Suchergebnisse

Igennem de sidste to år (2018–2019) er den førte danske politik i forhold til Kina blevet mere ambivalent. Særligt når det gælder kinesiske investeringer, er Danmark blevet mere forsigtig. Denne artikel undersøger hvilke faktorer, der har haft betydning for Danmarks skiftende politik i forhold til kinesiske investeringer, gennem to større case-studier: Kinesiske investeringer i Grønland og Huawei i Danmark. Kort fortalt udpeges her tre faktorer, der er afgørende for Danmarks politik i forhold til kinesiske investeringer: for det første landets langvarige økonomiske ideologi som en lille, åben økonomi, svarende til øvrige nordiske lande og som medlem af EU, med et pragmatisk behov for udenlandske markeder; for det andet en stærk, national tro på demokrati og statens forsvarsalliance med USA, herunder dets dedikerede medlemskab af NATO; og for det tredje opkomsten af fremmedfjendske og nationalistiske politiske partier, der udfordrer den tidligere mere afbalancerede og pragmatiske tilgang kendetegnende for større partier samt går ind for et mere anti-kinesisk standpunkt.
Abstract in English:Denmark's Policy on Chinese Investments: Pragmatism Balancing with Increasing Threat PerspectivesDuring the past two years (2018–2019), Denmark's policy towards China has become more ambivalent. In particular, Denmark has become more cautious about inward Chinese investments. This article examines the factors that have affected Denmark's changing policy on Chinese investment, with two major case studies: Chinese investments in Greenland, and Huawei in Denmark. In a nutshell, it points out three decisive factors: first, the country's long-term ideology as a small, open economy, similar to other Nordic countries and as a member of the EU, with a pragmatic need for foreign markets; second, a strong national belief in democracy and the state's defense alliance with the United States, including its dedicated NATO membership; and third, the rise of xenophobic and nationalist political parties, challenging the earlier more balanced and pragmatic approach characteristic of larger parties as well as advocating a more anti-Chinese stance.

Den norske debatten om kinesiske investeringer og sikkerhet har gjennomgått et betydelig taktskifte på få år. Fra en situasjon hvor det i liten grad var en debatt, og hvor kritiske røster i hovedsak angikk bekymringer om arbeidsmiljøutfordringer, har kinesisk næringsvirksomhet i Norge nå også blitt en del av den sikkerhetspolitiske debattsfæren. To særtrekk gjør det norske eksempelet til en spesielt interessant studie av de fellesnordiske spørsmålsstillingene diskutert i denne Fokusspalten. Norsk økonomi har tjent særegent godt på det kinesiske veksteventyret, men Norge har også stått i en særegent vanskelig politisk stilling overfor Kina gjennom det siste tiåret. Kontrasten mellom disse to faktorene har stått sentralt i norsk Kina-debatt. Ikke desto mindre har den norske offentlige debatten rundt kinesiske investeringer vært relativt positiv. Dette har blant annet vært drevet frem av gode erfaringer blant norske selskaper som har blitt kjøpt opp av kinesiske partnere. Den offentlige samtalen har dog i nyere tid begynt å relatere til spørsmålet gjennom en politisk og sikkerhetsmessig vinkling. Dette er et taktskifte som ikke skyldes hendelser knyttet til eksisterende kinesisk aktivitet i Norge, men heller en norsk gjenspeiling av bredere globale og regionale trender. Huaweis rolle i den kommende utbyggingen av 5G-nettverket har vært et spesielt viktig bindeledd til denne internasjonale opinionsdreiningen.
Abstract in English:Norway's Debate about Chinese Investments: From Benevolence to CautionThe debate in Norway regarding security concerns related to Chinese investments has seen a notable change in character over a short period of time. From a situation where there was little discernible debate at all, and where negative coverage of Chinese investment flows were mainly concerned with working environment issues, Chinese capital flows to Norway have now also become part of the debate on national security. Two particularities make the case of Norway especially interesting with regards to the broader Nordic debates over the issues discussed in this Fokus section. The Norwegian economy has been particularly well placed to benefit from the extraordinary Chinese economic growth, but Norway has also been in a particularly problematic political position towards China over the last decade. The contrast between these two factors has been a structuring trait of the Norwegian China debate. Nevertheless, the Norwegian public debate on China has been relatively positive over a long period of time. This has been given impetus by the positive experiences reported from the Norwegian enterprises that have been the target of Chinese acquisitions. However, lately, the public debate has increasingly come to regard the issue also through a political and security-related lens. This changing character is not due to specific events concerning Chinese activities in Norway, as much as being a reflection of broader regional and global trends. The question of Huawei's role in the coming construction of the 5G network has been a particularly important driver in this regard, as well as conductive link to the international change in opinion.

