イギリスが5GでHuawei製品採用へ 米国の目論見が崩壊

中国包囲網が崩れたのではなく、米国の目論見が崩れた。米国、オーストラリア、日本が世界から孤立した(笑)。対抗する製品を持たない日本は、これから何をしてくれるのか。6Gなら勝てるのか。

トランプは、Five Eyesからイギリスを追放するとか言っていたが、イギリスを追い出すことによって米国側が受ける損害が大きい。できるものなのかどうか、拝見させていただきましょう。



英、ファーウェイの5G参入容認 米主導の包囲網崩壊
1/28(火) 21:23配信
時事通信
https://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20200128-00000128-jij-eurp

 【ロンドン時事】英政府は28日、中国通信機器最大手・華為技術(ファーウェイ)による次世代通信規格「5G」網への参入を容認することを決めた。

【図解】華為技術(ファーウェイ)の日本からの調達額

 非中核部品などに限定する。米国は機密情報が盗まれるとの懸念から同盟国にファーウェイ製品の排除を求めてきたが、「特別な関係」にある英国の離反で包囲網は事実上崩壊した。

 英国は米国などと諜報(ちょうほう)機関の情報を共有する同盟「ファイブアイズ」を構成している。米国は英国に対し、ファーウェイの参入を認めた場合は情報共有を制限すると示唆してきた。今回の決定で英米関係にきしみが生じそうだ。

 モーガン英デジタル担当相は「われわれは世界最高レベルの通信網をできるだけ早く構築しなければならないが、安全保障を犠牲にはできない。これは英国固有の理由による固有の解決策だ」と説明。ファーウェイを完全に排除すると5G整備が停滞するとの懸念を示唆した。 



米高官、英のファーウェイ容認に「失望」
1/29(水) 9:59配信
産経新聞
https://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20200129-00000515-san-n_ame

 【ワシントン=黒瀬悦成】トランプ米政権高官は28日、ジョンソン英政権が次世代通信規格「5G」のネットワークに中国通信機器大手、華為技術(ファーウェイ)の製品を部分的に使用することを決めたことについて「英国の決定に失望した」と述べた。

【表】ジョンソン英首相を悩ます対米関係の課題とは

 トランプ大統領も同日、ジョンソン英首相と電話で会談した。ホワイトハウスは「通信網の安全確保策」などについて協議したとしており、トランプ氏が華為製品の使用を撤回するよう要請した可能性がある。

 米政権高官は「5Gネットワークのいかなる部分であれ、信用の置けない業者の管理下に置くことは安全な選択肢ではない」と指摘し、安全保障の観点から華為製品を排除すべきとの考えを改めて示した。

 また、「信頼できない業者の製品を5Gネットワークからどう取り除いていくのか、英国と一緒に取り組んでいきたい」と強調。その上で「信頼できない業者が5Gに参入することによる、長期的な安全保障および経済への影響を精査するよう、引き続き各国に促したい」と表明した。

 ポンぺオ国務長官は29、30日にロンドンを訪れ、ジョンソン氏やラーブ外相と会談する。華為の5G参入問題が主要議題の一つとなるのは確実とみられる。

 欧州ではドイツも華為製品の導入を事実上認めるなど、華為の参入を受け入れる国が拡大しつつある。



'We know more about Huawei than the NSA does': Why Boris Johnson defied US hawks to take a risk on 5G security
Gordon Rayner, Political Editor
28 January 2020 • 9:00pm
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/28/know-huawei-nsa-does-boris-johnson-defied-us-hawks-take-risk/

We have never trusted Huawei.”

Not the words of Donald Trump or one of his advisers, but a comment today from Dr Ian Levy, technical director of Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre.

Yet Boris Johnson decided on Tuesday that the potential risk to national security posed by the Chinese telecoms giant was outweighed by the estimated £126 billion boost to the economy from allowing it to build 5G infrastructure.

One of his first acts as Prime Minister had been to review Theresa May’s decision to give Huawei the green light, but almost a year later he came to the same conclusion: in order to push on with 5G and maintain Britain’s competitive edge, there was no alternative but to use Huawei.

The final decision was confirmed in an 80-minute meeting of the National Security Council on Tuesday morning, at which ministers and intelligence chiefs once again rehearsed the arguments for and against.

Such senior figures as Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, and Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, had warned Mr Johnson during previous meetings of the NSC that the risks were too high. Senior Tory MPs had told Mr Johnson that he was “letting the fox into the hen coop” and would rue the day he gave Huawei the go-ahead.
Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace (L) and General Sir Nicholas Carter (R) leave Downing Street after attending the National Security Council meeting convened by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to finalize the decision on the role of Chinese technology company Huawei
Ben Wallace and Sir Nick Carter leave today's National Security Council meeting. The PM decided the risk from Huawei was manageable Credit: Barcroft Media

Donald Trump and senior members of his Cabinet told Mr Johnson to block Huawei, with dark mutterings about intelligence-sharing being at risk.

