I told Parliament today that the authoritarian threat to our way of life is symbolized by what happened to doctor Li Wenliang and the CCP’s imprisonment of Zhang Zhan – tortured for going to Wuhan to expose the truth. It is symbolized by the jailing of Hong Kong’s democrats and the genocide of the Uyghurs. How, I asked, can it ever be licit to do business as usual with those complicit in genocide.
House of Lords – 22nd April 2021
Lord Alton of Liverpool:
My Lords,
The Foreign Secretary rightly says the UK’s ambition should be to emerge as “a force for good” while the Prime Minister says, “liberal democracy and free markets remain the best model for social and economic advancement of humankind.”
In drawing attention to the All-Party Groups of which I am an officer and to the current inquiry of the International Relations and Defence Select Committee upon which I serve, I want to drill down into the Review’s objective that we tilt towards the insufficiently defined Indo Pacific and how we constrain the Chinese Communist Party.
The Integrated Review recognizes China’s increasing assertiveness as “the most significant geopolitical factor of the 2020s” and “the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”.
It describes China as a “systemic competitor” and says the UK is likely to “remain a priority target for such threats” including “cyber-attacks, disinformation, and proxies.”
Yet, conspicuously, the Review doesn’t even mention Taiwan which recently recorded its largest CCP air incursion yet. Why not? Combined with Russia’s opportunistic sabre rattling against Ukraine these challenges by autocracies pose a serious threat to international order.
The Foreign Secretary has described the CCP’s “industrial-scale” violations against the Uyghurs and we call out China’s violations – including CCP sanctions on parliamentarians exercising their duties and BBC journalists committed to truth telling.
We say we will stand up for our values but continue to conduct, and increase, business.
I ask the Minister directly, is it licit for a signatory to the Genocide Convention to do business as usual with a State credibly accused of genocide?
Given what we know about Xinjiang’s concentration camps and slave labour, what changes are we making to our supply chains? What are we doing to make the UK less dependent on China, especially in strategic sectors?
Recent reports by Jo Johnson and Civitas, warn of infiltration of UK higher education, intellectual property theft, and worse.
In “Inadvertently Arming China?” Civitas says that over half of the 24 Russell Group universities have worrying links with Chinese military-linked institutions – including agencies involved in developing Weapons of Mass Destruction. They say the UK’s response is “a picture of strategic incoherence.”
We need to do better than that.
The threat to our way of life is symbolized by the treatment of doctor Li Wenliang after trying to warn the world about Covid and the CCP’s imprisonment of a courageous young lawyer and citizen journalist, Zhang Zhan – tortured for going to Wuhan to expose the truth. It is symbolized by the jailing of Hong Kong’s democrats and the genocide of the Uyghurs.
In response the Review rightly emphasizes urges a multilateral response and for the UK to aim to be “the European partner with the broadest, most integrated presence”.
What can the Minister tell us of the proposed D10 alliance of democracies, and President Biden’s suggested Summit of Democracies? What would our role be? Might potential allies – like Singapore and Vietnam be excluded by too narrow definitions?
Strengthening ties with established Asian democracies – Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan; encouraging emerging democracies – Indonesia and Malaysia; and enhancing alliances with long standing friends like Singapore and India, will be key.
And we must stand with those fighting tyranny in Burma and Hong Kong – and those like Australia who are sanctioned for speaking out.
Note that China’s threat that Five Eyes countries “should be careful lest their eyes be poked blind” has been followed by New Zealand’s decision to leave Five Eyes.
To achieve the Review’s laudable aims we must strengthen, our alliances, stand with our friends and see how the frequently suborned multilateral architecture – especially at the UN – can be salvaged.