Av historiska, ekonomiska och säkerhetspolitiska orsaker är Finland ett "minst sannolikt fall" (least likely case) vad gäller oro över kinesiska investeringar. Finland har inom EU haft det högsta relativa handelsberoendet av Kina. Sedan år 2016 är Finland även ett av de EU-länder som fått mest investeringar från Kina absolut sett. Finland, som inte är NATO-medlem, har oproblematiska relationer till Kina och en öppen ekonomi, som ännu för några år sedan välkomnade kinesiska investeringar. Landet har också en ovanligt lång obruten tradition av inhemsk lagstiftning om utländska investeringar som sedan 1992 kan betecknas som liberal. Under de senaste två åren har det emellertid bland policyeliten och i den allmänna diskussionen skett en drastisk förändring i synen på kinesiska investeringar som närmast kan betecknas som en gestalt shift. En påföljd av detta är att behovet av en bättre helhetsbild om kinesiska investeringar har identifierats. Informationsutbyte och koordinering mellan olika myndigheter har förbättrats på många sätt. Samtidigt har man även fördjupat nordiskt myndighetssamarbete och informationsutbyte om relevant lagstiftning och praxis inom området. Även om samarbete kring utländska investeringar inte ingick i Stoltenberg-rekommendationerna år 2009, så kan man se det som ett naturligt led i intensifierat nordiskt säkerhetssamarbete.
Abstract in English:The Canary That Fell Silent. Finland's Gestalt Shift on Chinese InvestmentsFor a mixture of historical, economic and security policy reasons Finland can be regarded as a least likely case with regard to apprehensiveness over Chinese investments. Within the EU, Finland has had the highest relative trade dependence on China. Since 2016, Finland is also one of the EU member states that have attracted the most Chinese investment in absolute terms. Finland, which is not a NATO member, has unproblematic relations with China and an open economy that up until a few years ago welcomed Chinese investments. The country also has an unusually long unbroken tradition of domestic legislation regarding foreign investments, which since 1992 can be characterised as liberal. However, during the last two years, there has been a drastic change in views on Chinese investments, both among the policy elite and in the public debate. This change can be regarded as a veritable gestalt shift. As a corollary, a need for a better overview of Chinese investments has been identified. Information exchange and coordination between various governmental departments has been improved in several ways. Simultaneously, cooperation and information exchange between relevant Nordic authorities regarding relevant legislation and praxis has also deepened. Although the 2009 Stoltenberg recommendations did not encompass cooperation on foreign investments, this can be seen as a natural leg in intensified Nordic security cooperation.

Under 2017 och 2018 ökade Kinas direktinvesteringar i Sverige avsevärt till följd av ett antal stora förvärv, mestadels i fordonsindustrin. Samtidigt har den svenska offentliga debatten kring kinesiska investeringar blivit mer kritisk sedan 2017, då investeringarna överlag talades om i positiva ordalag. Under 2018 och 2019 har en rad aktörer inom statliga myndigheter, politiska partier, media och civilsamhället beskrivit Kinas investeringar som ett potentiellt säkerhetshot. Näringslivsrepresentanter är mindre synliga i debatten men även här finns det en tydlig trend av ökad uppmärksamhet på potentiella säkerhetsrisker kopplade till kinesiska investeringar. Den svenska synen på Kina tycks konvergera allt mer med vad EU har kallat för sin nya "mer realistiska" hållning gentemot Peking. Ett antal policyprocesser har inletts, vilket sannolikt kommer leda till att svensk lagstiftning stärks på flera områden för att öka kontrollen av Kinas investeringar och engagemang i Sverige, särskilt i kritisk infrastruktur såsom telekommunikationsnät men även vad gäller företag vars verksamhet anses som säkerhetskänslig i mer generell bemärkelse.
