US, top allies want change in political systems

After COVID-19, U.S. and Top Allies Want Change in Their Political Systems, Poll Shows

BY TOM O’CONNOR ON 3/31/21 AT 10:00 AM EDT

Majorities in the United States and top allies France, Germany and the United Kingdom want changes to their political systems after all four were consumed by the COVID-19 pandemic, a new survey has shown.

The survey, published Wednesday by the Pew Research Center and obtained in advance by Newsweek, showed that some 93% in France and the U.S., and 88% in the U.K. and Germany want some degree of change in their political systems, according to data gathered in November and December of last year.

Majorities among those in France and the U.S. sought dramatic action, with 47% in each calling for “major changes.” An additional 21% in France and 18% in the U.S. said their respective system “needs to be totally reformed.” Nearly half in the U.K. also chose one of the two more radical options as opposed to “minor changes” or “no change at all,” which was by far the least popular choice among the four countries polled.

“As they continue to struggle with a public health crisis and ongoing economic challenges, many people in the United States and Western Europe are also frustrated with politics,” an accompanying report began.

The authors went on to note there were “important differences across these countries’ political systems,” but they also noted that “the four nations also share some important democratic principles, and all have recently experienced political upheaval in different ways, as rising populist leaders and movements and emerging new forces across the ideological spectrum have challenged traditional parties and leaders.”

Photo france, protest

france, protest, global, security, law, paris

Protestors demonstrate outside the French Senate against the Global Security Law authoring the use of cameras, video surveillance, and drones by the police, whilst also restricting the filming of the police during their operations, on March 16. More than a fifth of French people think their political system “needs to be totally reformed,” nearly half say it “needs major changes” and almost a third believe it at least “needs minor changes.”


The U.S, which was surveyed at a particularly tumultuous time for national politics, immediately after major media outlets declared Democratic candidate Joe Biden the winner of the disputed 2020 presidential election, expressed particularly cynical views of the political system.

Those in the U.S. were the only population among those polled in which most, just over two-thirds, agreed that “most politicians are corrupt” in their country. Asked if “elected officials care what ordinary people think” did not apply to their nation, 56% in the U.S. agreed, second only to France at 58%, and above the U.K. at 52% and Germany at 32%.

The U.S. was the only one of the four countries polled in which a majority of the respondents were unhappy with their democracy. When asked if they were “satisfied with the way democracy is working in their country,” just under a third said “not too” satisfied and just under a quarter said “not at all.”

Among the three European countries, there was a significant difference in views toward democracy among those who were critical of or impressed by their country’s response to COVID-19.

Each group that felt their respective nation did a “bad” job throughout the coronavirus experience in France, Germany or the U.K. was mostly unsatisfied with democracy, and the opposite was true for those who believed their respective government did a “good” job handling the pandemic.

In the U.S., there was little difference. Both those who felt the country handled the pandemic well and those who thought the country did poorly fell under the halfway mark with respect to their satisfaction with democracy in the U.S.

U.S. respondents also stood out as the most eager to support the creation of “citizen assemblies where citizens debate issues and make recommendations about national laws” and to allow “citizens, not members of the national legislature, to vote directly to decide what becomes law for some key issues.”

These two ideas were popular among sizable majorities in all four countries, but the U.S. scored the highest in both at 79% in favor of assemblies and 73% in favor of referendums.

Nearly four months into 2021, the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in France, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. has offered prospects of a return to relative normalcy. But economic woes, social ills and political unrest remain serious threats to the stability of all four countries as their governments attempt to placate populations still reeling from a year of turmoil.

Source: Newsweek “US, top allies want change in political systems”

Note: This is Newsweek’s report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean whether I agree or disagree with the report’ views.

West warned to refrain from ‘big lie’ diplomacy on China’s Xinjiang affairs, Beijing Winter Olympic Games

Hyping ‘genocide’ rumor to politicize Winter Olympics a nasty trick: experts

By Yang Sheng and Cao Siqi

Published: Feb 23, 2021 10:32 PM

As some anti-China politicians in Western countries are trying to hype the “genocide” rumors about China’s Xinjiang to obstruct the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games, Chinese experts said if these attempts become the official stance of these Western countries, there will be serious consequences.

Western leaders should stop politicizing global sports event with a “big lie,” they noted.

Canada’s parliament passed a non-binding motion on Monday saying that China’s treatment of the Uygur people in Northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region “constitutes genocide,” putting pressure on the government of liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to follow suit, according to Reuters on Tuesday.

In fact, Trudeau and his Cabinet have abstained from the vote, AP reported.

The motion was also amended just before the vote to call on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to move the 2022 Winter Olympics from Beijing if “the treatment” continues.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at a routine press conference on Tuesday that China firmly opposes and has lodged serious representations to Canada against its motion.

“Facts have proven that there has never been genocide in Xinjiang. This is a pure lie concocted by anti-China forces, a ridiculous farce to smear China. Some Canadian politicians’ blatant politicization of sport violates the spirit of the Olympic Movement and harms the interests of their athletes,” Wang said.

There have been similar attempts or calls from politicians and “human rights groups” in some other Western countries to boycott or relocate the 2022 Winter Olympics, mostly members of the Five Eyes Alliance, such as the US and the UK.

However, in early February, Canadian Olympic Committee chief executive officer David Shoemaker said that a boycott would be the wrong approach, according to Reuters.

The US Olympic and Paralympic Committee echoed a similar position on Wednesday, saying they oppose boycotts because “they have been shown to negatively impact athletes while not effectively addressing global issues.”

Chinese experts said that those attempts made by some politicians in parliament or congress in their countries are yet to become the official government stance of Western countries, as decision-makers in the West understand how serious the consequence would be if they boycott the Beijing Winter Olympics. Those calls are an old trick that some Western politicians had frequently played in the past, especially when China or Russia held the Olympics. It is a political stunt to specifically attack countries who pursue different paths from the West.

Experts on Olympic issues pointed out that it is useless and ignorant for some Canadian politicians to call for a removal of the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics from Beijing as a possible replacement of the host city is decided only by the IOC and the city it would entrust, and apparently the IOC would never accept such a “ridiculous appeal.”

“Neither the IOC nor the national Olympic committees from any country would allow sports to be manipulated by politics. Such calls for a boycott or relocation of the Games will not be a global trend, as we saw by what happened to Russia’s Sochi Winter Olympics [in 2014],” Ding Bocheng, who participated in organizing the Summer Games in 2004 and 2008 and is a member of the team for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in Beijing, told the Global Times on Tuesday.

A boycott “cannot win the hearts of the public, sponsors, and athletes who see the Games as a chance to appreciate global competition, to expand brand reputation and to achieve professional achievements,” Ding noted.

No doubt, the absence of top-notch athletes from winter sports powerhouses, especially from the US and Canada, would impair the glamour of the Winter Olympic Games, which in turn will hurt these athletes, Ding said.

Don’t overestimate yourself

Lü Xiang, an expert on international relations at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, told the Global Times on Tuesday, “Anti-China conservative Western politicians need to understand that they have no right to decide where to hold the Olympics. They just arrogantly believe they can represent the international community.”

The motion passed by the Canadian parliament is non-binding, so the Trudeau administration needs to avoid being stupid. Canada’s anti-China politicians just played the same trick as Mike Pompeo (former US secretary of state in the Trump administration). It is “big lie” diplomacy, Lü said.

To groundlessly accuse China of “genocide” will never become a legitimate excuse for the boycott and would only make those who support the boycott more isolated, Lü said.

David Lampton, professor and director of China Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, expressed similar opinions in his recent article in the Newsweek headlined “Don’t Boycott Beijing’s 2022 Winter Olympics.”

The US was unable to get every ally to support its boycott of the Soviet Union’s Moscow Olympics in 1980. “Given the modern realities of Chinese global economic integration, today we can expect much more resistance to the boycott idea. Washington could well find itself the majorette for a marching band that is going in an entirely different direction,” Lampton said.

