The Trump administration's "phase one" trade deal with China may mark the end of the first chapter of the trade conflict between the United States and China, which saw Washington embrace a confrontational approach. But even if China meets its commitments under that agreement, the deal will not mean the conclusion of the broader competition between the two powers. The forces of geopolitical rivalry and the sharp differences between China's state capitalist model of economic development and the US economic system are too great. Instead, the deal will mark a pivot to a second phase of economic competition, one which will be fought with export and import controls, investment restrictions, and sanctions rather than with tariffs.
Over the past two years, Washington has been quietly building a legal and regulatory architecture for this campaign. In 2018, US Congress enacted legislation to enhance controls on the export of emerging technologies, such as advanced robotics and artificial intelligence, and bolster reviews of foreign investment in the United States. In November 2019, the Trump administration and Congress took steps to block US companies from using Chinese telecommunications network equipment in the United States. There is increasing discussion in Washington about additional restrictions on business and investment relations between the United States and China, such as limits on federal employee retirement fund investments in China.
But the highest-profile example of the United States' use of targeted coercive measures against China is its yearlong campaign against Huawei, China's national-champion telecommunications company. This campaign holds important lessons for the United States as it turns from a tariff-centric approach to competition with Beijing to targeted coercive tools. In particular, the campaign against Huawei shows the need for better planning, more effective diplomacy, investment in alternatives to Chinese products, and a systematic review of the long-term risks from the aggressive use of coercive economic measures.
Huawei is paradigmatic of the challenge China poses the United States. It is a technological leader in "5G" telecommunications, the next-generation mobile technology that will enable industries like autonomous vehicles and advanced telemedicine. Huawei's leadership in 5G could give China an edge in developing entire new industries. And it simultaneously creates national-security risks through the potential to facilitate Chinese espionage and cyberattacks.
Huawei's success to date is due in part to legitimate investments—Huawei spends $15 billion annually on research and development—but also, according to US officials, intellectual-property theft and illegal subsidies and state support. Huawei's scale—it is not only a network equipment company but also one of the world's leading mobile handset makers—means that US firms bear significant costs from restrictions on business: Huawei purchased $11 billion annually from US firms in 2018. And with more than $100 billion in global annual revenues and employees in more than 170 countries, Huawei is larger than the economies of several countries subject to US sanctions, such as Cuba and North Korea (and more connected to the rest of the world, besides).
Over the past year, Washington has responded to the Huawei challenge with a multifaceted pressure campaign. US officials have charged the company with violating US sanctions on Iran and indicted it for stealing US intellectual property. In May 2019, the Commerce Department limited sales of US-made products to the company. US State Department officials have mounted an aggressive diplomatic campaign to persuade US allies to block Huawei equipment from new telecommunications networks, and the Trump administration has threatened to limit intelligence sharing with countries that allow Huawei into their 5G networks. Congress has effectively prohibited the US government from purchasing Huawei equipment, and the Federal Communications Commission recently banned the use of federal funds for US telecommunications companies to purchase Huawei gear. The Trump administration is reportedly considering further restrictions on US companies' ability to do business with Huawei through their overseas affiliates.
The initial results of this pressure, however, have been mixed—with diplomatic pressure proving at least as successful as economic coercion. Limits on US companies selling chips, software, and other products to Huawei have largely failed to blunt Huawei's global smartphone sales. A recent study of the market found that Huawei's sales grew 28 percent in the third quarter of 2019 year-on-year despite the restrictions. That growth was driven by Huawei's dominant position within China, but even in Europe, Huawei managed to keep its sales almost flat. (Europe also saw dramatic growth by Huawei's Chinese rival, Xiaomi.) Huawei is succeeding in shifting its supply chains away from US components, and one of Huawei's latest phones is apparently manufactured without any US chips at all—illustrating the limits of US economic pressure. Recognizing that the blanket ban on sales has harmed US companies without consistently imposing costs on Huawei, the Trump administration recently began authorizing sales of products that Huawei could readily buy from non-US suppliers while blocking the sale of more unique products.
The Trump administration's diplomatic campaign against Huawei's 5G telecommunications equipment, on the other hand, has begun to gain momentum. The United States has persuaded Australia, Japan, and New Zealand to block Huawei from their 5G telecommunications networks. Diplomatic engagement and public-relations campaigns in Europe have prompted allies such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Poland to reopen debate about whether to allow Huawei equipment in 5G networks, which at the very least is likely to lead to restrictions on Huawei equipment to only "noncore" parts of 5G networks. Even Spain's largest telecommunications company recently announced plans to drastically scale back Huawei 5G equipment despite extensive reliance on the company in existing networks. But in the developing world, aside from a handful of countries such as Vietnam, Huawei remains likely play a major role in network development. The African Union, for example, signed a memorandum of understanding with Huawei on 5G network development despite widespread reports that China has bugged its headquarters for years. As then Deputy Director of National Intelligence Sue Gordon said publicly in March, the United States will "have to presume a dirty network" in many countries.
US policymakers should draw at least four lessons from the early results of the US campaign against Huawei. The first is the need for better planning in deploying coercive economic measures when it comes to China. Huawei has been able to survive the US export restriction in part because the Trump administration telegraphed the possibility beforehand, which allowed Huawei to stockpile a year's worth of US parts. That gave the company time to diversify its supply chains even after the restrictions were imposed, and foreign suppliers moved quickly to fill the gap despite Washington asking them to curb their own sales. Broad restrictions on virtually all sales to Huawei generated sharp opposition from US companies facing lost market share. A surprise attack that was narrowly focused on only those components that Huawei could not readily obtain elsewhere would have ultimately put more pressure on Huawei while minimizing collateral costs to US business. US officials also need to consider whether there are circumstances under which they would settle with Huawei. The United States settled charges against Chinese telecommunications company ZTE last year and was willing to drop sanctions against Russian aluminum company Rusal after negotiating changes in its corporate ownership. Ultimately, a settlement that increases US control over Huawei's business may prove more beneficial than a coercive economic campaign that has only limited impacts on Huawei's operations.
The second lesson is the importance of diplomacy. The Trump administration's diplomatic campaign was initially hindered by internal divisions about whether to focus narrowly on concerns about 5G or more broadly on all of Huawei's business. Statements by US President Donald Trump that linked Huawei to broader US-China trade talks, meanwhile, undercut the US position that Huawei poses a genuine security risk and is not simply part of the US-Chinese trade flap. The Trump administration also initially struggled to show allies a specific "smoking gun" proving the risks that Huawei equipment poses. But starting over the summer, as Trump officials expanded their diplomatic efforts and focused their arguments on 5G networks and on the fact that Huawei has a legal obligation to cooperate with Chinese intelligence, US allies have begun to shift their positions.
The third lesson is the need to develop viable alternatives to Chinese products. Competitors such as Europe's Ericsson often do not offer the type of fully integrated solutions that Huawei does, and they come at a higher upfront cost. Countries, particularly poorer emerging markets, are reluctant to slow down 5G deployment because they see rapid deployment of 5G as important to their own economic growth. In a world of limited and high-cost alternatives, governments will be tempted to turn to Huawei despite security risks.