Our next webinar is on 24 September: China encirclement and the imperialist build-up in the Pacific.

Category: Britain

Book review: The Great Reversal – Britain, China and the 400-Year Contest for Power

We are pleased to republish the below review by Glyn Ford of Kerry Brown’s ‘The Great Reversal: Britain, China and the 400-Year Contest for Power’, published by Yale University Press in July 2024.

Professor Kerry Brown is the Director of the Lau China Institute at King’s College London, a prolific author, a former diplomat at the British Embassy in Beijing and one of Britain’s most distinguished and erudite Sinologists. Or as Ford aptly puts it: “Kerry Brown is one of Britain’s most skilled and knowledgeable Chinese hands, which explains why he is no longer a UK diplomat serving in China.” He continues to satirise the somersaults in UK policy towards China in recent years, which indeed defy logical comprehension: “One moment it was President Xi drinking a pub pint in a local with Cameron and next proposals to ban Beijing’s diplomats from the Strangers Bar in the Commons.”

Ford considers Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s recent China visit to have been “seriously underwhelming,” believing it has  left Labour “looking for the plot.” He argues that: “Brown’s book, stretching across four centuries, may help show where it might be found. When Britain first encountered Imperial China, we were the supplicants. The Qing economy was stronger and their technology superior – as so authoritatively mapped in Joseph Needham’s ‘[History of] Science and Civilisation in China.’”

Paraphrasing Mao’s famous expression, Ford notes that the nineteenth century wars between Britain and China demonstrated that power grew out of the barrel of a gun. “London’s drug wars between 1839-42 and 1856-60 were fought to prevent China from bringing under control the opium epidemic destroying civil society. The fruits of victory included the legalisation of opium and Hong Kong. This is a period of subjugation that China’s rulers have burnt deep into their psyche.”

As a result of the forces unleashed in Chinese society, Ford notes: “Internally, nationalism and communism were competing poles of attraction for China’s confident new men and women. Communism came out top and, after a difficult quarter century, the country was able to stand tall for the first time in almost four centuries. Socialism with Chinese characteristics proved better at driving economic growth than free-market capitalism.”

He explains that: “Kerry Brown wants Britain to get real about China. Adrift from Europe after Brexit and with little opportunity of economically chaining ourselves to a mad dog in the United States, there is no option but to engage with China.”

Whilst echoing the claims of “serious human rights problems in China”, Ford pointedly adds: “But we are living a fantasy to believe we have either the strength or moral authority to take the lead. Britain’s perfidious history makes us one of the least appropriate advocates in China’s eyes, while our needy economy makes threats of economic coercion comic.”

Glyn Ford was a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from the British Labour Party from 1984-2009 (and concurrently for the Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party, 1999-2009.) His special interests include East Asia, especially the Korean peninsula. He is the author of three books on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), a country he has visited over 50 times. The most recent was reviewed by Keith Bennett in the Morning Star.  His previous book was reviewed by Carlos Martinez in the Morning Star and by Keith Bennett in Chartist. Since leaving the European Parliament, Ford has remained active in ‘Track 2’ diplomacy with the DPRK and with East Asia generally.

The below review was originally published by Chartist. Chartist describes itself as “the bi-monthly political magazine of the democratic left” and is generally considered a representative voice of the so-called ‘soft left’ in the British Labour Party.

Kerry Brown is one of Britain’s most skilled and knowledgeable Chinese hands, which explains why he is no longer a UK diplomat serving in China, but rather in the greener pastures of academia heading the Lau China Institute at King’s College London. After all, he can’t possibly have ridden the bucking bronco of what purported to be a coherent China policy over the last long quarter century since the retrocession of Hong Kong in 1997. The short China deck of partner, competitor and adversary has been regularly shuffled both within and across UK governments. One moment it was President Xi drinking a pub pint in a local with Cameron and next proposals to ban Beijing’s diplomats from the Strangers Bar in the Commons.
 