Others rattled off lists of all the countries that had already banned Huawei, including the US and Australia, both “five eyes” partners in Britain’s intelligence-sharing network with English-speaking nations.

Mr Johnson, however, argued that Britain’s position was different from any other country, thanks in part to its superior intelligence agencies.

“The fact is, GCHQ knows more about Huawei than America’s National Security Agency,” one Whitehall insider told The Telegraph. “We can manage the risk; other countries can’t.”

Mr Johnson’s view that Britain should go ahead with Huawei was cemented by a phone call last Friday night with President Trump, during which the two men discussed working together to build an alternative 5G network that did not use Huawei.

The Telegraph understands that Mr Trump was less hawkish on the issue than some of his Republican colleagues.According to one source in the US, Mr Trump has never been the one to raise the issue of Huawei in any discussion with the PM.

One of Mr Johnson’s trump cards in his arguments with his own ministers and backbenchers was the so-called “Banbury cell”, a secretive building in Oxfordshire where Huawei’s hardware and software technology is tested to destruction at the Government’s behest.

Officially known as the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC) it is overseen by Ciaran Martin, chief executive of the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), who also sits on the board of GCHQ.

Every new piece of technology and every software programme brought to the UK by Huawei is pulled apart there, and any company wanting to use Huawei products in its mobile networks can run tests there to mitigate risk.

“We know more about Huawei’s products than Huawei does,” said one official today.

Despite the NCSC classing Huawei as a “high risk vendor”, Mr Johnson was swayed by the argument that a ban would be disastrous for the Government’s long-term economic plans. Whitehall insiders say Mr Johnson’s decision was founded on his unshakeable belief that the key to improving Britain’s economy is increased productivity, which in turn relies on reaping the benefits of 5G and full fibre broadband.

“Everyone knows that productivity in this country is terrible compared to our competitors,” said a senior Whitehall source.

“The only way to address that is by utilising artificial intelligence to increase efficiency and improving connectivity throughout the country so that no area is left behind.”

Banning Huawei would also leave the 5G network entirely reliant on two suppliers, Nokia and Sony Ericsson, which would have carried its own risks. One source close to the discussions said: “The problem is that if you have just two companies supplying everything, and one of those companies is the subject of a cyber attack or its hardware proves unreliable, half the network will go down.

“You need at least three suppliers to ensure the network is robust and resilient, and at the moment there are only three suppliers, meaning we have to let Huawei in.

“The answer to all this is not to ban Huawei, it’s to work to find alternative suppliers who can take Huawei’s place in the market who are not deemed high risk vendors.”

America’s emerging 5G network works on different frequencies than the UK’s, meaning that firms approved by Washington do not yet make equipment that would work in the UK.

Huawei’s hardware, such as antennae and masts, already accounts for 34 per cent of the UK’s embryonic 5G infrastructure, and ripping it all out would delay the national rollout of 5G by up to three years, Mr Johnson has been told.

Downing Street said an immediate ban on Huawei would also cost the economy as a whole “tens of billions” in lost productivity - money the Prime Minister was not prepared to forego.

“We have been left behind in the past when the East has led the field in technology and the West has had to play catch-up,” said a source close to the Prime Minister. “We can’t let that happen in this case.”

Balanced against the prize of increased productivity were the well-publicised dangers of allowing 5G infrastructure to rely on a company that could be used as a Trojan horse by the Chinese government to spy on Britain.
5G network technology explained

Mr Johnson’s response was twofold: firstly, the Government will pass a law to impose a cap of 35 per cent on the proportion of “non-core” 5G equipment built by Huawei, to come into force in three years’ time.

Secondly, he assured the US that Britain would work with its transatlantic ally to find new, trusted suppliers who could in time replace Huawei completely.

“We have said to the President, let’s put our brains together on this,” said one Government source. “We think there is an opportunity for a partnership here.”

Security sources insisted on Tuesday that despite the warnings coming from the US, no security chiefs in allied countries have threatened to downgrade intelligence-sharing, partly because the 5G network plays no part in the way top secret messages are relayed between countries.

Huawei will also be banned from placing masts near “sensitive sites” such as military bases and nuclear facilities.

Even though Huawei will have no access to data passing through its hardware, security advisers have told Mr Johnson that if hundreds of mobile phones suddenly converged on a military base, that in itself would be useful intelligence to a hostile power.

Mr Levy said today: “We’ve never ‘trusted’ Huawei and artefacts like the HCSEC exist because we treat them differently to others.

“Nothing we do can entirely remove risk in any telecoms network. Our intent is to get the risk down to an acceptable level.”