In 2008, anti-China forces like some Western politicians and Tibet separatists tried to play the same trick to boycott the Beijing Olympics, but eventually, they had all failed.

“Most major states will participate in the 2022 Winter Olympics… One key difference between now and 2008 is that today’s China feels much stronger diplomatically and economically than it did more than a decade ago,” Lampton said in his article which was published on the Newsweek website on February 16.

Lü said that in 2008, Western countries, especially the US, needed China’s help to overcome the challenge of the financial crisis, and now, the problems they have to face have created many more headaches than in 2008, such as fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and pushing economic recovery, so the West, which is in a big mess, has no reason and no strength to seriously offend China by boycotting the 2022 Games.

When Western anti-China forces use rumors about Xinjiang as a weapon to harm China’s interests, there is no effective way for China to stop them from telling lies, so retaliation is the only language that those liars can understand, Lü said, adding that pragmatic and wise Western leaders know how serious the retaliation would be if they use the lie of “genocide” to boycott the 2022 Games. “It would be like cutting off almost all ties.”

Never about Xinjiang

Some mainstream Western media like CNN cannot even correctly locate where Xinjiang is on the map, so the calls for a boycott are never about the human rights or the Uygur people. Chinese analysts said some Western countries are likely to use the calls as a bargaining chip to negotiate with China for compromises on other issues.

It is not a matter of human rights in Xinjiang, but more about not giving China a chance to stand out in the international arena, Peking University professor Zhang Yiwu told the Global Times on Tuesday. Zhang noted that “the Olympic Games is just a way out for the West to contain China by waving its flags of human rights and ethnic issues.”

Zhang said that the prosperous, stable and harmonious Xinjiang has debunked their smears, but China should continue spreading true stories about the autonomous region to the outside world and invite more politicians and journalists from other countries to visit Xinjiang so they can see for themselves.

Looking back at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, China and the Olympics had made each other better. The 2008 Games presents a democratic, open, civilized, friendly, and confident China to the world and China had emerged as a key player in international affairs, and particularly as a major presence on the global market.

Meanwhile, China hosted a “truly exceptional” Olympic Games, boosting exchanges and mutual understanding between the Chinese and other civilizations of the world. It encourages more than 1.3 billion Chinese to engage in sports with interest and passion, and give them an opportunity to help advance the Olympic Movement and promote the Olympic spirit.

“We believe that the IOC will make specific moves against the calls for a boycott or relocation and carry out its rules against any acts for political or ideological purposes; otherwise, the Olympic Movement may face an unprecedented crisis,” Zhang said.

Source: Global Times “West warned to refrain from ‘big lie’ diplomacy on China’s Xinjiang affairs, Beijing Winter Olympic Games”

Note: This is Global Times’ article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views.

PH thanks UK, France, Germany for rejecting China’s claim over South China Sea

By: Krissy Aguilar – Reporter / @KAguilarINQ / 05:50 PM September 18, 2020

Map showing the disputed areas in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea), including the Spratlys Islands and Scarborough Shoal. AFP FILE

MANILA, Philippines — Malacañang on Friday expressed gratitude to the United Kingdom, France, and Germany for rejecting China’s South China Sea claims before the United Nations.

Nagpapasalamat po kami sa mga bansang ito dahil hindi naman po mabubura iyong panalo natin sa arbitral tribunal na iyan na nagsasabi na wala pong legal na basehan iyong kini-claim ng China,” presidential spokesperson Harry Roque said in an online briefing.

(We are thankful for these countries because our victory in the arbitral tribunal that says China’s claim has no legal basis won’t be expunged.)

Despite this, Roque opposed anew calls to bring the sea row to the UN General Assembly saying the 2016 arbitral win is already “the victory” and “itself the act of being assertive.”

Alam kasi ninyo hindi naiintidihan ng marami na iyong desisyon itself is the victory, iyong pagkakaroon ng desisyon itself is the act of being assertive dahil kung hindi naman natin pinursue iyong desisyon na iyan, iyong kasong iyan hindi magkakaroon ng desisyon,” Roque said.