Now, after Rachel Reeves’s seriously underwhelming visit, Labour is left looking for the plot. Brown’s book, stretching across four centuries, may help show where it might be found. When Britain first encountered Imperial China, we were the supplicants. The Qing economy was stronger and their technology superior – as so authoritatively mapped in Joseph Needham’s Science and Civilisation in China – and their power was enormous in their fastness. When Britain first knocked, China never even answered the door. Their fatal flaw was stasis. The English protestants had discovered progress that triggered the first industrial revolution. While they were defensive and insular, we became offensive and expansionist. 
 
The Anglo-Chinese Wars demonstrated that power grew out of the barrel of a gun. That was the proximate cause of victory, but not before Chinese society was debilitated by dogma and drugs. Missionaries substituted the catechism for Confucius. A shadow black economy emerged as opium, grown under the auspices of the British government in India, destroying civil society. George Orwell’s father was a Sub-Deputy Opium Agent in the Indian Civil Service. London’s drug wars between 1839-42 and 1856-60 were fought to prevent China from bringing under control the opium epidemic destroying civil society. The fruits of victory included the legalisation of opium and Hong Kong. This is a period of subjugation that China’s rulers have burnt deep into their psyche.
 
As the West’s other imperial powers caught and, in the case of Germany and the US, eventually passed Britain, there was a scramble for China. It was a pointillist occupation as they cherry-picked China’s cities for occupation with Russia and Japan scavenging over the scraps. Beijing’s central control collapsed into warlordism. The country and civilisation were at the bottom. The only way was up. 
 
Japan’s victory over Russia in 1905 saw Asia best Europe for the first time. This and the post-War world saw the easy emergence from the social ruins of modernism and nationalism. Britain was challenged for pride of place both in and over China. Internally, nationalism and communism were competing poles of attraction for China’s confident new men and women. Communism came out top and, after a difficult quarter century, the country was able to stand tall for the first time in almost four centuries. Socialism with Chinese characteristics proved better at driving economic growth than free-market capitalism. Democracy, despite claims to the contrary, was no necessity for economic success. The somersault was complete with China back on top. Its technology is back with the best, and in some sectors ahead of the game. Its military might expand to catch and match the US. The economy takes the lead. As The Great Reversal notes, China is the largest trading partner for 120 countries globally. The UK, in contrast, is on zero.
 
Kerry Brown wants Britain to get real about China. Adrift from Europe after Brexit and with little opportunity of economically chaining ourselves to a mad dog in the United States, there is no option but to engage with China. The deck needs to be stacked and dealt with the principle of collaborator, contender and challenger. There are undeniably serious human rights problems in China. But we are living a fantasy to believe we have either the strength or moral authority to take the lead. Britain’s perfidious history makes us one of the least appropriate advocates in China’s eyes, while our needy economy makes threats of economic coercion comic. The Germans know not to be in the vanguard when pressing Israel on its human rights violations. For some reason, Britain seems tone-deaf with respect to China. Even the EU in the shadow of Trump is talking of building relationships not just with partners that share values, but those with shared interests. As the US looks to hunker down domestically within the Americas after seizing control of the Panama Canal and Greenland, the future looks bleak for a Britain going it alone. The EU is another option, but that’s another story. But even then, China shouldn’t be neglected.

British Steel crisis leads to wave of anti-China propaganda

The following article by Paul Atkin, originally published in Socialist Economic Bulletin, analyses the response by British politicians and journalists to the announcement by Jingye – the Chinese company that acquired British Steel in 2019 – that it would be closing the blast furnaces at its Scunthorpe plant on account of making losses of £255 million per year. This response has been characterised by thinly-veiled Sinophobia and anti-China propaganda, with British politicians accusing Jingye of attempting to sabotage the country’s steel industry, and demanding that Chinese companies be prevented from future investment in British infrastructure.

Paul contrasts this hysteria with the relatively muted response to a very similar crisis at the Port Talbot steel works in 2024. “Both plants owned by companies based overseas. Both seeking a way out of unprofitable production. Both in negotiation for subsidy from successive governments for outcomes that would lead to massive job losses. Both looking to close aging blast furnaces earlier than originally planned because they have been making significant losses.” However, “Indian based Tata Steel’s ownership of Port Talbot was certainly mentioned in news coverage, but not on the blanket, verging on obsessive scale that British Steel’s Chinese ownership has… After Port Talbot, there has been no denunciation of Indian investment into the UK, nor any calls in the media or Parliament for any ‘urgent review’ into India’s role in the UK, or paranoid accusations … that the attempted closure is part of a dastardly plot to sabotage a strategic British industry”.

