How to say nothing in very few words
Britain’s long awaited announcement on a reset of relations with China relations turns out to be studiously underwhelming
Everything you need to know about Britain’s shinny new policy towards China is contained in these pages
For months the British government dodged questions about its relationship with the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) on grounds that it was poised to publish a detailed report on a re-set of relations. That report has now been issued. It is entirely devoid of specifics, mainly consists of platitudes and was not even deemed worthy of separate publication, instead it consisted of just three anodyne paragraphs contained in a wider security policy review.
Apparently more details are to be had but they have been withheld from public view on grounds of security. The more likely reason for this lack of transparency is that detailed evidence, given in good faith to shape this review, contains much that would embarrass the PRC, something this eager to please government would not tolerate.
What is visible is the determination of David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, to say absolutely nothing that actually casts light on this alleged re-set of relations. Mastering the full pomp of platitudinal evasion he could only go so far as to proclaim that China represented the UK’s ‘most complex bilateral relationship’.
Fearing that he might have veered too close to saying something meaningful led Mr Lammy to make the extraordinary revelation that ‘China’s power is an inescapable fact’. Gosh, who knew? He then pronounced with magisterial gravity that not engaging with China (which absolutely no one has suggested) was ‘no choice at all’
Apparently the UK is therefore seeking ‘a trade and investment relationship’ that ‘supports secure and resilient growth’. The Foreign Secretary made much of the fact that China is Britain’s third largest trading partner but was careful not to mention that while the UK exports very little to the PRC, Chinese exports to Britain are growing by the day. So, when he spoke of ensuring that the trade and investment relationship ‘supports secure and resilient growth’, what did he mean? Is he of the view that Britain should be encouraging a further expansion of this one-sided economic exchange?
When, earlier in the year, I interviewed Catherine West, the foreign office minister with direct responsibility for relations in this region, she dodged almost every specific question with an assurance that the then pending statement would make everything clear.
Either she was out of the loop, too embarrassed over the government’s supine attitude towards the PRC or full-heartedly shared the determination to ensure that clarity was far from the government’s mind. Big issues about Chinese spying in Britain, state harassment of British residents, the blatant violations of the Sino-British agreement on Hong Kong’s handover and the current elephant in the room regarding China’s plans to build a mega-embassy in London, are simply not addressed.
The best Mr Lammy could say about the new embassy was that he could not intervene because it was currently part of a legal planning process. Even this statement is belied by the recent leak of a letter he sent to the planning authorities urging them to give the go-ahead in the national interest.
A more robust view was recently taken by the US Congressional select committee on the Chinese Communist Party which stated that ’we have yet to receive credible assurances that the risks posed by the PRC’s so-called mega-embassy in London can be sufficiently mitigated.’ The Committee echoed concerns made by Britain’s own security services saying that allowing China to build the embassy in such a sensitive location ‘ posed an ‘unacceptable intelligence threat not only for Londoners, but for the UK, [intelligence sharing ] Five Eyes, and Europe as a whole’.
American intervention may yet prove to be crucial in this matter. Indeed while Britain pussyfoots around the more general threat that the PRC poses to national security, the US is taking action to reduce access to Chinese institutions and personnel who are deemed likely to be a threat to US security and, on the trade front, it is (albeit with a startling lack of consistency) making strenuous efforts to redress a yawning trade imbalance.
I shudder to think what will happen later in the year when Prime Minister Starmer makes a visit to Beijing where his hosts will expect him to say glowing things about themselves and will treat the trip as a rather unimportant but possibly useful propaganda exercise in showing its citizens how a once great power is now coming cap in hand to greet the Emperor in Beijing.
But, hey-ho, at least we can say that relations have been re-set.
Thanks Andrea
It always amazes me how people explain away ways in which people are denied self determination or indeed human rights. Thus, for example, in the dire situation in Sudan, it is almost as though the people themselves are being blamed for the devestation as opposed to local warlords and neighbouring countries - and as for thier human rights, well that doesn't matter because they never had them in the first place.
Regarding Hong Kong which China now denies was ever a colony but merely an occupied territory, the people are told not to expect anything because fate was always going to give them a bad deal - I hope the people saying that will be consistent and make the argument for the Russian invasion of Ukraine (it was inevitable) or maybe they would like to say that the endless civil wars and massacres in Ethopia were inveitable for historic reasons and therefore do not matter. This is stomach churning logic.
Some time last year on the Machon WhatsApp political thread I made an impassioned statement about the PRC and how dangerous it was to the independence of Taiwan and to the West in general. I cited its prevalence in Africa and desires to dominate in the Pacific and how it has totally reversed freedoms in HK that we not only enjoy but believe are part of our civil rights.
David Allard replied and I am paraphrasing, that the people of HK had no cause to complain because it was a colonial entity at core and was always going back to China.
I thought at the time ho naive a response that was and asked how would he feel if he had to live under the conditions that now prevail in HK.
He never responded. As you update us weekly on how under Starmer, the UK is sleep walking into a situation where one day they will wake up and find just how much power the Chinese have in the UK and how much they have penetrated the security of the UK, I am no longer surprised by his response.
Whereas if one asked Australians how much they trusted the PRC, an overwhelming majority would resoundingly say they were not to be trusted.
Obviously proximity and the fact that ASIO has reported on how often Australia has been under cyber attack and how often they have caught them attempting to penetrate our security systems as well as China’s “punishing” Australia through trade embargoes has made the general public much more au fait with h reality.