After years of delusion, the British Parliament has finally woken up to the reality of the Chinese communist threat. Leading this effort are two Conservative Party members of Parliament, Iain Duncan Smith and Tobias Ellwood.
Duncan Smith is leading an international framework of parliamentarians to hold China accountable for its malfeasance. And Ellwood, the chairman of the powerful Defense Select Committee, this week presided over the publication of a report into “hostile state” activity against the United Kingdom. Titled In Search of Strategy, the report focuses on strengthening Britain’s defense policy and its resilience against rising threats. This anticipates a national security strategy review by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government.
Still, the report’s key takeaway is its assertion that “to deliver a robust assessment of the capabilities and short and long term ambitions of hostile foreign states, the Review must consider the full range of Russia and China’s economic, diplomatic and military activities and include a thorough assessment of their internal political dynamics.” The key is not so much the detail of how Russia and China are pursuing hostile activity against British interests. Rather, it is the simple but significant description of Russia and China as “hostile foreign states.” China stands out in notability here.
The 2018 Russian assassination plot against Sergei Skripal forced London to recognize Vladimir Putin’s security threat as too long ignored. A recent, separate parliamentary intelligence report also identified Britain’s cozy tolerance of hostile Russian activity. But even before this evolution, there was at least an understanding in Britain that dealing with Putin’s Russia required caution. When it comes to Beijing, however, London was until very recently moving towards a truly intimate Sino-British partnership.
Led by former Prime Minister David Cameron and his Treasury-equivalent minister, George Osborne, Britain pursued a 2010-2016 strategy of appeasement towards Xi Jinping’s regime. This idiotic endeavor ignored China’s human rights record and its growing threat to the liberal international order. Instead, Cameron’s government was singularly focused on attracting as much Chinese investment as possible (interestingly, Cameron and other senior members of his government took lucrative jobs with Beijing-linked financial interests on leaving office). While Cameron’s successor, Theresa May, brought a little more restraint to the Chinese Communist Party love-in, she was reluctant to join U.S. efforts to truly challenge Chinese imperialism. Decisions on Royal Navy patrols to the South China Sea and Huawei’s ability to build out Britain’s 5G network were deferred. Johnson continued on this path.
Until the coronavirus pandemic hit.
In the last few months, we’ve seen a revolution in British strategy toward Beijing. Finally waking up to recognize China’s absolute disdain for the rule of law and its epidemic of dishonesty over the coronavirus, Johnson’s government has moved to situate its China policy alongside the U.S. and Australia. Huawei has been given a deadline to leave Britain’s 5G network, and the Royal Navy has confirmed it will conduct a South China Sea patrol next year. Britain is also moving to tighten its monitoring of Chinese intelligence and agent-of-influence activities. That brings us back to Ellwood’s report — because it encapsulates that this shift isn’t accidental or temporary. A few years ago, the British prime minister promised a “golden age” of cooperation with China. Today, the government and Parliament offer a different header for China: “hostile state.”
It’s an overdue but welcome shift.