Black propaganda po iyan na mayroon pa tayong ibang dapat gawin, iyong sinasabi nila na dapat gawin sa UN General Assembly, puwede po iyan pero let’s be realistic. Hindi po natin mase-sway ang 197 member ng UN kung ang kalaban po natin ay Tsina dahil alam naman natin limited ang ating kakayahan,” he added.

(It’s black propaganda to say that we have to do other things, what they say that we should bring it to the UN General Assembly, that’s possible but let’s be realistic. We cannot sway 197 members of the UN if we are up against China because we know we have limited ability.)

China has consistently refused to acknowledge the 2016 ruling of the UN-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague UN has that invalidated Beijing’s nine-dash line claim, which encompasses even the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines. (This reblogger’s note: UN has announced that the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague is not a UN agency to deny the said court is UN-backed. If it was a UN-backed court, the Philippines might apply to the UN Security Council for imposition of the court’s arbitration decision.)

China’s reclamation activities and militarization in the heavily contested area have also raised concerns about the peace and stability in the strategic waterway.

Source: “PH thanks UK, France, Germany for rejecting China’s claim over South China Sea”

Note: This is’s report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.

UK Scared by China’s Rise Worrying China May Control Technology

I had a comment titled “To Counter China’s Rise, US Needs Japan’s Cooperation, Collaboration” on’s report “Four technologies Japan and the US should team on to counter China” yesterday, saying: “The U.S. and Japan need to expand their collaboration on defense technologies in the future, with a specific focus on four technologies that can help counter the rise of China, according to a new report released Friday by the Atlantic Council.” The report stressed four areas of cooperation: swarming technology; unmanned underwater vehicles and anti-submarine warfare capabilities; AI-enabled synthetic training environments; and counter-unmanned systems. All of them are military ones.

UK’s worries concern all technology whether military or civilian. On April 17, Reuters quotes in its report “West must do more to stop China buying up technology: former UK spy chief” former head of Britain’s MI6 foreign intelligence service John Sawers as saying: “I don’t think it’s an existential threat in the way the Soviet Union was in the Cold War but nevertheless there is going to be deep rivalry over control of technology, We have more to do in the West to make sure we are independent of China.”

Sawers said that due to a Chinese firm’s takeover of British semiconductor chip designer Imagination Technologies. He wants to stop China buying up strategic technology to make sure that the West is independent of China in technology. The US has already tightened control to make China unable to obtain technology from the US. Sawers wants all the West not only his country UK to do so. Such is West’s fear of China’s rise. No wonder the West has been doing its best to demonize and attack China in order to contain it.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Reuters’ report, full text of which can be viewed at

US, UK Agree to ‘Further’ Restrict Huawei, Defense Secretary Says

By Patrick Tucker March 5, 2020

But it’s not clear whether any actual changes emerged from Thursday’s meeting between the top U.S. and British defense leaders.

The United States and the United Kingdom have agreed to “further” reduce Huawei’s presence in telecom infrastructure, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said at a Pentagon press conference Thursday.

Esper described a lunch conversation with U.K. Secretary of State for Defense Ben Wallace on the subject as “candid,” without elaborating on what form the “further’ reduction would take. He highlighted the importance of the intelligence-sharing agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Five Eyes partners.

Opening critical allied networks to Chinese vendors that ultimately answer to the [Chinese] Communist Party could allow Beijing to access, disrupt, manipulate and misuse vital information, thus jeopardizing the integrity and strength of the NATO alliance,” he said.

Esper said U.S. officials want to work with the United Kingdom on “a way forward that results in the exclusion of untrusted vendor components for 5G networks” in the UK and elsewhere.

Both secretaries said their nations’ disagreement about Huawei was not over the nature of the threat of Chinese-manufactured telecom equipment, but about the best ways to deal with the threat.

The United States has pushed for an outright and total ban of gear from Huawei and other Chinese telecom providers.