Abstract in EnglishChinese Investments in Sweden: From Fame to Fear?China's direct investment in Sweden surged in 2017 and 2018 due to a number of large acquisitions, mostly in the automotive industry. At the same time, the public debate on Chinese investments has become more critical since 2017, when they were typically seen in a positive light. Throughout 2018 and 2019, a number of actors in government authorities, political parties, the media and civil society have described China's investments as a potential security threat. Although less prominent in the public debate, business representatives have also become increasingly vocal about potential security risks associated with Chinese investment. The Swedish view of China seems to be aligning with what the EU has called its new "more realistic" approach to Beijing. Meanwhile, a number of policy processes have been launched which are likely to lead to the strengthening of existing legal frameworks to scrutinise Chinese investment and activity in Sweden, especially concerning critical infrastructure such as telecommunications networks, but also more generally concerning companies whose activities are regarded as sensitive from a security perspective.

Forholdet mellom Kina og Island er blitt stadig viktigere på 2000-tallet, og det er inngått betydningsfulle avtaler knyttet til frihandel og valutautveksling, i tillegg til arktisk og geotermisk samarbeid. Island ble i 2005 det første vesteuropeiske landet som anerkjente Kina som en utviklet markedsøkonomi, og var i 2013 det første europeiske landet som undertegnet en frihandelsavtale med Kina. Samtidig som bilateral handel og strømmen av kinesiske turister til Island har økt kraftig, forblir kapitalstrømmen meget liten. Kinesiske investeringer på Island forblir minimal, og det er p.t. bare én aktiv utenlandsk direkteinvestering fra Kina på Island. Dette står i sterk kontrast til den betydelige offentlige debatten om kinesisk påvirkningskraft knyttet til store investeringer på Island, med hovedfokus på potensielle sikkerhetstrusler i forbindelse med Arktis' geostrategiske betydning. Den formodentlig største potensielle investeringen fra Kina kom i 2011, da Zhongkun Group kom med et bud om å investere i land for å utvikle et turistkompleks nordøst på Island, noe som førte diskusjonen inn på kontroversielle temaer som eiendomsrett og til en viss grad nasjonal sikkerhet. Selv om artikkelen ikke finner tegn til sikkerhetstrusler som en følge av utenlandske direkteinvesteringer på Island, kan det likevel være på sin plass med en gjennomgang av lovverket knyttet til investeringer på Island fra land utenfor EØS, for å øke forutsigbarheten. En slik analyse kunne utføres i lys av relevante prosesser i andre nordiske land, inkludert for å få på plass standardisert investeringsscreening.
Abstract in English:China, Investments, and National Security: Nordic Policies and Perspectives – IcelandRelations between Iceland and China have increased significantly during the 21st century, with landmark agreements reached regarding free trade and currency swap, as well as Arctic and geothermal cooperation. Iceland became the first western European country to acknowledge China as a developed market economy in 2005 and was the first European country to sign an FTA with China in 2013. While bilateral trade and the inflow of Chinese tourists to Iceland have seen steep growth figures, the flow of capital remains very low. Chinese investments in Iceland remain minimal, with only one currently active FDI from China in Iceland. This contradicts the widely discussed influence of large-scale Chinese investments in Iceland, largely focused on potential security aspects regarding the geostrategic importance of the Arctic region. Arguably, the highest profiled proposed investment case from China came in 2011 with a bid from Zhongkun Group to invest in land for the development of a tourism resort in northeast Iceland, stirring up contentious issues on ownership of land and to some extent national security. While the article does not find detectable security threats from FDI in Iceland, it might however be timely to review the legal process of investments from outside of the EEA into Iceland to increase predictability. Such an analysis could be carried out with regards to compatible cases in the other Nordic countries, including standardized investment screening processes in place.

Den fremvoksende supermakten og gigantøkonomien Kina har vist vilje og evne til å ta i bruk økonomiske virkemidler for å forme ikke bare egen region, men også for å skaffe global innflytelse. I dette bokessayet tar vi for oss fire bidrag om ulike sider ved Kinas økonomiske statshåndverk. Bøkene handler om graden av kontroll over kommersielle aktører i Kinas bruk av økonomisk statshåndverk (Norris, 2016), valutahåndverk og Kinas forsøk på å internasjonalisere sin valuta renminbi (Cohen, 2019), Kinas kollektive finanshåndverk gjennom BRICS-samarbeidet (Roberts et al., 2017) og Kinas gigantiske infrastrukturprosjekt (Clarke et al., 2020). Samlet viser bøkene spennet i økonomiske virkemidler Kina har til rådighet. Vi har en klar agenda med lesningen. Vi lurer først på hva som er de innovative aspektene ved bidragene. Dernest bruker vi bøkene til å svare på tre problemstillinger knyttet til Kinas fremvekst og dets økonomiske statshåndverk: (i) hva er Kinas ambisjoner?, (ii) hva gjør Kina? og (iii) leverer Kina på ambisjonene? Til slutt forsøker vi å løfte blikket og diskutere kort hvordan kunnskapstilstanden kan bedres fremover.
Abstract in English:China's Economic Statecraft: Ambitions, Behavior, and AchievementsThe rise of China as a superpower and economic giant has massive consequences for world politics. China has ambitions and capabilities to make use of its new economic muscles to not only shape its own region but also to increase its influence globally. In this book essay, we analyze four contributions to various facets of Chinese economic statecraft. The books concern the level of control of commercial actors in the Chinese leadership's economic statecraft (Norris, 2016), currency statecraft and China's attempts to internationalize its currency (Cohen, 2019), China's collective financial statecraft through the BRICS cooperation (Roberts et al., 2017), and China's enormous infrastructure project (Clarke et al., 2020). Taken together, the books show the extensive scope in the economic tools China has at its disposal. We have a clear agenda with our reading. We are predominantly interested in the innovative aspects of the contributions. We also use the books to answer three research questions concerning China's rise and its economic statecraft: (i) what are China's ambitions?, (ii) what is China's behavior?, and (iii) does China achieve its ambitions? Finally, we build on our reading of the contemporary literature on economic statecraft to outline some blind spots in the research field.

Det er en pågående debatt i akademia om hvorvidt og hvordan man kan benytte avskrekkingsteori i cyberdomenet. Avskrekking var originalt en teori utviklet for å unngå konvensjonell eller nukleær krig. I diskusjonen om cybersikkerhet har det blitt påpekt en rekke tekniske problemer med å overføre en teori fra den fysiske verden til cyberdomenet. Vi anerkjenner disse tekniske utfordringene ved avskrekking i cyberdomenet, men i denne artikkelen ønsker vi å belyse et annet aspekt ved avskrekking, nemlig samspillet mellom sosiale og tekniske faktorer ved avskrekking i cyberdomenet. I denne artikkelen vil vi diskutere hvordan avskrekking som strategi i cyberdomenet vil påvirkes av den spesifikke strategiske kulturen i et land. For å belyse argumentet vil vi benytte Kina som en casestudie. Motsetninger mellom kinesisk og «vestlig» strategisk kultur resulterer i konkrete forskjeller i hvordan Kina og vestlige land agerer i cyberdomenet. Ved å benytte fire komponenter av avskrekkingsteori (nektelse, gjengjeldelse, gjensidig avhengighet og normer) ønsker vi å vise hvordan en dyptgående innsikt i en stats sikkerhetspolitikk og strategiske kultur kan anvendes til å skreddersy en mer effektiv avskrekkingsstrategi og styrke evnen til å forhindre uønsket aktivitet.
Abstract in English
There is an ongoing debate in academia about if and how deterrence theory may be used in cyberspace. Deterrence was originally a theory developed for avoiding conventional and nuclear war. In the current discussion on cyber security, there has been pointed out a range of technical problems of transferring a theory about the physical world to cyberspace. We recognize these challenges of deterrence in cyberspace, but in this article we want to shed light on a different aspect of deterrence. That is the interplay between social and technical factors of deterrence in cyberspace. In this article we will discuss how deterrence as a strategy in cyberspace is influenced by the specific strategic culture of a country. We will use China as a case study to showcase our argument. Contrasts between Chinese and "Western" strategic culture results in concrete differences in how Chinese and Western countries act in cyberspace. By utilizing four components of deterrence theory (denial, punishment, entanglement and norms), we will show how an in-depth knowledge of a state's security policy and strategic culture may be used to tailor a more effective deterrence and enforce the capacity of hindering unwanted activity.

