Mike Pompeo’s remark that Britain was making its own “sovereign choices” in dealing with China might have sounded better had he not concluded with a pat on the head: “We think – well done.”
The US secretary of state’s visit to London highlighted the complications of the government’s toughened stance. The hardening of attitudes towards China, seen throughout much of the west and elsewhere, has been driven primarily by Beijing’s increasing repression at home and forcefulness internationally. Much of the shift is a sensible recalibration. The government was right to extend the arms embargo on mainland China – which covers equipment potentially used for internal repression – to Hong Kong, and to suspend the extradition treaty with the region. Britain could hardly have done otherwise, given not only its historical responsibility, but also the extraordinary reach and draconian nature of the national security law.
China has warned that there will be consequences. These decisions follow the U-turn banning Huawei from the UK’s 5G network, and the welcoming of Hong Kongers eligible for a British national overseas (BNO) passport. And MPs – including the Conservative backbenchers who met Mr Pompeo on Tuesday – are pushing for further action, ranging from sanctions on officials involved in human rights abuses to reviews of Chinese involvement in British nuclear power and influence on higher education.
When Boris Johnson promised he would not become “a kneejerk Sinophobe”, it was a sensible sentiment. But one question is whether the prime minister was serious, or whether the phrase was a euphemism for getting back to business when possible – perhaps once a free trade deal with the US is signed, or Donald Trump has left the White House. Britain has reportedly hinted to Huawei that not only was its arm twisted by Washington, but also that things might look different for the Chinese firm in future.
Another question is whether such an approach is feasible while Britain spurns the European Union and the Trump administration, with its unwieldy mix of ideological fervour and political calculation on China, remains in place. Though the US president would happily bargain away human rights concerns for trade concessions, Mr Pompeo and others talk as though they want a new cold war. It would be a grave mistake for Britain to adopt the kind of policies that the US is reportedly weighing, such as a sweeping travel ban on the 90 million members of the Communist party of China and their families. In a one-party state, people join for many reasons. Li Wenliang, the whistleblower doctor in Wuhan, was a member. So was the jailed Uighur intellectual Ilham Tohti. Others in the US have called for a ban on all Chinese science and technology students – an absurd overreaction that fosters broader suspicion of all Chinese people and entities. Already, coronavirus has led to harassment of, and attacks on, Chinese and other Asian people globally.
Britain can and should go further on China. Young Hong Kong pro-democracy activists who do not qualify for BNO passports will need help. The foreign secretary’s condemnation of “gross and egregious” human rights abuses in Xinjiang was overdue; targeting companies and officials for their actions there is another step. China is unlikely to dramatically change course, and certain to seek retaliation. So the approach must be considered, consistent, and in concert with like-minded countries. There are, sensibly, growing efforts for democracies to cooperate in dealing with China. But this should not mean obedience to every demand from the US, or an echoing of its excesses.
