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.
Taiwan has lost Trump. Or so a former State Department official and lobbyist would have us believe. Writing for online outlet Domino Theory in an article titled “How Taiwan lost Trump,” Christian Whiton provides a litany of reasons that the William Lai (賴清德) and Donald Trump administrations have supposedly fallen out — and it’s all Lai’s fault. Although many of Whiton’s claims are misleading or ill-informed, the article is helpfully, if unintentionally, revealing of a key aspect of the MAGA worldview. Whiton complains of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s “inability to understand and relate to the New Right in America.” Many
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
Taiwan is to hold a referendum on Saturday next week to decide whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant, which was shut down in May after 40 years of service, should restart operations for as long as another 20 years. The referendum was proposed by the opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and passed in the legislature with support from the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Its question reads: “Do you agree that the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should continue operations upon approval by the competent authority and confirmation that there are no safety concerns?” Supporters of the proposal argue that nuclear power
RSS