Russia's strategy in the Arctic is dominated by two overriding discourses – and foreign policy directions – which at first glance may look like opposites. On the one hand, an IR realism/geopolitical discourse that often has a clear patriotic character, dealing with "capturing", "winning" or "conquering" the Arctic and putting power, including military power, behind the national interests in the area – which is why we, in recent years, have seen an increasing military build-up, also in the Russian Arctic. Opposed to this is an IR liberalism, international law-inspired and modernization-focused discourse, which is characterized by words such as "negotiation", "cooperation" and "joint ventures" and which has as an axiom that the companies and countries operating in the Arctic all benefit the most if they collaborate in peace and friendliness. So far, the IR liberalism discourse has set the trend of the Russian policy carried out in relation to the Arctic. Thus, it has primarily been the Russian Foreign Ministry and, above all, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that have drawn the overall lines of the Arctic policy, well aided by the Transport Ministry and the Energy Ministry. On the other side are the Russian national Security Council led by Nikolai Patrushev and the Russian Defence Ministry headed by Sergey Shoygu, which both have embedded their visions of Russia and the Arctic in the IR realism/geopolitical discourse. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, does the same. Nevertheless, he has primarily chosen to let the Foreign Ministry set the line for the Arctic policy carried out, presumably out of a pragmatic acknowledgement of the means that have, so far, served the Russian interests best. Moreover, it is worth noting that both wings, even though they can disagree about the means, in fact are more or less in agreement about the goal of Russia's Arctic policy: namely, to utilize the expected wealth of oil and natural gas resources in the underground to ensure the continuation of the restoration of Russia's position as a Great Power when the capacity of the energy fields in Siberia slowly diminishes – which the Russian Energy Ministry expects to happen sometime between 2015 and 2030. In addition to that, Russia sees – as the polar ice slowly melts – great potential for opening an ice-free northern sea route between Europe and Asia across the Russian Arctic, with the hope that the international shipping industry can see the common sense of saving up to nearly 4,000 nautical miles on a voyage from Ulsan, Korea, to Rotterdam, Holland, so Russia can earn money by servicing the ships and issuing permissions for passage through what Russia regards as Russian territorial water. The question is whether Russia will be able to realize its ambitious goals. First, the Russian state energy companies Gazprom and Rosneft lack the technology, know-how and experience to extract oil and gas under the exceedingly difficult environment in the Arctic, where the most significant deposits are believed to be in very deep water in areas that are very difficult to access due to bad weather conditions. The Western sanctions mean that the Russian energy companies cannot, as planned, obtain this technology and know-how via the already entered-into partnerships with Western energy companies. The sanctions limit loan opportunities in Western banks, which hit the profitability of the most cost-heavy projects in the Arctic. However, what hits hardest are the low oil prices – at present 50 dollars per barrel (Brent). According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the fields in the Arctic are not profitable as long as the oil price is under 120 dollars per barrel. Whether Russia chooses to suspend the projects until the energy prices rise again – and until it has again entered into partnerships that can deliver the desired technology and know-how – or whether the Russian state will continuously pump money into the projects is uncertain. The hard-pressed Russian economy, with the prospects of recession, increasing inflation, increasing flight of capital, rising interest rates and a continuously low oil price, provides a market economic incentive for suspending the projects until further notice. Whether the Kremlin will think in a market economic way or a long-term strategic way is uncertain – but, historically, there has been a penchant for the latter. One of the Kremlin's hopes is that Chinese-Russian cooperation can take over where the Western-Russian cooperation has shut down. Russia has long wanted to diversify its energy markets to reduce its dependence on sales to Europe. At the same time, those in the Kremlin have had a deeply-rooted fear of ending up as a "resource appendix" to the onrushing Chinese economy, which so far has been a strong contributing reason for keeping the Russian-Chinese overtures in check. The question now is whether the Western sanctions can be the catalyst that can make Russia overcome this fear and thus, in the long term, support the efforts to enter into a real, strategic partnership with China. ; Russia's strategy in the Arctic is dominated by two overriding discourses – and foreign policy directions – which at first glance may look like opposites. On the one hand, Russia have an IR realism/geopolitical discourse that often has a clear patriotic character, dealing with "exploring", "winning" or "conquering" the Arctic and putting power, including military power, behind the national interests in the area – which is why we, in recent years, have seen an increasing military build-up, also in the Russian Arctic. Opposed to this is an IR liberalism, international law-inspired and modernization- focused discourse, which is characterized by words such as "negotiation", "cooperation" and "joint ventures" and which has as an axiom that the companies and countries operating in the Arctic all benefit the most if they cooperate peacefully.