The U.K. government has taken a less extreme position. While Huawei is banned from networks that the government considers to essential to national security, such as for government use or infrastructure, the government has allowed Huawei to take a position in the commercial market, a position capped at 35 percent of that market, with the ultimate goal of eventually cutting them out of the market entirely, a position Wallace referred to as “Ban, cap, and cut.”

The U.K. has a lot of experience probing Chinese telecommunications gear. In 2010, the government established the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre, or HCSEC, Oversight Board to better understand its threats to customer data and national security. Last March, the Center published a report that described “serious and systematic defects in Huawei’s software engineering and cyber security competence.”

It wasn’t immediately clear that the secretaries had reached any actual change in their relative positions during the meeting. The Defense Department and U.K. Embassy did not immediately respond to request for comment on the question.

Source: Defense One “US, UK Agree to ‘Further’ Restrict Huawei, Defense Secretary Says”

Note: This is Defense One’s report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.

US Helpless in Killing Huawei as Europe Refuses to Cooperate

CNBC says in its article “Trump official compares Huawei to ‘the Mafia’ as White House works on 5G battle plan” yesterday that as a senior US official denounced China’s Huawei as “the Mafia”, CNBC believes that White House has ratcheted up its war of words against Huawei. However as the official was not willing to disclose his name, it is difficult to determine whether what the article says is authentic.

However, the article is believable about Trump’s angry phone call with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the wake of the U.K.’s announcement that it would allow Huawei products in its 5G networks.

CNBC’s article is also believable about US New acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell’s suggestion that “the United States would cut off intelligence cooperation with Germany if that country doesn’t keep Huawei out of its telecommunications network.”

The war of words against Huawei seems formidable but is not effective as US allies would not do as the US tells it to.

Sorry, the US does not seem powerful enough to kill Huawei.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on CNBC’s article, full text of which can be viewed at

Germany Follows UK Not to Ban Huawei, Where Is US Leadership?

Financial Times says in its article “Germany’s CDU stops short of Huawei ban in 5G rollout” yesterday, “Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union has backed a strategy paper that could potentially curtail Huawei’s involvement in Germany’s 5G rollout by barring ‘untrustworthy’ companies deemed to be subject to state influence from the process. But the recommendations will disappoint the US by stopping short of banning Huawei technology outright. Ms Merkel, the German chancellor, has opposed any attempt to single out the Chinese telecoms equipment maker, preferring instead to tighten security requirements on all suppliers.”

In order to contain China, the US has tried hard to force its allies to ban Huawei with the threat of ceasing intelligence sharing, but like UK who has allowed use of Huawei equipment with some restrictions, Germany is unwilling to follow US leadership in containing China.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Financial Times’ article, full text of which can be viewed at

Angry Trump Now Helpless To Stop Huawei’s Stunning Victory: This Week Everything Changes

Zak DoffmanContributor

AFP via Getty Images

The diplomatic spat between Washington and London continues to spiral us into unknown territory this weekend, with the news that even President Trump’s personal plea to Prime Minister Johnson on Friday evening has not pulled the U.K. back from the brink of its decision to allow Chinese tech giant Huawei into its 5G network.

The Sunday Times reported on January 26 that “Trump’s anger” would cast a cloud over the U.K.’s Brexit week, and that the president had told Johnson “that giving a green light to the [Huawei] deal would be a grave threat to national security.” There was even a suggestion from the U.S. that the two countries might forge an alternative to Huawei. The U.K., though, takes the view that to do so would take too long.

With a U.K. Huawei decision expected on Tuesday, January 28, the intensity around U.S. and U.K discussions is only matched by the fierce debate raging within the U.K. government itself. Johnson’s more hawkish cabinet members are said to be furious at the prospect of being “bounced” into a pro-Huawei decision. According to the Sunday Times, one source sourly suggested that “Huawei is next week’s Chinese virus.”

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will make a last ditch attempt to sway minds in the U.K. this week, but sources close to events believe this is a now a done deal. There is even talk of a choreographed announcement on Tuesday involving Huawei itself. One would imagine that such a spectacle would be highly incendiary to the U.S.

