Since 2016, Britain has been blindsighted by Brexit. The government, politicians and the media have been unable to speak of little else. Britons have all been bleating on about their future relationship with the EU. That has all changed. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, fresh from a sensational election victory, has delivered on his campaign promise to get Brexit done.
The nation can divert its gaze, if only temporarily, from Brussels to Beijing. In the post-Brexit world, the conventional wisdom has been that London would turbo-charge its efforts to forge a tight economic partnership with the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
This would not be an unreasonable assumption to make. The desire to establish a “golden era” in relations between the two countries precedes the decision to leave the EU. Back in 2015, then-British chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne, the architect of this lofty tagline, vowed to “make Britain China’s best partner in the West.”
This came after years of trade delegations to China, new government people-to-people schemes and scores of slobbering ministers sent over to Shanghai on the proviso that they would keep quiet on the human rights front.
All of this happened under the leadership of then-British prime minister David Cameron, who, when it comes to China, and much else, is without a doubt Britain’s most sycophantic prime minister. In 2013, his shamelessness hit a new low: After Beijing gave him the cold shoulder following his meeting with the Dalai Lama, he promised never to meet Tibet’s spiritual leader again.
When Cameron said his China policy was “looking to the future,” all Britons knew what he meant — and, more importantly, knew what he was not looking at, such as the issue of political prisoners.
His deference paid off and two years later, he was granted the pleasure of being pictured, a pint in one hand and a plate of fish-n-chips in the other, with then-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretary Xi Jinping (習近平).
The desire to tap into the PRC’s market is an understandable temptation. The statistics speak for themselves. If Western leaders are happy to put their morals to one side — assuming they have some in the first place — then Beijing can offer them plenty, including the opportunity to build infrastructure quickly and cheaply.
This is a tempting offer for Johnson, no doubt. As mayor of London from 2008 to 2016, he was gung-ho for big building projects. From new bridges to new airports, Johnson wanted it.
Now he wants to “level up” the UK and he is going to need some help, especially if he wants to make an impact before the next British general election.
So far, during his time in office, there has been talk of China’s state railway company constructing Britain’s high-speed rail system, as well as praise for Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative from Johnson himself.
Yet none of this has been as worrying as the government’s decision to allow Huawei Technologies to help develop the UK’s 5G capacity.
Huawei is the only game in town when it comes to speeding up the country’s Internet connectivity, the British government has said, but this comes with security risks.
As the British Parliament’s own Intelligence and Security Committee has noted, Huawei is not a normal company. Unlike the Nokias and Ericssons of this world, Huawei has deep ties to the CCP. Involving a company with this sort of relationship in the building of Britain’s 5G infrastructure heightens the risk of espionage and sabotage — a point made by Britain’s fellow Five Eye intelligence allies, Australia and the US.
Beijing’s 2017 national intelligence law requiring individuals and organizations to cooperate with China’s intelligence agencies only compounds fears.
While the British government has ignored these warnings, trouble has been brewing on the backbenches. The campaign against Huawei, led by the former leader of the Conservative Party, has attracted prominent supporters including the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, former high-ranking ministers and a former first secretary of state (Britain’s de facto deputy prime minister).
On two occasions so far this month, this security-conscious squad has taken the opportunity to register their concerns in the parliamentary record.
On Tuesday last week, group members, alongside 38 fellow Conservative members of parliament, rebelled against the government’s defeated whip. Although defeated, Johnson’s majority does not seem as large and, what is more, this story is far from over.
The trade-off between pursuing an ethical foreign policy and increasing trade with the PRC has long been known, but it is only in recent years that the security implications of getting into bed with Beijing have been properly discussed.
For decades Britain has been complacent about the rise of China and Johnson’s administration appears no different, but it is not too late. The government still has time to listen to the growing grumbles from its own backbenches and ditch Huawei.
Gray Sergeant is a British writer focusing on East Asian politics.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS