My friend Dave brings dishonour on Britain by kowtowing to China’s despots
Politicians engaged in flattery should ‘lay it on with a trowel’, advised the Victorian conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.
He was talking about royalty, but we seem to have taken his advice when it comes to china’s ruling oligarchy.
the extravagantly lavish welcome that has been given to President Xi Jinping during his state visit this week includes a ride down the Mall in an ornate carriage, a stay at Buckingham Palace, a 103-gun salute, an address to the Houses of Parliament and a white-tie royal banquet.
all this for a man who was so incensed by reporting of the vast wealth amassed by his family during his rise to power that the news organisations involved had visas blocked for their journalists.
and all this for a ruling elite whose corruption is matched only by its rage when the cynical self-enrichment is revealed, thanks to a Pulitzer Prizewinning investigation by the new York times.
none of this should surprise us: communist dictators never change their spots. they claim to be for the people but in the end it’s always about the power they can amass over people.
Freedom
today, the political establishment’s justification for all the pageantry and sucking-up is twofold. First, generosity towards President Xi will supposedly deepen china’s engagement with the West, thereby promoting a more liberal, democratic outlook within the ruling regime. second, a stronger relationship with china is said to be in Britain’s economic interests.
During his recent visit to chengdu, the capital of sichuan province, George osborne declared that ‘we are entering a golden era of co-operation between our two countries, and it is crucial that businesses and communities across the UK feel the full benefit of forging closer links with china’.
indeed, the chancellor is pushing for china to invest in both the proposed Hs2 rail link and a new generation of nuclear power stations, starting with Hinkley Point in somerset, for which he has guaranteed £2 billion of Government support in an attempt to secure a deal.
But neither of these arguments is convincing. there is little evidence that a deeper relationship boosts either freedom in china or prosperity in our own country. on the contrary, western approval appears to have strengthened the regime’s brutal authoritarianism, providing a veneer of legitimacy for its savage oppression back home.
Meanwhile, the desperation to attract chinese cash only emphasises our economic vulnerability.
For the nation that pioneered the industrial Revolution, the idea that we are now dependent on the chinese to meet our domestic energy or transport needs should be a source of embarrassment not celebration — particularly when there are policies we could pursue at home to unlock infrastructure investment without going cap-inhand to Beijing.
all the upbeat political rhetoric cannot disguise the reality that there is something repugnant about fawning over one of the world’s cruellest, most corrupt dictatorships.
china remains a savage autocracy that shows utter contempt for human rights. Dissidents continue to be jailed or executed on an epic scale. opposition to communist tyranny is almost impossible. the police state is still in place, complete with mass surveillance and mind control techniques.
china’s notorious one-child policy, which has been relaxed but not abolished, means female citizens can be subjected to the forcible insertion of intrauterine contraceptive devices or compulsory abortions.
Far from easing, this barbarous tyranny is becoming worse. amnesty international reports that, since July, 245 human rights lawyers and activists have been targeted by the chinese government, with at least 30 missing or in police custody.
in its 2015 report on china, the group Human Rights Watch reported that the authorities ‘have unleashed an extraordinary assault on basic human rights and their defenders with a ferocity unseen in recent years, an alarming sign given that the current leadership will likely remain in power through [to] 2023’.
Meanwhile, china is becoming just as big a bully abroad as it is at home, increasingly flexing its muscles as a global military superpower. neighbours are threatened, foreign computer systems hacked and commercial secrets stolen.
Yet this is the regime for which Britain is now rolling out the red carpet. instead of standing up to a dangerous rogue state, we are bowing down before it.
i understand why David cameron and George osborne are doing this. they genuinely believe it’s in Britain’s long-term economic interests. Well, although they are good friends and i usually support them wholeheartedly, on this issue, as they have known for years, i think they are deeply wrong.
the contrast in our stance towards Vladimir Putin’s Russia could hardly be greater. Quite rightly, western leaders loudly express their outrage over Putin’s oppression at home and aggression abroad.
after his annexation of crimea and military support for rebels in Ukraine, the West backed up these words with sanctions, which have had an impact on the Russian economy.
Yet nothing like this has been done about china. Human rights abuses will be a taboo subject this week. china’s seizure of tibet, a far more brutal act than Russia’s crimean intervention, goes unchallenged.
Menace
ah, say the apologists, but Putin is a direct threat to us and Europe, whereas china represents no such menace.
this is dangerously wrong. through its intimidation, china is a serious risk to global trade and stability, on which our own economy depends. the regime is infamous for its use of cybercrime and espionage as a means of testing vulnerabilities in the West’s digital infrastructure.
shouldn’t we be nervous about allowing china a large stake in our nuclear industry, providing the aggressive empire builders of Beijing with sensitive information about our technology?
Ultimately our commerce, energy and security could all be undermined.
the debate about our approach to china is put forward as a choice between economic pragmatism that will benefit Britain, and airy, self-indulgent idealism that will damage our country. But this is a false choice. the morally correct approach is actually the one that holds out the most rewards, whereas appeasement of china could be the road to long-term economic damage.
there is nothing naive in demanding that nations abide by certain ethical standards. after all, that is the policy the West adopted towards apartheid in south africa, enforced through sanctions.
no doubt the appeasers would argue that we cannot impose any form of similar isolation on china, given that our economies are now so enmeshed. china already has, for instance, major stakes in Heathrow and Manchester airports, as well as Felixstowe (Britain’s busiest port), and several water companies. Even much-loved British breakfast cereal Weetabix is made by a chinese company, Bright Food.
For his part, President obama threatened china with sanctions over its cyber-belligerence.
Tyranny
Rather than inhibiting our actions, our economic ties give us tremendous leverage over china. this is a regime that craves international approval. Eager to flaunt their new wealth, its leaders won’t want to be frozen out of markets such as property, fashion, finance and entertainment.
the fact is that we should not continue with the degrading approach. self-abasement in the face of tyranny has achieved nothing.
We should use our global position to signal our profound disapproval of the communist government. there are many weapons at our disposal: sanctions — especially ones that hit the lavish lifestyles of the corrupt chinese elite; cultural boycotts; cooler diplomatic relations; and expressions of support for dissidents.
Just as importantly, we should drop our obsession with economic subservience towards china. the global economy is larger and more dynamic than ever. there are many other countries with whom we can build stronger, less imbalanced relationships — such as india, with whom we have shared links of language, culture and history.
in the long term, india — a genuine democracy — could be a more fruitful partner, given her potential for growth. the same is true of many developing african nations. the indian subcontinent and africa, not china, are the real lands of opportunity.
By working with them, we can promote progress and prosperity. By embracing the chinese dictatorship, we bring national and moral dishonour.