Writing in the Sunday Times, British MP Bob Seely, a candidate to head the foreign affairs select committee, warned that the country may “regret our refusal to say ‘no way, Huawei’,” adding that he fears that “by the time we see the real cost, in the decades to come, it may be too late.”

On Friday, it was reported that Trump’s immediate riposte to Huawei, to significantly tighten sanctions against the company to damage its supply chain further has been thwarted by the Department of Defense, the argument being that such a move would damage U.S. industry and innovation. This led to an angry challenge from leading senators who suggested to the Pentagon that U.S. companies contracting with Huawei was akin to the same being down with KGB subsidiaries during the Cold War.

Now another letter has now been crafted from U.S. senators, this one directed at the U.K.’s National Security Council. The letter says that the Huawei decision is linked to the special relationship between the two countries. While specifically pulling back from trade agreement or intelligence-sharing threats, Senators Rubio, Cotton and Cornyn urge the U.K. to “make the right decision on Huawei,” which they stress would be “in the best interests” of that relationship.

It remains unclear what will actually happen on Tuesday if the U.K. does not take a last minute U-turn on Huawei. Spooks on both sides of the Atlantic are divided as to the actual risks and the practical application of any change to security alliances. What will be more of an immediate issue is other countries around the world, all of which are less capable than the U.K. of mitigating any Huawei risks, using the U.K. decision as an excuse to defy U.S. warnings. If it’s good enough for Washington’s closest ally, they will argue, it’s good enough for us.

Johnson remains in a bind on the issue. It is tricky for the U.K. to completely backtrack on Huawei without incurring significant cost and delays to the critical 5G rollout. At the same time, if he is seen to kowtow to Washington against the advice of his officials, it will play badly domestically—there is no popular uprising in the U.K. against Huawei. And so, it is likely that Johnson is taking a Brexit-like “let’s just get it done,” after which reparations can be made and political concessions offered.

And so all eyes are on what happens post-Tuesday, when absent any last minute shock, the U.K. will confirm the inevitable. Months of lobbying and wrangling will come to an end—at which point the real work begins as everything changes. Much of this work will be political, and the U.S. will need to be seen to act in some capacity to back up the risks they have raised and the mitigating actions they have threatened.

Whether there is any security or trade deal hangover from these events will be the subject of intense speculation in the coming weeks. While it is unlikely to scupper a trade deal, one can assume some impact. For the U.S., such as been the intensity of its lobbying that it cannot simply roll over on the issue—that would undermine its case. But any action could well be limited to the optics around security arrangements and need not interfere in anything commercial.

For the U.K., with the security issue settled other issues will come to the fore. Chief amongst these will be Huawei’s work in Xinjiang, where its technology forms part of the surveillance programs subjugating the Uighur minority. If the U.K. decision turns up the political heat on Huawei to face up to Beijing and back away from all such involvement, then at least something good will have come from this protracted process.

Source: Forbes “Angry Trump Now Helpless To Stop Huawei’s Stunning Victory: This Week Everything Changes”

Note: This is Forbes’ article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views

Johnson will defy US and allow use of Huawei, says top security adviser

Chinese firm poised to help build UK’s 5G phone network despite warnings about spying

Michael Savage

Sat 18 Jan 2020 22.05 GMT

Boris Johnson is likely to approve the use of Huawei technology in the UK’s new 5G network against the pleas of the US government, a former national security adviser has said.

Sir Mark Lyall Grant, who was Theresa May’s national security adviser, said that the security services had repeatedly concluded over several years that they were able to mitigate any potential threats posed by the Chinese technology.

The US has warned the British government it “would be madness” to use Huawei technology and senior Washington officials have said numerous times that the Trump administration would reassess intelligence sharing with the UK in light of such a move.

However, UK security figures dispute the claim and Britain has already used some Huawei technology in previous mobile networks. A final decision is expected later this month.

