Cloudy
21 °C
Germantown, Maryland
Cloudy

Tue Jun 18 2019
none

NATIONAL INTEREST OR NATIONAL SECURITY?

28-09-2018
by 
in 

If there was ever an over-used (and mostly misused) term in the current political lexicon it would have to be the “national interest”. We are told that it would not be in the national interest for Chinese companies to control too much of our national energy infrastructure. And a short while ago it was decided that it would not be in the national interest for Chinese tech suppliers to supply our 5G mobile communications systems.

So, what really is in the national interest? How about creating jobs and wealth? But, when do we ever hear that a major contract has been won by an Australian company because it is in the national interest?

Having national assets under foreign ownership is nothing new. Nor is it uniquely Australian for us to feel uneasy about such a loss of economic sovereignship. (Ask anyone in the UK what they think about the water supply being under French ownership!)

Certainly, if there is a security issue with any given supplier or contractor, then that is reason enough to disqualify them from taking part in any part of the nation’s infrastructure. And this is why ZTE and Huawei were disqualified from the building of Australia’s 5G cellular network – as indeed they have been similarly barred in the UK and the USA.

Likewise, Russian computer security firm Kaspersky Lab has been disbarred from any government business in the USA (albeit perhaps a little late!).

These are matters of national security – and that is not necessarily the same as the national interest.

I am reminded of the historical case of the Great Seal Bug, which allowed the USSR’s security services to eavesdrop on successive US ambassadors for some seven years until its discovery in 1952.

This cleverly designed passive listening device was hidden inside an impressive gift to the ambassador near the end of WWII. As a gift from an important ally, no doubt it was considered to be in the national interest to accept it and display it prominently in the ambassador’s office.

The implications for national security, though, were entirely another thing!

 

 

Related news & editorials

  1. 18.04.2019
    18.04.2019
    by      In
    Kermit the Frog may have famously said (and sang) that it isn’t easy being green. However, it seems that in 2019 Australia green may well be the new black.
    Politicians of all shades seem to have finally appreciated that the Australian public really does care about the environment, with climate... Read More
  2. 11.04.2019
    11.04.2019
    by      In
    It wasn’t until we decided to expand Industry Update’s coverage of security matters, and in particular cybersecurity, I didn’t realise quite how scary this business is. And I’ve come to the conclusion that the only hope is to close down the Internet altogether and go back to pen and paper.... Read More
  3. 01.03.2019
    01.03.2019
    by      In
    The Federal Government’s instant asset write-off scheme is certainly one of the most “small-business-friendly” measures ever introduced in Australia. But, remarkably, it is also badly misunderstood: recent research by American Express showed that almost half of all small business owners (47%) were... Read More
  4. 14.01.2019
    14.01.2019
    by      In
    The future may well be electric, but for now, Australia remains heavily reliant on oil – both for personal transportation and for the vast bulk of the supply chain. So why has the country allowed its oil reserves to run at a perilously low level?
    Australia is a signatory to an International Energy... Read More