Undersea cables form the invisible infrastructure that sustains the digital world. These cables transmit around 99% of all international data, making them indispensable to everything from international finance and global communications to military coordination.
In the 1980’s, sharks seemed to be the worst enemies of this hidden network. The toothy predators are probably attracted by the electromagnetic fields generated by the cables, or they are simply curious. Either way, internet cables had to be wrapped in Kevlar-like materials to prevent damaging shark bites.
Today, cable operators wish that sharks would be their biggest problem.
The growing geopolitical struggle surrounding undersea cables has emerged as a critical element in the broader contest between global powers, particularly the U.S. and China, as the cables responsible for transmitting nearly all the world’s international data have increasingly become a site of strategic competition. The stakes around these cables have been raised in recent years, with growing concerns over security vulnerabilities and the geopolitical ramifications of who builds and maintains this critical infrastructure.
The U.S.’s latest initiative, the New York Principles on Undersea Cables, aims to create a coalition of “trusted” allies that would exclude Chinese companies from future undersea cable projects, citing concerns over national security and data privacy.
While this move is rooted in Washington’s desire to curb Beijing’s technological and strategic influence, it also presents significant challenges for Europe, particularly the European Union (EU). As the EU finds itself caught between economic ties to China and security cooperation with the U.S., this issue exposes broader tensions in the global order and the risks of an emerging “exclusive club” that could fragment the world economy.
Historically, the undersea cable industry has been dominated by companies from the U.S., Japan, and France. In recent years, however, Chinese companies, particularly HMN Tech, have gained ground, completing, or participating in several key projects globally. Encouraged by state support from Beijing, these firms have used China’s Belt and Road Initiative to build connections with developing nations that see these projects as critical to modernizing their digital infrastructure.
The U.S., however, views these developments as a strategic threat, suspecting that Chinese companies could use their involvement in cable projects to facilitate espionage or sabotage.
The rise of Chinese firms in this space has prompted a concerted effort by Washington to block China’s influence. According to reports, the U.S. has intervened in at least six submarine cable contracts between 2019 and 2023, preventing Chinese companies from participating or encouraging allies to abandon joint projects that include Chinese partner. The latest such attempt happened just days ago, when President Biden met his Vietnamese colleague.
Washington has leaned heavily on security concerns to justify these interventions, citing fears that China could exploit undersea cables to spy on the communications of rival nations, especially those that transmit sensitive financial, military, or governmental data.
The New York Principles on Undersea Cables fits into this endeavor, as it would effectively exclude Chinese companies from the global undersea cable network. The initiative follows a broader trend of U.S. efforts to limit China’s influence in critical technological and communication infrastructure, a trend that accelerated under the Trump administration and has continued under President Biden.
The Joint Statement represents a fundamental shift in how the U.S. views international economic cooperation.
For decades, Washington advocated for an open, rules-based global economy, underpinned by institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO). The exclusion of Chinese companies from critical infrastructure projects like undersea cables signals a move away from these principles and towards a more protectionist, security-driven approach. Critics argue that this shift risks undermining the global economic order, creating fragmented economic blocs that could stifle trade and cooperation.
China has responded fiercely to these developments, accusing the U.S. of hypocrisy. Chinese media have pointed out that there is no evidence that China has ever used its participation in cable projects for espionage or sabotage. In fact, they cite historical examples of the U.S. engaging in such tactics, most notably during the Spanish-American War, when U.S. forces cut undersea telegraph cables to disrupt Spanish communications. China’s government-backed news outlets also argue that Washington’s moves are designed not to protect national security, but to maintain its technological dominance and deny China the opportunity to compete fairly in the global market.
For the EU, the issue of whether to join the U.S.-led initiative is fraught with complexity, just like everything else when it comes to relations with China.
On the one hand, many European nations share Washington’s security concerns about China’s role in global infrastructure. The EU has already taken steps to limit Chinese involvement in other critical sectors, such as 5G networks, where several countries have banned or restricted the use of Huawei technology. Given the critical nature of undersea cables, some EU member states may be inclined to support the U.S. initiative to protect their national security.
On the other hand, many European countries have significant economic ties to China, and they are wary of being drawn into a broader U.S.-China trade war. The EU is China’s largest trading partner, and many European industries depend on Chinese markets for growth and investment. For countries like Germany, which has strong trade ties with China, joining the U.S.’s exclusive “club” of trusted partners could jeopardize these economic interests.
Also, there is a broader concern within the EU about the implications of the U.S.’s protectionist approach. As the U.S. moves away from a global rules-based system, many in Europe fear that this could undermine the global economy and reduce opportunities for international cooperation.
The dilemma facing the EU is not just about balancing economic and security interests, but also about the future direction of the global economic order. The U.S.’s efforts to create exclusive clubs of trusted partners could deepen global divisions, creating a world in which countries are forced to choose between competing economic blocs. This is a far cry from the vision of a globalized economy that Europe has long championed, and many EU leaders are reluctant to abandon that vision in favor of a more divided world.
The U.S.’s strategy has not been without its critics at home, either.
While Washington frames its efforts as necessary to protect national security, many argue that the U.S. is using security concerns as a pretext to maintain its technological dominance and shut China out of key global markets. This, they argue, is not about protecting data or preventing espionage, but about ensuring that U.S. companies continue to dominate the lucrative undersea cable industry.
Furthermore, critics warn that the U.S.’s efforts to create exclusive clubs of trusted partners could backfire, reducing opportunities for cooperation. By excluding China from global projects, the U.S. may actually increase the risk of conflict, as China and other excluded nations may respond by creating parallel infrastructures that compete with U.S.-led initiatives.
The militarization of undersea cables is another area of concern.
Historically, undersea cable projects were collaborative, driven by private companies and built on partnerships across borders. The increasing involvement of governments, particularly in the form of security-driven restrictions, risks turning these projects into tools of geopolitical competition. This could make undersea cables more vulnerable to sabotage or attack during times of conflict, as rival powers target each other’s communication networks (though not an internet cable, but the attack against the Nord Stream pipelines proves that the risk exists).
The battle over undersea cables is merely a microcosm of the broader geopolitical competition between the U.S. and China.
Infrastructure was once seen as neutral and global. Now it is increasingly becoming a site of strategic contest. The U.S.’s efforts to exclude China from these projects signal a shift away from an open global economy and towards a more divided world, in which countries are forced to choose sides.
For the EU, this issue presents a difficult balancing act. While security concerns about Chinese involvement are real, the economic consequences of alienating China could be significant. As Europe grapples with its place in this new geopolitical landscape, the future of global cooperation remains uncertain. The outcome of this contest will shape not only the future of global communication infrastructure but also the broader direction of the global economy.
