Similar Outcome, Different Paths: Comparing the Exclusion of Huawei in the United Kingdom and Vietnam

In 2019, in an internationally surprising move, Vietnam became the first Southeast Asian country to effectively exclude the Chinese technology company Huawei from its national 5G networks. This article aims to examine media and government communication surrounding this decision from 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2023 in Vietnam, as well as to compare it to the exclusion of Huawei in the United Kingdom, establishing similarities and differences between the Asian and the European cases. Data of official political communication was collected via government websites in Vietnam and the United Kingdom. Data of media communication was collected via the Global Database of Events, Language and Tone (GDELT). Qualitative and quantitative analysis of official government communication and media communication was then performed to detect the arguments behind the decision in each country to search for similarities and differences. In the United Kingdom, national media communication emphasized the role of national security concerns and the role of Huawei as a Chinese company in the ban, in contrast to government communication, which framed the decision as one of diversification, pragmatism and of improving the resiliency of critical infrastructure; national security concerns were mentioned, but the communication emphasized the objectivity of their criteria in banning companies from 5G infrastructure. In Vietnam, Huawei was hardly mentioned, and its absence existed in the context of a promotion of the state-owned telecommunications company Viettel’s 5G development. In a country with a single-party authoritarian communist government and low press freedom, government and national media communication aligned in highlighting Viettel’s development of Vietnam’s 5G networks as one of domestic industrial strength. In both media environments, Chinese outlets (almost always state-run) made up a prominent portion of the commentary of Huawei’s involvement (or lack thereof) in both countries, and they heavily emphasized the influence of the United States and portrayed a situation of crisis and catastrophe.