De fem nordiske landene har alle gjort suksess som små og økonomisk åpne stater på verdensmarkedet. Denne åpenheten har tillatt kapital, varer og ideer å flyte relativt uhindret fra verdens økonomiske kraftsentre til Europas nordligste utkant. Kinas fremvekst som et økonomisk kraftsenter har imidlertid medført et nytt dilemma: Hvordan forholder man seg til en autoritær, men investeringsvillig, økonomisk stormakt man ikke har sikkerhetspolitisk samarbeid med? I denne fokusspalten presenterer forskere fra hvert av de nordiske landene hvordan debatten rundt dette dilemmaet har kommet til uttrykk i de ulike nordiske offentligheter. I sum fremviser de fem kapitlene noen brede nordiske fellestrekk. I alle land har sikkerhetsproblematikken ved kinesiske investeringer blitt mer fremtredende, men det har kommet til uttrykk på noe ulikt vis i henholdsvis dansk, finsk, islandsk, norsk og svensk debatt. Kapitlene viser samlet sett at det har skjedd en betydelig endring i de ulike nasjonale debattene. Denne endringen har skjedd både svært nylig, svært raskt og i stor grad samtidig på tvers av den nordiske offentligheten, i takt med at de nordiske landene har måttet tilpasse seg en internasjonal situasjon hvor økonomi og sikkerhetspolitikk i økende grad har blitt sammenflettet.
Abstract in English:Chinese Investments in the NordicsThe five Nordic countries have all enjoyed considerable success as small, economically open countries on the world market. This openness has allowed capital, goods and ideas to flow relatively unimpeded from the economic power centres of the world to the northernmost fringe of Europe. China's rise as an economic hub has, however, resulted in a novel dilemma; how to relate to an authoritarian economic great power that is outside of one's security alliances, but is very willing to invest. In this focus section, researchers from each of the Nordic countries present how the debate over this dilemma has proceeded in the respective Nordic publics. In sum, the five chapters demonstrate certain broad common traits amongst the Nordics. In all of the countries the potential security issues concerning Chinese investments have lately become a substantially more prominent feature of the national debate, although the modality of this shift showcases some slight varieties in the Danish, Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Swedish debates, respectively. The chapters demonstrate that there has been a substantial shift in the debate in all of the five public spheres. This shift has both happened quite recently, quite fast, and to a large extent quite simultaneously across all of the Nordic countries, as they have had to rapidly adjust to a new international environment where economy and security have become increasingly interlinked.

Artikkelen ser på den teknologiske og strategiske rivaliseringen mellom USA og Kina hva gjelder implementeringen av 5G-nettverk, og spør hva som er med å påvirke hvordan andre stater posisjonerer seg mellom de to supermaktene. Ved å bygge på tre grener av politisk realisme – balance-of-threat-teoriens tanke om at trusseloppfatning driver staters valg av allianser, patron–klient-teoriens tro på at USA kan forvente at deres klientstater innretter seg etter amerikansk utenrikspolitikk, og teorien om at handelsrelasjoner kan brukes som maktverktøy – utleder jeg et sett med hypoteser og potensielt relevante forklaringsvariabler. Som avhengig variabel samler jeg 70 staters holdninger til Kinas omstridte telekommunikasjonsgigant Huaweis rolle i 5G. Bivariat analyse avslører tre hovedmønstre: (1) Stater som er små og maktesløse i forhold til Kina, samt statene i Kinas geografiske region, ser ut til å være mer aksepterende til Huaweis 5G. (2) Stater som ser på USA som sin patron og som er avhengige av Washingtons sikkerhetsgaranti ser ut til å være betydelig mer avvisende til selskapets 5G. (3) Handelsrelasjoner til både USA og Kina ser ut til å ha liten eller ingen effekt på staters holdninger. Av de tre realisme-grenene er det altså patron–klient-teorien som veier tyngst når det gjelder å forklare staters holdninger til Huaweis 5G.
Abstract in English:The US way or the Huawei: An analysis of how small and medium states stand on the Chinese giant's role in 5GThis article examines the technological and strategic rivalry between the US and China on the implementation of 5G networks, asking what influences how other states position themselves between the two superpowers. By building on three branches of political realism – balance-of-threat theory's notion that perception of threat drives states' alliance choices, patron-client theory's belief that the US can expect its client states to adhere to American foreign policy, and the theory that trade relations can be used as power tools – I derive a set of hypotheses and potentially relevant explanatory variables. As dependent variable, I measure 70 states' stances on China's controversial telecom giant Huawei's role in 5G. Bivariate analysis reveals three primary patterns: (1) States who are dwarfed by China's power, as well as states in China's immediate geographic region, appear to be more acceptive of Huawei's 5G. (2) States who see the US as their patron and who rely on Washington's security guarantee appear to be much more rejective of the company's 5G. (3) Trade relations to both the US and China appear to have little or no effect on states' stances. Of the three branches of realism, it is the patron-client theory that offers the most weight in explaining states' stances on Huawei's 5G.