The article points out that the narrative on British Steel serves two purposes for the British ruling class. First, it feeds into building popular support for the US-led New Cold War on China. Second, it contributes to the fossil fuel industry’s resistance to meaningful action on climate change, given China’s global leadership in renewable energy and electric transport.

Paul notes that Spain is taking a considerably more far-sighted and progressive approach, “both encouraging inward Chinese investment – like the joint venture between CATL and Stellantis to build a battery factory in northern Spain – and deals signed last year between Spain and Chinese companies Envision and Hygreen Energy to build green hydrogen infrastructure in the country.”

It is crucial that environmental activists in the West do not fall into the Sinophobic trap being laid for them by the Cold War hawks in Washington and London.

The contrast between the way the crises in steel production at Scunthorpe and Port Talbot has been stark. Both plants owned by companies based overseas. Both seeking a way out of unprofitable production. Both in negotiation for subsidy from successive governments for outcomes that would lead to massive job losses. Both looking to close aging blast furnaces earlier than originally planned because they have been making significant losses.

In the case of Port Talbot, this led to a deal to convert to Electric Arc Furnaces to secure sustainable steel production at the site, but with the loss of 2,500 jobs and only 300 retained. This was dependent on a subsidy from the government of £500 million. A similar deal was not clinched at Scunthorpe, as the crisis was brought forward by Trump’s imposition of a 25% tariff on UK manufactured steel – which led to an announcement of imminent closure from the company the following morning. A closure would mean 2,700 jobs lost – on the same scale as Port Talbot.

In Port Talbot, in the absence of a serious just transition process involving the unions, which were excluded from the discussions by the company and the then Tory government, the job losses are being dealt with by the same sort of offers of retraining as have been proposed for the Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland. In the case of Scunthorpe, also with no just transition process, the government has rightly stepped in to take charge of the plant to keep the blast furnaces running in the short term; which means that the losses previously borne by the company will now be borne by the Exchequer. With the company losing £255 million a year, the governments £2.5 billion steel transformation fund can absorb this in the short term. Workers at Port Talbot have expressed some bitterness that this was not considered for them.

What has been different is the mobilisation of Sinophobia around British Steel’s ownership by a Chinese company, Jingye. Indian based Tata Steel’s ownership of Port Talbot was certainly mentioned in news coverage, but not on the blanket, verging on obsessive scale that British Steel’s Chinese ownership has. Tata’s brinkmanship in negotiations was also mentioned, but they were not accused of “negotiating in bad faith” in the way that Jingye have. Both companies have behaved as you’d expect a capitalist company to behave, though if you read Jingye’s Group Introduction you can see how their operations inside China are turned to more positive social objectives –  from a high wages policy to greening their workplaces – from being based in a country run by a Communist Party, not by their own class. But here, both Tata and Jingye are in it for the money. Their UK operations have only been viable as a tiny loss making fragment of a much larger business, as part of an attempt to implant themselves in a variety of global markets in the hope of profitability in the medium to long term. Steel production at Port Talbot in 2022, for example, was just 10% of Tata’s global production of 35 million tonnes.

After Port Talbot, there have been no denunciation of Indian investment into the UK, nor any calls in the media or Parliament for any “urgent review” into India’s role in the UK, or paranoid accusations made explicitly by Farage but echoed by “senior Labour figures” as well as Tories in the media but not in the recent Saturday debate in Parliament, that the attempted closure in Scunthorpe is part of a dastardly plot by the Chinese government to sabotage a strategic British industry, not a commercial decision in which a company is seeking to cut its losses in all the ways British capitalist company law allows them to; including cancelling orders for the raw materials they’d need to keep running the blast furnaces they want to close. Instead, there has been serious negotiations with the Indian government to set up a trade deal, which was reported last week as “90% done”.

No decoupling there.

The attack on commercial engagement with China fulfills two objectives. One is a straightforward attempt to mobilise popular sentiment in defence of steel workers jobs behind a Cold War sentiment in a wider context in which the Trump administrations policies have shaken up popular faith in deference to the US. An anti Chinese attack distracts from that and pushes people back towards habitual hostilities.