Lyall Grant told the Observer: “This has been gone into now by three different administrations, and I think the outcome is quite likely to be the same – that the intelligence agencies are expressing confidence that they can sufficiently mitigate any potential security threat to allow Huawei to continue to provide at least the non-core telecommunications equipment for 5G rollout. The government has developed an oversight mechanism which they are confident will work.

Combine that with the fact that Huawei has more advanced technology than the alternatives, I think it is relatively likely that Boris Johnson will come to the same conclusion.”

Two of Britain’s biggest telecoms companies, BT and Vodafone, are understood to be drafting a letter to Johnson, setting out their support for Huawei’s involvement in 5G.

Last night, a senior Huawei executive, Victor Zhang, said there was simply “no justification” for banning the company on cyber security grounds.

After looking at the facts, we hope the government agrees – so that our customers can keep the UK’s 5G roll-out on track and meet the prime minister’s promise of gigabit connectivity for all,” he said.

Giving Huawei the go-ahead to continue supplying equipment will mean telecoms companies have access to the best technology and the breadth of suppliers they need to build secure, resilient and reliable networks.”

The dispute was a sign that Britain would be repeatedly asked to take a side in disputes between the US and China, Lyall Grant added. “The interesting thing about Huawei is that it is the first, but by no means the only issue on which the risk is over the next decade, we are going to be pressured to choose,” he said. “And that is a choice that on some issues the UK government is not going to want to make.”

Source: The Guardian “Johnson will defy US and allow use of Huawei, says top security adviser”

Note: This is The Guardian’s article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views.

Britain’s ARM to continue supplying chip technology to Huawei

October 25, 2019 / 4:57 PM / Updated 9 hours ago

SHENZHEN, China/BEIJING (Reuters) – Chip designer ARM will continue to supply Huawei Technologies after the British company’s legal team ruled that its chip technology is of UK origin and would not breach U.S. restrictions on supplying the Chinese tech giant.

Huawei, the world’s No. 2 smartphone manufacturer, uses ARM blueprints to design processors that power its smartphones.

In May, ARM, owned by Japan’s SoftBank Group Corp, halted relations with Huawei after the United States all but banned American companies from doing business with it, disrupting Huawei’s ability to source key parts.

While Huawei was granted a reprieve until November, it remains set to lose access to some technology next month. ARM’s continued supply of chip technology to Huawei’s fully-owned chipmaker HiSilicon will ease the pressure it faces.

Huawei’s proprietary chips such as Kirin 990 mobile processors and Ascend 910 AI chipset are built on ARM’s design architecture and considered a major hallmark of the Chinese firm’s attempts to reduce its reliance on U.S. technologies.

ARM’s v8 and v9 are UK-origin technologies,” an ARM spokeswoman told Reuters via email on Friday.

ARM can provide support to HiSilicon for the ARM v8-A architecture, as well as the next generation of that architecture, following a comprehensive review of both architectures, which have been determined to be of UK origin.”

FILE PHOTO: Huawei’s newly launched Taishan series of ARM server, powered by the new Kunpeng chipsets is seen during a launch event at the Huawei’s headquarters in Shenzhen, Guangdong province, China January 7, 2019. REUTERS/Sijia Jiang

The U.S. government alleges that Huawei is a national security risk as its equipment could be used by Beijing to spy. Huawei has repeatedly denied its products pose a security threat.

Huawei’s results published last week showed the company’s revenue remains resilient in the face of the U.S. ban, with revenue for the first nine months of this year growing 24.4% to 610.8 billion yuan.

It is unclear whether the U.S. ban will affect ARM’s chip architecture designs beyond its next generation of the Arm v8-A.

Arm is actively communicating with department officials regarding any support of our partner HiSilicon, and we remain confident we are operating within the parameters of those guidelines,” the spokeswoman said.

Reporting by David Kirton in Shenzhen and Yingzhi Yang in Beijing; editing by David Evans

Source: Reuters “Britain’s ARM to continue supplying chip technology to Huawei”

Note: This is Reuters’ report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.