Huawei and Tik Tok and Now Telegram: This Is How the West Suppresses Russian and Chinese Technology

The recent arrest of Pavel Durov, the founder of the popular messaging app Telegram, in France has drawn attention to the European Union’s struggles to enforce its new digital regulations.

Durov, a Russian-born billionaire, was detained at Le Bourget Airport near Paris under an arrest warrant issued by French authorities.

His arrest has cast a spotlight on the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a sweeping set of laws designed to regulate major digital platforms and combat illegal content, misinformation, and protect minors online.

Telegram’s Case

The DSA, which came into effect recently, mandates that every EU member state appoint a “Digital Services Coordinator” responsible for overseeing platforms like Telegram.

For Telegram, this regulatory responsibility falls to Belgium. However, Belgian authorities have struggled to fulfill their role. The Belgian Institute for Postal Services and Telecommunications, which oversees the enforcement of the DSA, lacks the investigative powers needed to monitor Telegram effectively.

The French investigation into Durov, however, is said to be independent of the EU’s regulatory framework, according to the European Commission.

French authorities arrested Durov, alleging involvement in serious crimes linked to the operation of Telegram, including fraud, drug trafficking, cyberbullying, organized crime, and terrorism

 A source told French media that France’s cybercrime agency, which specializes in preventing violence against minors, issued the warrant as part of an ongoing investigation

 The arrest caught the attention of investigators who were surprised that Durov had traveled to France despite knowing he was wanted.

Despite the serious charges, Durov remains a highly controversial figure. Telegram has long been a critical platform for dissent in Russia, where it is used to circumvent state censorship and communicate outside the reach of Kremlin controls.

Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, the app has played a crucial role in providing a space for independent voices and opposition groups.

For years, Durov has managed to keep Telegram out of direct control by the Russian state, even as the Kremlin attempted to ban the platform.

However, Durov’s arrest has ignited fears among his supporters and Russian opposition figures that Telegram could now come under pressure to cooperate with Western authorities, potentially compromising user data.

Russian state media have been quick to portray Durov’s detention as evidence of Western hypocrisy on free speech, while conspiracy theories have proliferated, suggesting that Durov was arrested to force him to hand over Telegram’s encryption keys.

The arrest has also sent shockwaves through Russia’s military and pro-Kremlin media circles, where Telegram has become an essential tool for both internal communications and propaganda.

Military bloggers and analysts expressed concern that Durov’s legal troubles could disrupt the platform’s operations and jeopardize its future.

Durov’s uncertain fate raises questions not just about the future of Telegram but also about the broader landscape of digital communication in Russia and beyond.

“Any moves to compromise the app’s security features could undermine user trust and destabilize the whole social media landscape,” computer scientist Alaa Sabry told Al-Estiklal.

“After Durov’s arrest, figures such as Elon Musk quickly called for his freedom, since Musk is challenging the West’s hegemony on social media, just like Durov,” he added.

“Everybody knows that child abuse material and illegal posts are everywhere on every social media app, it’s barely controllable, and people always find ways to circumvent the laws and guidelines of social media. Arresting Telegram’s founder is not about the illegal material circulated on the app, it’s about the West’s hegemony over tech and social media,” Sabry noted.

Huawei Case

Durov’s arrest wasn’t the only arrest the West had made on Eastern tech giants. In 2018, In Meng Wanzhou, Huawei's Chief Financial Officer and daughter of the company’s founder, was arrested in Canada at the request of U.S. authorities.

The U.S. has accused Huawei of violating American sanctions against Iran, and U.S. lawmakers have long viewed the Chinese tech giant as a threat to national security, alleging that its technology could be used for espionage by the Chinese government.

This arrest comes amid a broader struggle between the U.S. and China over technological supremacy, with both nations vying for dominance in advanced technologies.

Huawei, the world’s largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer and the third-largest smartphone maker, has been a global leader in research and development, holding tens of thousands of patents.

Under President Xi Jinping, China has embarked on an ambitious industrial strategy, “Made in China 2025,” which aims to reduce the nation’s dependence on Western technology and establish China as a global leader in advanced industries.

This strategy focuses on high-tech sectors, including aerospace, robotics, and advanced medical fields, rather than traditional, energy-intensive heavy industries.

China has invested heavily in artificial intelligence (AI), launching a comprehensive AI strategy in 2017 that aims to lead the world in AI by 2030. Major Chinese tech firms like Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu have been tasked with spearheading these efforts.

China's quest for technological dominance has prompted concerns in the U.S., where fears are growing that China’s advances in AI and other fields could undermine U.S. economic and military superiority.

In response, the Trump administration has implemented measures to limit Chinese access to critical technologies, including restricting investments in U.S. firms and banning the sale of American components to Huawei and ZTE.

Additionally, Chinese students pursuing technology-related studies in the U.S. face increased scrutiny and visa restrictions, as Washington seeks to safeguard its national security interests.

TikTok Weapon

In the same vein of the US war on the Eastern bloc’s tech advancement, in July 2020, then-President Donald J. Trump took aim at TikTok, accusing the popular social media platform of posing a national security threat.

Trump argued that the Chinese Communist Party could exploit data collected on American users to conduct espionage activities.

He demanded that TikTok be sold to U.S. interests to mitigate this perceived risk, setting off a protracted battle that continues to cast a shadow over the app’s future in the United States.

Despite a flurry of efforts by American investors to acquire TikTok or a stake in its operations, these attempts have repeatedly failed.

As a result, TikTok's standing remains precarious in both the U.S. and the European Union. In the U.S., lawmakers have attempted multiple times to ban the app, which has skyrocketed in popularity, particularly among young users.

Meanwhile, TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, valued at approximately $120 billion, has mounted an aggressive lobbying campaign to stave off these efforts.

The most serious allegations against TikTok center on the potential for the Chinese government to access data on American users, raising concerns about privacy and national security.

Critics also fear that TikTok’s “For You” algorithm, which remains largely opaque to outsiders, could be manipulated to sway public opinion or even disseminate political propaganda. This has sparked anxieties about the app’s potential to influence behavior, and some fear it could play a role in future U.S. elections.

Recent legislative developments have only intensified the scrutiny. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill with overwhelming support that would effectively ban TikTok unless it is separated from ByteDance.

Under the proposed legislation, the company would have 180 days to divest from its Chinese parent or face a sweeping ban from U.S. app stores and internet hosting services.

However, the bill’s future remains uncertain in the Senate, where divisions over national security, digital privacy, and free market principles could shape its outcome.

Opponents, however, contend that such a drastic move could set a troubling precedent for government intervention in private enterprise, and raise concerns about how much influence over personal data any government, domestic or foreign, should wield.