Instigator / Con
Points: 14

The EU should accept 5G investments from Chinese tech company Huawei.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
christopher_best
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Technology
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
12,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 4
Description
I negate this resolution. By accepting, you are affirming.
Burden of Proof is shared.
R1- Constructive. Contender may rebut some of my points after they give a constructive in this round, but they MUST posit a constructive of their own.
R2-4- Fluid attack/defense. No set structure here.
Rules are simple:
1.No Kritiks
2.No New arguments made in final round
3.No trolling
4.No getting off topic
5.You must follow the Debate Structure
6.No Plagiarism
**ANY violation of these rules merits a loss**
Round 1
Published:
Firstly, thanks to any judges that will be following this round, and thanks to billbatard for accepting!

Here are some necessary definitions: 

  1. According to Margaret Rouse, “Fifth-generation wireless (5G) is the latest iteration of cellular technology, engineered to greatly increase the speed and responsiveness of wireless networks.”
  2. Using the Wikipedia definition: “The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a global development strategy adopted by the Chinese government involving infrastructure development and investments in 152 countries and international organizations in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas.”
Contention 1: International Security

China continues to deploy mass surveillance and data collection systems through their various digital networks. 

According to Human Rights Watch
In 2018, the government continued to collect, on a mass scale, biometrics including DNA and voice samples; use such biometrics for automated surveillance purposes; develop a nationwide reward and punishment system known as the “social credit system”; and develop and apply “big data” policing programs aimed at preventing dissent. All of these systems are being deployed without effective privacy protections in law or in practice, and often people are unaware that their data is being gathered, or how it is used or stored.

If the Chinese government collects this much intelligence from their own citizens, what then is to stop China from stealing intel from European nations and the West? China is indeed a major national security risk when armed with such technology.

According to the CNAS in May 2019, 
China engages in widespread espionage against sensitive governmental and commercial targets, and U.S. intelligence officials and a number of allied intelligence agencies have expressed sharp concerns that global 5G telecommunications networks that depend on Chinese equipment could pose significant cyber security risks.

For example, according to CNBC
U.S. prosecutors charged two Chinese citizens for their involvement in a global hacking campaign to steal tech company secrets and intellectual property. They were also accused of stealing the personal information of more than 100,000 members of the U.S. Navy, and were allegedly working with the Chinese government. 

For this reason, we can not risk any collaboration with China regarding 5G technology. These data hacks could result in information leaks regarding military technology and coordination, as well as inter-country communication between fellow EU nations and between EU nations and foreign powers such as the US. Given that China is already a global threat and violator of human rights, intel is not something that can be afforded to give to them. 

Contention 2: The BRI

If Huawei were to invest in 5G infrastructure in Europe, these projects would fall under China’s international infrastructure program: the Belt and Road Initiative. Countries that participate in the BRI take out loans from China in order to build projects with Chinese companies. In turn, countries must pay back China with interest.

As CFR 2019 explains,
“BRI projects are built with loans as opposed to aid grants. BRI investments have required the use of Chinese firms, and their bidding processes have lacked transparency.” 
China's history with currency manipulation and other shady economic activities makes it a valid concern that China might exploit those loans in order to exert influence over nations and align them to China's agenda, whatever it may be. Chinese goals of complete hegemony may be realized through this initiative if China gains leverage over the EU. 

However, this issue is even more dire than it would appear at the surface: Europe is currently sitting on a mountain of debt. 

The 28 member states of the EU have a total debt burden of an IMMENSE $14 trillion as of 2018, which could be even bigger, according to the latest figures from the EU statistics office. This amounts to a staggering debt-to-GDP ratio of 82.5 percent. A landmark study surveying over 101 countries determined that the tipping point of no return is a debt-to-GDP ratio of 77%, making the EU as a whole in a dangerous position.

Greece leads the pack with a staggering ratio of 182%, Italy is at 134%, and the likes of Spain, France, Portugal, Cyprus and Belgium have ratios of 100% or over! Even the UK falls into 85%.

If China exploits the additional debt added, the EU will be at the mercy of the Chinese government in terms of political discourse.

This already happens to unfortunate nations in the BRI: just recently, with more than $1 billion in debt to China, Sri Lanka handed over a port to the Chinese government.

According to the New York Times, when the proposed port was projected to be a failure, the Sri Lankan president could not get funding for that port from any country except, lo and behold, China. Now Djibouti looks about to cede control of another key port to a Beijing-linked company.

The same ordeal has happened in many other nations.
Indeed: already eight participating countries are in a Chinese debt-trap of neo-imperialism, and this number will continue to grow along with the BRI. What stops China from doing this to a vulnerable EU?

Contention 3: Alternatives

While the EU is behind in 5G, the EU is still investing in independent projects. Even if those don’t work, EU countries can simply turn to the US for 5G in the meantime. 
According to the EU’s website on the 22 August 2019,

(The) European Commission established a Public Private Partnership on 5G (5G PPP) in 2013. This is the EU flagship initiative to accelerate research and innovation in 5G technology. The European Commission has earmarked a public funding of 700 million through the Horizon 2020 Programme to support this activity. EU industry is set to match this investment by up to 5 times, to more than 3 billion. These activities have been accompanied by an international plan to ensure global consensus building on 5G.
Further:
To ensure early deployment of 5G infrastructure in Europe, the Commission adopted in 2016 a 5G Action Plan for Europe with the objective to start launching 5G services in all EU Member States by end 2020 at the latest, followed by a rapid build-up to ensure uninterrupted 5G coverage in urban areas and along main transport paths by 2025.

