September 14, 2022
Most Australians agree China is the most important geopolitical threat we face in the 21st century. Australia has withstood a campaign of espionage, foreign interference and cyber attacks from China, which our security agencies have assessed to be worse than at the height of the Cold War.
What many Australians may not know is the main arena for strategic competition today is advanced technology, just as it was in the Cold War – a contest in which the West prevailed and from which we must learn. The technological revolution that gave the US economic and military superiority was being eroded by competition from the Soviet Union, particularly in then emerging domains of nuclear and space.
Despite the Soviets’ achievements, America’s technological ingenuity, underpinned by a free enterprise system, ensured the West triumphed.
Today, whoever develops advanced technologies first will have as decisive an advantage as in the Cold War. This time it’s quantum computing, artificial intelligence and other technologies that will deliver a critical advantage.
Where China hasn’t already gained an advantage, it could soon be the global leader. A former US software officer lamented China’s AI victory was “a done deal”. Advances in quantum decryption soon could allow China to reveal decades of Western secrets assiduously harvested for years. China’s research and development investments represent 90 per cent of US expenditure and are projected to overtake that of the US within the decade.
Successfully arresting these trends includes ensuring partnerships such as AUKUS live up to their potential, deepening tech co-operation through the Quad and ensuring world-leading innovations from our higher education sectors are not stolen by our adversaries. An indispensable part of the strategy to win the tech race is a new compact with big tech.
Western tech companies accounted for 70 per cent of the US total commercial R&D expenditure, spending a combined $140bn compared to the Pentagon’s $109bn. Western governments rightly focused on acquiring conventional and immediate military technologies simply can’t spend enough on developing decisive technologies of tomorrow. Partnering with the tech industry will combine our spending power to develop advanced technologies before our authoritarian rivals.
Not everyone will be comfortable with this. Rightly concerned about the power of big tech, many want onerous regulations to rein them in or even break them up.
Big tech inconsistently polices free speech, fails to create safe environments online and is slow to combat foreign state-sponsored disinformation. But regulation to address these problems must be proportional, consistent with liberal democratic values and cognisant of the bigger strategic picture.
A compact with big tech requires hard-headed realism in legislative priorities and a recognition that “solving” problems risks exacerbating more existential challenges.
This does not give big tech a free pass. In return for a favourable regulatory environment, big tech must pick a side in the strategic competition, just as it has done in Ukraine.
Tech companies significantly impeded Russia’s control of cyberspace, creating a digital blockade and counteracting Russia’s information campaigns.
After detecting 237 cyber operations against Ukraine by Russia-aligned countries, Microsoft worked with the Ukrainian government to provide 24/7 intelligence and countermeasures. Amazon migrated Ukrainian government data to the cloud in case the government’s physical servers were destroyed, and Google protected Ukrainian government websites.
Big tech must pick a side in potential geopolitical scenarios in the Indo-Pacific: ours. The alternative, says Google co-founder Eric Schmidt, is an autocratic future where “systems designed, built and based in China dominate”.
Despite legitimate frustrations, we must decide whether we want Western tech or their authoritarian counterparts to prevail. That should be an easy choice. Because if authoritarian tech wins, our present frustrations will seem trivial.
James Paterson is opposition cybersecurity spokesman.
