Senior US officials have presented Boris Johnson’s government with a new dossier of intelligence challenging the UK’s claim that it would be able to mitigate the risks of adopting Huawei technology in its 5G network. The officials say it would be “nothing short of madness” to go ahead.
The technical information was put forward in a meeting between US and UK security officials on Monday, as Washington made a last-ditch effort to persuade Downing Street against striking a deal with the Chinese telecoms company.
There are growing expectations that Mr Johnson will decide in favour of allowing the use of Huawei equipment in some “non-core” parts of the network, with a final decision due later in January.
However, a US delegation that flew to London on Monday to lobby the government said allowing Huawei into Britain’s 5G networks would present a serious national security threat. One US representative who attended the meeting said “it would be like putting Russia in charge of anti-doping of world athletes”.
The delegation of six officials included Matt Pottinger, deputy national security adviser; Christopher Ford, assistant secretary of state for international security and non-proliferation; and Robert Blair, special representative for international telecommunications policy.
The UK security services have consistently said they believe they can protect the future 5G network from Chinese interference by using Huawei equipment only at the periphery, rather than the core, of the network.
But the US team brought an intelligence document containing “new technical information” showing that it would be harder than the UK thinks to secure the system.
“We wanted to make sure the new government had the benefit of all our insight, including some relevant recent information,” one official who was present at the meeting said.
“It’s the strong view and assessment by the US by a broad range of officials both political and professionals that any amount of equipment from untrusted Chinese vendors is too much,” the official added.
“Any amount carries the risk of compromising infrastructure, private citizens’ data and corporate secrets and sensitive information. It raises the question, why do any amount of business with people you don’t trust?”
The key concern in Washington is that the close relationship between the Chinese government and the nation’s companies means Huawei could in future be “asked, and indeed ordered” to spy on the UK on behalf of the Chinese state.
The US warning comes just as Andrew Parker, head of MI5, told the Financial Times he had “no reason to think” that the UK’s intelligence-sharing relationship with the US would be hit if Britain decided to adopt Huawei technology.
The US officials who came to London on Monday said they disagreed with that assessment. They added that Congress had introduced legislation requiring the administration to re-examine any intelligence-sharing relationships with countries that had adopted technology from untested vendors.
Blocking Huawei would be expensive for the UK telecoms sector and delay the rollout of new data technology in Britain. Beijing has also been putting pressure on Mr Johnson not to jeopardise the UK-China relationship.
Speaking at the Nato summit in London last month, Mr Johnson said the government was weighing the Huawei decision carefully: on one hand, he said he did not want to UK to be hostile to Chinese investment, while on the other, he was wary of disrupting intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US and other “Five Eyes” partners, New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
“We cannot prejudice our vital national security interests, nor can we prejudice our ability to co-operate with other ‘Five Eyes’ security partners. That will be the key criterion that informs our decision about Huawei,” he said at the summit.
Huawei said on Monday it was a private company “which has supplied 3G, 4G and broadband equipment to the UK’s telecoms companies for 15 years”.
“Last year two parliamentary committees concluded there is no technical reason to ban us from supplying 5G equipment,” a spokesman added. “We are confident the government will take a decision based on evidence — not unsubstantiated allegations.”