The EU is behind, but it is not going down without a fight.

Regarding the US, according to CNBC,

“In the status quo, about half of the United States should expect to have functioning 5G wireless technology by 2020, Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg told CNBC in August 2019.” 

This seems to clearly demonstrate that US companies are perfectly capable of supplying 5G, and can invest in the EU.

With these reasons, it should stand as common sense to negate. Thank you!





Published:
Regardless of  any other concern even human rights, the main concern is the military and economic security of the western world China uses these sort of economic  interactions to create an opportunity to undermine europes security and steal technology and secrets Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (/ˈhwɑːˌweɪ/; Chinese: 华为; pinyin: Huáwéi) is a Chinese multinational technology company that provides telecommunications equipment and sells consumer electronics, including smartphones and is headquartered in Shenzhen, Guangdong province. The company was founded in 1987 by Ren Zhengfei.
"ROBERT WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PAUL TSAI CHINA CENTER, YALE LAW SCHOOL
If one views 5G telecommunications networks as critical infrastructure, then the lack of smoking-gun evidence that a company has previously rigged its hardware at the behest of a foreign government is not dispositive of whether to allow that company’s equipment in 5G networks. The question is whether the risks of espionage or sabotage are unacceptably high, which depends in part on whether the company can credibly claim to be independent of the foreign government in question. This may help to explain why Western governments broadly agree that Huawei poses security risks, even as they may differ over how to manage or mitigate those risks.
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL)Huawei is a Chinese state-directed telecom company with a singular goal: undermine foreign competition by stealing trade secrets and intellectual property, and through artificially low prices backed by the Chinese government. The Communist Chinese government poses the greatest, long-term threat to America’s national and economic security, and the US must be vigilant in preventing Chinese state-directed telecoms companies, like Huawei and ZTE, from undermining and endangering America’s 5G networks. Future, cutting-edge industries like driverless vehicles and the Internet of Things will depend on this critical technology, and any action that threatens our 21st-century industries from developing and deploying 5G undoubtedly undermines both our national and economic security.I am not sure we can trust an audit on Huawei any more than we can trust the Chinese government to hand over intelligence showing they do not steal intellectual property from American companies. No audit can reveal a future order from the Chinese government to turn over data to them. The US must develop a long-term, whole-of-government strategy to protect against state-sponsored technology theft and risks to critical supply chains. We must also recognize that the continued threat posed by the Chinese government’s assault on US intellectual property, US businesses, and our government networks and information has the full backing of the Chinese Communist Party."


Round 2
Published:
Thanks for the speedy reply billbatard! I will now begin to rebut.

International Security:

- My opponent's points do not help his case that the EU should accept 5G investments by China, in fact the evidence my opponent cites directly supports my claims of Huawei being a security risk in terms of: 

  • mass surveillance 
  • data collection
  • information leaks regarding military technology and coordination
  • inter-country communication
  • intellectual theft
- My opponent's points are entirely copy and pasted texts from other sources, and my opponent does not bother with elaboration nor argumentation. 

Untouched Arguments:

My opponent does not respond to the following arguments:

  • BRI equates to Chinese leverage over EU in political/human rights affairs
  • BRI puts EU nations into debt
  • Neo-imperialism
  • The EU and US are capable of 5G without China
I hope judges will vote accordingly, thank you!


Published:
wait i'm confused no fair! in that case there are lots of people that say hewaii isnt a security risk Policymakers and other analysts ought to be identifying high-priority risks associated with reliance on foreign telecommunications equipment providers, and the best ways to mitigate those risks. However, conflating simple—and often benign—vulnerabilities with nefarious intent on the part of the provider could serve to undermine the credibility of claims around the real risks at hand, including the presence of real backdoors.
 a lot of this stuff is just politicaly motivated propoganda it isnt really a thing Policymakers and other analysts ought to be identifying high-priority risks associated with reliance on foreign telecommunications equipment providers, and the best ways to mitigate those risks. However, conflating simple—and often benign—vulnerabilities with nefarious intent on the part of the provider could serve to undermine the credibility of claims around the real risks at hand, including the presence of real backdoors.https://psmag.com/social-justice/what-national-security-risks-does-huawei-pose fake news! anti china propoganda!
Round 3
Published:
Thanks Bill for the quick reply!

I will now begin to rebut once more.

General Criticisms:

- My opponent directly contradicts himself on his original position of support for my argument regarding international security.

- Once more, my opponent's points are entirely copy and pasted texts from other sources, and my opponent does not bother with elaboration nor argumentation. I have pointed this out once, which means my opponent is knowingly continuing with blatant plagiarism. 

International Security:

My opponent posits two counter-arguments to my argument regarding international security.