サウジが欧州在住イスラム過激派への金融支援停止を発表

金融支援停止をわざわざ決めて発表している当たり、世界に迷惑を掛けているイスラム過激派の中核がサウジアラビアのワッハーブ派であることを自白したも同然なのだが(笑)、まずスイスから実行し、周囲のEU諸国に適用する方向性。アジア・アフリカ諸国への内政干渉を素直に止めるかどうかは、長期間観察する必要がある。



Riyadh Stops Funding Foreign Mosques: 'Turning Point in Fight Against Islamism' - Geopolitician
Opinion
05:00 GMT 27.01.2020
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/202001271078141974-riyadh-stops-funding-foreign-mosques/

The Secretary-General of the Muslim World League has announced that Saudi Arabia will no longer fund mosques abroad. It’s quite a surprising announcement given the millions of dollars already invested in this policy of influence. Will Saudi Wahhabism turn into a franchise?

To say the least, this is surprising news for the Western world. Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Issa, former Saudi Minister of Justice and Secretary-General of the Muslim World League has announced that Saudi Arabia will stop funding and influencing mosques abroad. This is primarily about Switzerland, but other countries will also be affected by this change in policy.

“The same measures will be taken around the world. In every country, there will be a local board of administration set up in coordination with the national authorities. This is necessary, for example, for security reasons. We should ensure that the mosques end up in safe hands. Then we will no longer intervene”, the Secretary-General of the Muslim World League told the Swiss newspaper Le Matin du Dimanche.

The decision may seem contradictory to the foreign policy course so far pursued by Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the funding of Muslim communities abroad has long been one of Saudi Arabia's most effective soft power. There are mosques funded by Riyadh in every country with Muslim communities, even those with small numbers.

What motivated this sudden development? Are we witnessing Saudi Wahhabism turning into a type of franchise? Have the Saudi elites decided to change their image and abandon their influence and funding programmes for mosques abroad?

Alexandre Del Valle, professor of geopolitics and international relations, and author of several works on political Islam has shared his views on the matter. In 2019, together with Emmanuel Razavi, he recently published a book on the Muslim Brotherhood called “The Project”.

Sputnik: How should we interpret this news? Is it part of some geostrategic calculation?

Alexandre Del Valle: I think that this news, if it is true, is extremely interesting and revolutionary; and it could be a turning point in the fight against Islamism on a global level. But we must be sure that this is true. There are signs indicating that Mohammad bin Salman, despite his very authoritarian behaviour, as we saw in the case of Khashoggi, wants to limit Wahhabism to domestic use. By doing this, he wants to modernise the country by separating politics and religion a little more, even if it’s impossible to separate them completely.

It’s impossible to modernise a country if they teach you at school that the Earth is flat. He has realised that the Wahhabi ideology is a problem for the world, as well as Saudi Arabia itself, because adherents to this ideology often turn against the Saudi elite. Saudi Arabia is one of the countries most affected by jihadism. The Wahhabi jihadists they were sending abroad have turned against their own creator.

I also believe that this news is part of the strategic alliance between the United States and Saudi Arabia. We can blame Donald Trump for a lot of things, but he is the first president since the Quincy Pact of 1945 to extend the agreement with the Saudis, but with a condition to stop funding radical Islamism abroad.

Sputnik: By doing this, are they not planning to create a franchise to spread their influence in Muslim communities? This funding has long been a form of Saudi Arabia’s tool for spreading ideological influence…

Alexandre Del Valle: It’s a possibility, but you have to be careful here… I personally have been talking about this for a long time. We shouldn’t discount the possibility that the virus could become independent, as in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, who operate in France without the Egyptian organisation's approval. Nonetheless, I don’t think this decision fits into this scheme.

It should also be remembered that bin Salman is very much influenced by Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyane, an influential figue in the UAE who is on a crusade against political Islam in the world. Today, some Arab countries apply only a portion of Sharia law at home; they realised that their political-religious proselytism has become a source of conflict with the rest of the world. We see it in India, China, Thailand, and Myanmar…

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said that “if you continue to teach radical Islam, you will go to war with the non-Muslim part of the world".

I think there is an awareness of this phenomenon in several Muslim countries. Moreover, I think that this myth about the caliphate scares many Arab countries, who don’t want to see their borders disappear and be diluted in an Islamic caliphate.

Sputnik: Whose influence will the Riyadh-funded mosques in France fall under?

Alexandre Del Valle: I don’t think there is anything worse than the Salafism of the Muslim World League. When Saudi Arabia funded Islamic proselytism throughout world, which it still does a little bit, it was not just Saudi orthodox Islam. We are talking about the Salafism of the Hanbali school, the founder of all Sunni Islamists, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Hanbali is the most radical, militant, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, and the most imperialist version of Islam.

So it’s bound to be good news if Saudi Arabia doesn’t interfere in religion in other countries. Of course, the Turks will want to take their place, but it won’t be worse than Salafism. It’s now up to Europeans to fill this void and create a European Islam. This is not a fiction. There are examples of it: in Austria, Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood are banned. In 2014, Austrian centrists decided that imams should be patriots, and now they swear allegiance to Austria; in this country, Islam has abandoned its political aspect. It’s not the Saudis, but European governments that will be to blame if radical Islamists fill this void.