CPTPP amendment, Defence speech, Labour on China, North Korea
A Beijing to Britain briefing
Hello,
There’s a concept in US intelligence called a “Red Cell”. Put simply, a Red Cell refers to a “group of contrarian thinkers that challenges conventional wisdom in the intelligence community and mitigates the threat of additional surprises through alternative analysis.” Its job is not to predict, but to push the collective policy brain towards new ideas and concepts. In the spirit of acting like a member of a ‘Red Cell’, I want to draw readers’ attention to a political issue that could have serious human, diplomatic and economic ramifications for the UK-China bilateral, and the world at large, which I think is being missed by most of the Westminster establishment and commentariat.
According to two distinguished North Korea experts, both long-time analysts and one a former State Department policy adviser, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “has made a strategic decision to go to war.” Robert Carlin and Siegfried S. Hecker are of the view that there is a political echo chamber in Washington DC, Seoul and Tokyo, which believes any military action from Kim is unthinkable due to the close military ties of the three nations and the deterrence they offer. This echo chamber has played a part in stopping the triumvirate from coming to the conclusion the pair have reached: that Kim “has convinced himself that after decades of trying, there is no way to engage the United States”, and that “his recent words and actions point toward the prospects of a military solution using that arsenal.” Intelligence seems to hold the same view: at the end of last year, the South Korean National Intelligence Service warned that North Korea was likely “to engage in unexpected military and cyber provocations” in 2024. In comments made earlier this week, Kim said he needed to "newly formulate" the North's stance towards inter-Korean relations and reunification policy, adding that the stated goal was to "make a decisive policy change" related to "the enemy".
Put simply: there is cause for concern here. Setting aside the complications of any conflict between North and South Korea, I suspect many in Westminster will look at the above scenario and think the following: the conflict will distract the West, and give China the cover it needs to make a move on Taiwan. That could perhaps be a scenario, but analysts and policymakers should properly interrogate the China-North Korea relationship and assess the consequences of a war for China too. Companies may want to re-do analysis of key supply chains in the region, and wargame other hypotheticals too. From a UK-China bilateral point, it is also worth knowing that China signed the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty in 1961, which includes provisions for mutual defence. Luckily, some politicians are thinking about this. Former Minister for Asia Lord Swire’s debate in December appears prescient, and he makes some sound policy recommendations.
Taking a step away from the abyss, one of the goals I set for Beijing to Britain last year was for this firm’s research reports to become your one-stop shop for understanding Labour’s developing thinking on China. With polls now predicting a Conservative wipeout at a level not seen since 1997, it’s increasingly important to know what the Labour team are up to and what the strategy is. With that in mind, I’ll be dedicating a section of these research reports on the issue going forward, kicking off today with a look at Labour’s “campaign bible” and some of the latest rhetoric around the UK-China audit they’ve promised, and the Shadow Foreign Secretary’s major foreign policy speech delivered yesterday.
So, on to this week’s research briefing. We’re looking at the Defence Secretary’s strategic speech on the threat landscape (and its mentions of China and North Korea), a House of Lords amendment to the CPTPP aimed at providing Parliament with a vote on allowing China to join, and Chinese official engagement with Ireland and Scotland. We’re also touching on what businesses need to know from the new Government strategy on supply chains and critical imports, and the latest UK-China trade data.
- Sam Hogg, Editor
In this week’s briefing:
Government and Parliament discussions on China and Taiwan
Chinese Premier visits Ireland, Scottish-China diplomacy
Labour’s strategic framing of security ahead of the election
A new Government strategy on supply chains and critical imports
The latest UK-China trade data
Politics
On Monday, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak delivered a statement in the House of Commons explaining why his Government was taking action against the Houthis in Yemen. This was followed by a chance for MPs from all parties to question his justification. China was mentioned twice, with the second mention being the more significant. Alan Brown (SNP) asked “Is it not the case that if the UK is to be seen as an honest broker, the Prime Minister, as well as rightly condemning Hamas, needs to call out Israel for clear breaches of humanitarian law and call for an immediate ceasefire? With actors such as China now calling for an international conference to set a timetable for a two-state solution, would it not be better if the UK were doing something constructive to get that two-state solution in place?”