1. Firstly, my opponent states that "there are lots of people that say hewaii isnt a security risk." 

Then, my opponent cites a source that does not make this claim in either the cited section nor the article as a whole. In fact, the source my opponent cites says this:

"Huawei code has a lot of vulnerabilities. The United Kingdom's Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Center (HCSEC), a testing facility that reviews Huawei-made equipment for security flaws, exposed in its 2019 annual report that Huawei systems contain "many vulnerabilities ... [of] high impact." There are "serious and systematic defects in Huawei's software engineering and cyber security competence."

...If Huawei is providing backdoors to Chinese intelligence agencies, they're enabling Chinese government cyber efforts. If Huawei is leaving bugdoors in their systems, they're complicit. If they're just really bad at writing software (also a possibility), they're apathetic actors."

In other words, my opponent's source is simply claiming that not all vulnerabilities are evidence of impending doom. This is true, but it does not at all dismiss the danger of Huawei as a security risk. The simple presence of such vulnerabilities, whether malicious in intent or not, are not something EU nations want to invite into their nations. If the Chinese government does not exploit these vulnerabilities, then others shall.

Moreover, we should not assume the best about China's intentions, especially since China gets frequently caught in the act. 
To reiterate an example from my constructive:
"according to CNBC, 
U.S. prosecutors charged two Chinese citizens for their involvement in a global hacking campaign to steal tech company secrets and intellectual property. They were also accused of stealing the personal information of more than 100,000 members of the U.S. Navy, and were allegedly working with the Chinese government." 
Back in June, according to the Wall Street Journal, Chinese hackers backed by the Chinese government allegedly hacked into telecommunications networks, just like they may do to the EU. 
"Hackers believed to be backed by China’s government have infiltrated the cellular networks of at least 10 global carriers, swiping users’ whereabouts, text-messaging records and call logs, according to a new report, amid growing scrutiny of Beijing’s cyberoffensives."
2. Secondly, my opponent claims "a lot of this stuff is just politicaly motivated propoganda it isnt really a thing." 

My opponent does not cite any evidence for this claim aside from re-pasting the same citation. Furthermore, my examples showing Chinese malicious intent and software failure are more than enough to disprove this claim. 

Untouched Arguments:

My opponent still does not respond to the following arguments:

  • BRI equates to Chinese leverage over EU in political/human rights affairs
  • BRI puts EU nations into debt
  • Neo-imperialism
  • The EU and US are capable of 5G without China
  • Plagiarism on behalf of my opponent
I hope judges will vote accordingly, thank you!


Forfeited
Round 4
Published:
Welp, extend!
Forfeited
Added:
--> @Jeff_Goldblum
Hi Jeff, while I sound super formal - it’s an easy mistake ; and an issue we haven’t been able to fully resolve yet, so don’t worry.
Please be aware that there are also rules surrounding voting, and what qualifies as valid. You can take a look here for when you’ve met the voting criteria: https://www.debateart.com/rules
#12
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
No hard feelings about the deleted vote. Sorry for voting when I should not have.
Maybe you've heard something like this before, but it seems like the website simply shouldn't let me vote if I'm not eligible.
#11
Added:
--> @Jeff_Goldblum
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jeff_Goldblum// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con.
>Reason for Decision: Con's arguments were more fleshed out and better structured. In the end, Pro forfeited.
Reason for Mod Action> This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
#10
Added:
--> @billbatard
You are on the green side, which means you are Pro. I understand that you accepted this thinking you are Con to the topic but you're Pro, sorry.
#9
Added:
--> @PoliceSheep
Fair, I may take Pro next time to make the debate more attractive
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @christopher_best
It's a good topic - I just happen to agree with you.
#7
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21, @Nemiroff
If no one accepts the Pro position on this, I may make another debate and be Pro to make the debate more attractive.
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
That is one stance, but there are others that I would hope someone on Pro could take. For example, the EU is very much behind in 5G, and China is very much ahead of the US. So in a way, one could paint it as necessary to not "fall behind."
You do point out the core Con position and I would say I agree: I tend to value the security of nations and the denial of Chinese hegemony to be more important than economic profit.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @christopher_best
I would imagine the only real argument for this would be based off pure liberitarian free market principles.
Yes there is little free about china's economy, however that is public knowledge and private compabies have been more then willing to freely hand over their IP in exchange to access to chinese markets.
I am not a liberitarian and am not willing to risk national security for private profits. I believe we as a society have a greater duty to our people, our economy, and our nation, then we have towards some blind, self defeating ideology.
#4
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Fair point. I'd hoped that some people would look at an article or two and accept. (Pretty much all the research you need for this.)
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @christopher_best
This seems a like a niche topic, which is probably why people aren't accepting.
#2
Added:
Bump. No takers on this one?
Instigator
#1
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
First, pro argued the wrong side of the resolution, then contradicted himself in his next post.
Second, pro dropped many of con's arguments.
Conduct points go to con because of pro's forfeiture of the last two rounds.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Plagiarism as identified by con "My opponent's points are entirely copy and pasted texts from other sources, and my opponent does not bother with elaboration nor argumentation" plus forfeitures.