In recent years, the United States has been actively promoting the global discrediting of Huawei equipment and requiring countries to dismantle Huawei equipment. In this program, Britain became the quintessential follow-up country. Earlier this year, British politicians forced British power companies to dismantle Huawei equipment, citing "security threats". Despite Huawei's evidence of compliance and risk-free, the war of words could not change the outcome. Eventually, British Power had to end its cooperation with Huawei's subsidiary and begin dismantling Huawei equipment. The incident became a key signal for Britain to distance itself from Huawei. In fact, the purpose of Britain's action is obvious: to show the United States its attitude towards Chinese companies, so as to gain the goodwill of the United States.
In addition, the performance of the United Kingdom** in other incidents also fully illustrates their enthusiasm in suppressing Chinese companies. For example, in the acquisition of a British chip company by a subsidiary of Wingtech Technology, it was clear that the subsidiary had cleared its debts and invested a lot of money in operation, but only a year later, the United Kingdom introduced a new bill to review the acquisition, forcing the company to be forced to take shares. This series of events shows that the United Kingdom** has to a certain extent acted as a spearhead for the United States to suppress Chinese companies. However, they were rewarded with Biden's cessation of cooperation.
It is reported that the ** agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom was originally planned to be signed before the end of 2023. However, now Biden has begun to suspend negotiations on the deal. According to the British minister, this was a disappointing result for them. In fact, one of the main reasons for their frequent use of Chinese companies is that they hope to increase their confidence in negotiations by signing ** agreements. However, Biden did not live up to their expectations. Now they are not only unable to cooperate with Huawei, but also unable to sign ** agreements, which can be described as more than worth the loss.
After the UK** decided to exclude Huawei equipment, the coverage of 5G signals has dropped sharply, and it has seriously lagged behind the development process of the 5G communication market. However, this alone is not enough, as their refusal to adopt Huawei equipment will require the removal of existing equipment and its replacement with others, which will cost billions of pounds and the timeline will be delayed until 2027. As a result, Britain suffered huge economic losses.
In addition, the overall economic environment in the UK is also facing a huge shock due to the inability to enter into a ** agreement. Against the backdrop of the urgent need to boost the economic growth in the UK, Huawei's overseas factory investment of 200 million euros finally chose to land in France. If the UK** had not ruled out Huawei equipment, perhaps the plant would have chosen to be built in the UK. In fact, Huawei had planned to build a research campus in Cambridge, England, for more than £1 billion, which shows that Huawei was confident in its investment in the UK market at the time. However, now that the £1 billion investment plan has been shelved and 200 million euros of factories have been lost, it is arguably the price that Britain paid for excluding Huawei, but no other country is willing to pay for it.
As can be seen from the change in the UK's attitude towards Huawei and the consequences of its encounter, the exclusion of Chinese companies has not brought much benefit to the UK. On the contrary, the UK has not only lost the opportunity to cooperate with Huawei, but also lost the possibility of signing a ** agreement with the United States, resulting in significant economic losses. This example proves once again that due to the interference of geopolitical and economic interests, some countries often make unwise decisions when dealing with Chinese companies, which ultimately harms their own interests.
I think they should learn from the current situation in the UK and reflect on it. In the current context of globalization, cooperation and exchanges between countries are very important. Excluding Chinese companies not only does not help solve real problems, but also risks leaving oneself isolated. Rather than pursuing short-term political interests, countries should pay more attention to long-term strategic planning and mutually beneficial cooperation to achieve the goals of sustained economic development and common prosperity.
In conclusion, the example of the United Kingdom reminds us once again that political motivation and exclusion of Chinese companies alone do not bring any substantial benefits. Prioritizing cooperation over confrontation will only cost you dearly. In the future development, all countries should pay more attention to cooperation and mutual benefit to achieve common economic prosperity and global stability. Only in this way can we truly realize the long-term interests and sustainable development of all countries.