Earlier that day, Defence Secretary Grant Shapps gave a speech titled ‘Defending Britain from a more dangerous world’. The general gist of the speech was that Britain’s enemies - Russia, Iran, North Korea (and to an extent China) are working with each other more frequently and “are now more connected with each other.” Moving past the political jabs littering the speech, Shapps highlighted both AUKUS and the Global Combat Air Partnership (or GCAP) with Japan and Italy as examples of punchy new groupings that “are about sharpening our strategic edge so we can maintain our advantage over our adversaries.” There was little new in there from a strategic communications point of view aside from “Deter, Lead, Defend”, but China received five mentions, all of them in relation to Russia - perhaps reinforcing the line that it’s Beijing’s association with Moscow that represents a major threat, rather than just Beijing on its own. In light of the introduction to this research brief, it’s worth highlighting that also Shapps said “Can we really assume the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction that stopped wars in the past will stop them in future, when applied to…North Korea? I am afraid we cannot.”
Back in Parliament, the Government managed to squeeze through its controversial Rwanda Bill with a significant loss of face and political capital. During the debate, some MPs criticised the Bill through the prism of it causing the UK to lose legitimacy when it comes to calling out China. Labour’s Chris Bryant (IPAC) argued “How then can we argue that China, Russia and the Houthis should not renege on international human rights law when we ditch it when it is inconvenient for us?”, while Shadow Home Office Minister Stephen Kinnock said “How on earth can our country be the international standard bearer for the rule of law in the face of, for example, Putin’s barbarism or an increasingly belligerent China if we are breaking our own international obligations?”
On Thursday, the House of Lords discussed the Taiwanese elections in a short debate brought forward by Baroness D’Souza. It was a remarkably unsatisfying discussion, with vague questions and answers on issues from helping Taiwan’s democracy flourish to the island’s investment in East Anglia but adding little new insight to the table. Elsewhere, frustration continued to be voiced over Foreign Secretary David Cameron’s lack of transparency around his work prior to re-entering office, and there was a long criticism from Conservative MP Christopher Chope about how China controls the WHO.
Also worth noting: nine of IPAC’s MPs signed a letter to the Foreign Secretary which called on the British Government to “publicly condemn the National Security Law and associated degradation in Hong Kong's freedoms; impose targeted sanctions against PRC and Hong Kong officials responsible for the imposition and implementation of the NSL, including Chief Executive John Lee, and where legislation does not currently exist for these purposes, to enact it without delay;, suspend all remaining bilateral extradition treaties and mutual legal assistance treaties with the PRC and/or Hong Kong; and revise and issue business risk advice to reflect the new political reality in Hong Kong.”
It was revealed that leading China hawk Liz Truss lobbied the Government’s Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch to allow a company in her constituency to sell military equipment to China. Politico reported Truss tried to justify the request by saying that blocking the British firm from selling military equipment to China "would mean the loss of future sales running into the millions." She added that the firm believed that “if the license is not granted, the Chinese would simply reverse engineer and manufacture the products themselves.” Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Alicia Kearns was quoted in the piece, saying “It is against our national interests, and most certainly those of our ally Taiwan, to actively lobby for the export of a dual-use technology to a Chinese business subject to Chinese Communist Party coercion…De-mining equipment is subject to robust export controls for good reason.” Liberal Democrat Alistair Carmichael tweeted “This would be embarrassing if the former fleeting PM were capable of embarrassment. So much for that strong stance on human rights and liberal democracy.” Meanwhile, an anonymous DPP politician from Taiwan’s governing party told Politico’s Stuart Lau “This is totally unacceptable, and our diplomats should reconsider our future working relationship based on this information.”