MP deported, Labour on China, Foreign Office questions, HSBC
All the latest Westminster happenings
Hello,
I’ve made this point frequently, but I think it’s worth making again: if you are not one of the world’s two (arguably soon to be three) major superpowers, you must constantly be fighting for influence and relevancy. These can be won in a range of ways: such as being a diplomatic convener in regions plagued by constant conflict (Qatar), or a provider of cutting-edge technology (Taiwan), or a bridge between two superpowers (Singapore), among others.
The British Government’s view on where the UK’s competitive advantage sits in this framework tends to focus on technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing, or financial services, or higher education. Internationally, they talk of the influence gained from being a permanent United Nations Security Council seat, a NATO member, and co-founder of AUKUS, and discussions around the country being a development superpower.
One area where the United Kingdom could harness its competitive advantages of world-leading higher education and consequent spinoffs, cutting-edge technology, and influence among (at least one) of the world’s superpowers? Climate change. This directly impacts many of the nations the UK is looking to target at a grand strategy level, particularly throughout the Indo-Pacific region. It’s an especially critical issue for smaller nations with none of these advantages, such as Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which are already among the heaviest impacted by climate change.
Setting aside the humanitarian reason this would be a good thing (argued well in a recent International Development Committee report), a hard-nosed realpolitik observer may ask how helping SIDS benefits the UK’s national interest. The argument here is simple: it boosts our standing within some of the world’s smallest nations, many of which sit in strategically important regions for the UK’s stated foreign policy ambitions and have votes in international organisations, and serves as a means of drawing these countries away from challenger nations such as China. It allows the UK to create a new area of competitive advantage in the coming decades: a nation that works with smaller partners, helping them with cutting-edge green technology and research, while advocating for them at larger multinational meetings.
Climate change and artificial intelligence will be the defining issues of the next century: the UK has an opportunity to win influence and act.
- Sam Hogg, Editor
What you’ll learn in this briefing note
What the Foreign Office has been up to on China
Why HSBC’s Chief Executive is stepping down
The story behind the MP ejected from an African nation
Diplomacy Tracker
Politics
On Monday, the Government set out the latest update on its seemingly eternal mission to remove equipment from companies like China’s Hikvision and Dahua from sensitive sites. That timeline, in short:
November 2022: The government instructed all departments to stop deploying surveillance equipment from companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of China at sensitive sites. They also advised that such equipment should not be connected to departmental core networks, and to consider expedited removal and replacement.
June 2023: During the Report stage of the Procurement Act, the government committed to setting out a timeline for the removal of this equipment from sensitive sites.
By October 2024: The government expects about 70% of sensitive sites to have their surveillance equipment removed.
By April 2025: The plan is for all remaining sites to have completed the replacement of the relevant surveillance equipment.
The following day, it was the Foreign Office’s turn to face the Commons. Deputy Foreign Minister (yes, that is a position that now exists) Andrew Mitchell was flanked by colleagues from the department to field a wide variety of questions, from Hong Kong to Chinese affairs more generally. Indo-Pacific Minister Annie-Marie Trevelyan, asked by her Labour counterpart Catherine West (above) and IPAC Tory MP Bob Seely about Jimmy Lai, responded “We have called for an end to British citizen Jimmy Lai’s prosecution in Hong Kong and for his release. The Foreign Secretary raised his case with the Chinese Foreign Minister in February, and I raised it during my visits to Beijing and Hong Kong last week.”
Their boss, Lord Cameron, was before the International Relations and Defence Committee. This is a heavyweight grouping of Peers, and they grilled the Foreign Secretary on matters from Israel and Gaza to Bosnia. Interestingly, the session didn’t touch on China on any meaningful level.
Elsewhere in Parliament: Tory MP Alex Stafford asked what the Government was doing to stop China Daily et al “poisoning the minds of our young people,” the Government vaguely confirmed a Lenovo supercomputer had received national security clearance, and Peers had a back and forth in the Lords about reducing Chinese espionage, economic coercion and exposure at a university level. The Government refuses to be drawn into explaining if it plans to help universities make up for the funding hole reducing the number of Chinese students attending would entail.