently exists, and there seems no immediate prospect of any such war between Britain and China. Britain has not even made more than polite representations over Chinese actions in Hong Kong, and no wonder, because Britain knows that it would have no hope of victory, on its own, in any conflict with China.

Moreover, looked at from the perspective of British workers, and Chinese workers, there is certainly no reason why either should want to see a war between their two countries, so why should we be concerned about a prospect for something that doesn't exist, and which we have no desire to see occur? Furthermore, Wuawei are providing 5G hardware, but everyone knows that, in the event of war, it will be cyber warfare that will be decisive. Having a back door into hardware may be an advantage, but the real cyber warfare will occur via the hacking of software, and that can occur whoever has provided the hardware and software. The US and Israel, for example, have several times, hacked the computer systems in Iran. Russia hacked the US computer systems in the run up to the 2016 Presidential Elections, and so on.

The other point raised is that China could use back doors in the hardware to spy on Britain and its people. Not only could it, but it almost certainly already does. But, the biggest culprit in that respect on a global scale is the US. Its US tech companies that provide most of the world's software. Its the US that controls most of the global satellite systems through which telecommunications traffic passes. We already know that the US has spied on, even, its supposed allies in the EU. Moreover, we know that our own states continually spy on us, as citizens. Most of that, in the UK, goes through GCHQ, in Cheltenham, and its offshoots. There is nothing new in that, only the means have changed. In the 1980's, my mail was opened and read on a routine basis, my phone was tapped, and so on. Special Branch had their own offices in various Royal Mail Sorting Offices, where they undertook such surveillance activities. Special Branch and the Secret Services had a huge payroll of informers, spies, agents provocateurs and stooges embedded in the labour movement, at the head of several unions, and in the Labour Party, for example. Special Branch had agents provocateurs embedded even in environmentalist and animal rights groups, as recent evidence has brought to light, with some of those involved even fathering children with some of those they formed relationships with, as part of their spying activities.

As socialists, or even just ordinary workers and citizens, we have far more to be concerned with in the actions of our own state, particularly the secret state than we do with the actions of the Chinese state, which is generally aimed not at us, but at the British state.

What the debate in the Tory Party really amounts to is a group of right-wing Tories who want to align with the US, and Wuawei is merely a manifestation of that. The truth is that the US is way behind Wuawei when it comes to this technology. Delaying would cause damage to the UK economy, particularly given that Wuawei is already firmly established in the existing 4G infrastructure. Other providers such as Nokia and Erickson are about three years behind Wuawei. But, this illustrates another point. Wuawei has been able to take a lead, because it has the resources of the huge Chinese economy behind it. China, given its later stage of development, also has a great incentive in development of wireless technologies, because it leaps over a whole stage of telecommunications development, making the requirement for land lines, and even cable broadband redundant. It has a huge domestic market into which it can sell this technology.

As European providers, Nokia and Erickson have a similar huge market into which to sell such technology, but the EU has an existing large scale infrastructure of telephone land lines, cable broadband, and existing 3G and 4G wireless networks. That is why it has been slower to develop the technology. It rather illustrates the point about Brexit. Britain could, theoretically, develop the technology required for such 5G networks, Britain has developed many new technologies in the past, despite its small size. The problem is that having developed the technology, its a different matter to develop it commercially. That is why, very often having developed such technologies in Britain, the commercial development of products, on the back of that technology, has gone elsewhere, where large domestic markets exist. Inside the EU, Britain itself had such a large domestic market, but outside the EU, it will not.

Duncan Smith et al know that, in reality, Britain will be forced, if it wants to retain that advantage, to essentially abide by EU rules, to accept the regulations of the Single Market, and so on. The problem, for them, of that, is that it will become pretty obvious, in short order, that Brexit was a sham, that Britain would have got the worst of both worlds. It would be forced to accept EU rules and regulations, but would have deprived itself of having any political input into the formulation of those rules and regulations. Hence they seek the shelter of the huge US economy.

The truth is that Britain has always had a half-in half-out relation to the EU. It has always acted as an agent of US imperialism, in relation to the EU. Inside the EU, it was inexorably drawn closer and closer into the European fold, and away from US imperialism. That is one reason that those who have always seen themselves as foreign representatives of US imperialism, in the UK, favoured Brexit, with the US under the Trump regime seeking to drive a deeper wedge into the relationship to the EU, a process that was already underway following the US pivot towards the Pacific. In fact, in many ways, Brexit makes life simpler for the EU. The UK was always like someone who, having got married, continually looked longingly out of their window, every time an old flame passed by. It never fully committed to its marriage with Europe, however much Europe tried to accommodate its various peccadilloes. Now Europe does not have to concern itself with appeasing British exceptionalism, and can speed up the process of centralisation and integration to form an EU state.

Outside the EU, and the more the UK makes overtures to the US, the more easily it will be for Europe to view Britain as an hostile power sitting on its border, much as currently it views Russia. But, that also poses a further problem for Britain, the more it goes down that route of affiliation with the US. Being 3,000 miles away means that Britain's relationship with the US could never be one like being the 51st state. Its never going to be the case that Britain will be one of those states, and have Congressmen and Senators, or the ability to stand a candidate for President, as it can currently in relation to the EU. Britain can't even have the same kind of relation to the US that say Canada and Mexico do, as the US's neighbours, where the citizens of each country could move freely across the border, back and forth, as well as a similar movement of goods. Britain can never establish Just In Time lines of production between it and the US, in the way it can with the EU, simply because the distances are too great.

Britain can ship components of, say, a car back and forth across the channel many times, but that could never happen with the US. The only thing that Britain would be able to ship to the US would be finished products, or components that would go into final assembly in the US, or NAFTA. If Britain attempts to tie itself more closely to the US, therefore, it will find itself having to tie itself to all of these US determined rules and regulations, and to arrange its production so as to meet the needs of the giant US economy. It will find itself in a similar position to the small back street engineering works that acquires what it sees as a lucrative contract from a huge business, providing maintenance for it, but which soon finds that it is now beholden to the large company for its existence, told what, when and how to produce, and at what prices it will be paid. In effect, Britain would be turned into a neo-colony of the US. And, as Wuawei demonstrates, it would not be just a question of complying with US rules and regulations in relation to goods and services that would be dictated to it. It would also have to toe the line with US foreign policy.

What the Wuawei debate is really about is who are we as a country. Are we the abused and dominated partner of the US, unable to escape its clutches, or are we still the partner of the EU with whom we have just been going through a bit of a rough patch, because we still hankered after the single life?