What David Cameron said about Huawei 'inconceivable' says former intelligence committee chair
EXCLUSIVE
The former chair of Australia’s parliamentary Intelligence Committee has questioned the claim by the UK’s foreign secretary David Cameron that the advice on the security risks posed by Huawei radically changed after he left Number 10.
Cameron, who won office in 2010, quit as UK prime minister after losing the Brexit referendum in 2016.
His other foreign policy legacy was to oversee a so-called Golden Era of British-Sino relations in which the Chinese were actively encouraged to increase trade and investment with Britain, including in critical infrastructure, namely the nuclear energy and mobile systems.
In November, his protégé, Rishi Sunak - the UK’s third Prime Minister since Cameron’s exit - named his mentor as Foreign Secretary in a move that stunned Westminster and foreign policy watchers worldwide.
Making his first appearance at the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee since being returned to the Cabinet table, Cameron was questioned by MPs about his record on China and the contentious decision to invite Huawei to integrate further into the next generations of mobile networks.
“On Huawei, look it was difficult, it was one of the few things that after leaving office I actually asked for a sort of, proper briefing about because the advice changed quite radically, from about 2015 to 2017/2018” he told MPs.
“So I wanted to understand what changed, perhaps we might need a more private session to go through that.”
But Anthony Byrne, the former Labor MP and Chair of the Australian Parliament’s Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, said Cameron’s assertion was not credible given the Australian government first banned Huawei on security grounds in 2012.
Some reports date the original decision was taken as early as 2010, with intelligence officials fearing that the Chinese equipment could act as a Trojan Horse, allowing the Chinese Communist Party the ability to control critical infrastructure, as well as collect data and intercept communications.
Huawei has always denied spying on behalf of the CCP but under Chinese law, state-owned companies are required to hand over data to the Chinese Communist Party if it is requested.
“Our intelligence services knew there were problems with Huawei from 2009 so it is inconceivable that our allies in the British intelligences services were not told of this,” Byrne told me.
“The prime minister only needed to look as far as his own Intelligence Committee to see what would have been put plainly before him.
“It’s all there in the Rifkind report.”
Malcolm Rifkind, who served in the cabinets of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, chaired the House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee when it reported on foreign involvement in the UK’s Critical National Infrastructure in 2013.
That report cited the decision by the Australian government taken in 2012 to block Huawei from supplying the rollout of the National Broadband Network as well as the assessment by the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that “the risks associated with Huawei and ZTE’s provision of equipment to US critical infrastructure could undermine core US national-security interests”
Byrne’s assessment was backed by a former Conservative special adviser who I have agreed not to name in order to reflect their recollections to you.
“The advice might have grown more serious since Cameron left office but it is not true to suggest that during his premiership the security services advised that Huawei was a safe partner, or that China was not a threat to Britain and our allies,” the former adviser said.
“Yet Cameron and Osborne went ahead with the so-called Golden Era policy regardless.
“Whatever they say now they were warned very clearly at the time by the security services.”
Cameron’s successors, Theresa May and Boris Johnson wanted to allow Huawei into the 5G rollout but were blocked the former Trump Administration forced Britain’s hand via sanctions in 2020, that prohibited Huawei access to US semiconductor technology.
Cameron defended encouraging greater Chinese investment saying it was a priority to grow the economy after the financial crisis.
“There seemed to be an opportunity to have a better releationship with China and we achieved that,” Cameron said.
But he said “a lot had changed” since his time in office and that the CCP had become a “lot more assertive and aggressive in lots of different ways.”
Cameron has been under pressure from the growing Hawkish grouping of Conservative MPs who want Britain to take a tougher stance against the CCP.
Cameron said there was “no naivety” within the civil service around China and that it was vital the UK maintained the ability to communicate with the Chinese as issues around climate change and artificial intelligence could not be solved without Beijing’s buy-in.
Asked to name a single benefit of the trip to Beijing made by his predecessor James Cleverly, Cameron said: “Things probably would be worse without it.”
Cameron, who had to be put into the UK’s unelected House of Lords in order to return to government, said it was “quite a shock” to be returning to the Cabinet table but that he agreed because it was “the chance to serve.”