The other opens another front in the resistance to any serious action on climate change that could threaten the profits of the fossil fuel sector. Accusations from the Right have been:

  1. The blast furnaces could have been kept running with locally sourced coking coal from the cancelled Whitehaven mine. This misses the point that the coke from this mine – had it been developed – would have had such a heavy sulphur content that it was too poor quality to be used at Scunthorpe, so this is a consciously mendacious and fundamentally unserious talking point.
  2. High energy prices in the UK are because of “Net Zero”. This, as they know, is the opposite of the truth. The UK has high energy costs because they are tied to the price of gas far more than any other country in the G7. See Figure 1. We should also note that the oft repeated “solution” to this problem from Reform or the Tories is massive investment in nuclear power instead. The problem with this is that the cost per Kilowatt hour of energy generated by nuclear power is higher than gas, which is higher than renewables. See figure 2. So their way forward would actually compound the problem. Paradoxically, their attack on Chinese investment in UK nuclear power development, and the withdrawal of Chinese investment from Sizewell C in Suffolk and Bradwell in Essex, is making the financing of these projects almost impossible. So, in this case, the contradictions of their politics means they will neither have their cake, nor eat it.

These themes came together in a front page broadside from the Times on 15th April directed at Ed Miliband’s recent trip to China aiming to improve relations and develop better sharing of expertise on the climate transition. Miliband’s is the head that the right wing press is keenest to have on its trophy wall of sacked ministers, hence quite limited and inadequate targets being described as “swivel eyed” and “eye watering” in a constant hammering of lead articles from the Sun to the Telegraph and all the low points in between. Attacks on solar panel installations are increasingly taking the form of accusations of “forced labour” in China, which are untrue, but because it is almost universally believed at Westminster, this threatens a reactionary result on the basis of an apparently progressive concern – as China is the source of 80% of the world’s solar panel supply. However, even if the UK sabotages its green transition by impeding imports of Chinese solar panels this will have little effect globally, as China is increasingly exporting them to the Global South.
 See Figure 3  Miliband is nevertheless the most popular government minister among Labour members in Labour List’s survey – in which he has a positive rating of 68, compared to Keir Starmer’s 13 – because he is seen as getting on with something positive and progressive, while Liz Kendall and Rachel Reeves are in negative territory.

The call from Dame Helena Kennedy for “an  urgent security review of all those Chinese companies operating within our infrastructure which could pose a threat to our national interests – and maybe not just confined to China” threatens to compound the damage already done by the UKs removal of Huewei’s investment in the 5G network, ensuring that the version the country has is slower and more expensive, and the financial difficulty set for Nuclear power station projects by the removal of Chinese investment on the basis of “national security” paranoia. Applied more widely, this neatly lines the UK up with Trump’s trade war against China and sets the UK up for a potential trade deal in which US capital is looking hungrily at the NHS, wants to sell chlorinated chicken and other additive saturated and nutrition less food from their agricultural industrial complex and open up a tax and regulation free for all for their abusive big tech companies, while their President is actively sabotaging global progress towards sustainability by doubling down on fossil fuels. China is doing none of these things. A more positive approach is that being taken by the PSOE government in Spain, which is both encouraging inward Chinese investment –  like the joint venture between CATL and Stellantis to build a battery factory in northern Spain and deals signed last year between Spain and Chinese companies Envision and Hygreen Energy to build green hydrogen infrastructure in the country.

Farage, and others on the Right are arguing for nationalisation as a temporary measure just in order for the company to be “sold on” – treating nationalisation as an emergency life support process for private capital -is that there is not exactly a huge queue of companies waiting to buy, and any that did would most likely to be looking at asset stripping. Jingye was the only company interested in 2019, when previous owner Graybull capital gave up on it.

This would also be the government’s preferred approach, because they are nervous of the capital costs involved in making the plant viable. There are three intertwined problems with this.

  1. Attracting a viable private company prepared to put serious money into reviving the plant means attracting overseas capital. Given that more than 50% of global steel production is made by Chinese companies (see figure 4 below) Jonathan Reynolds has changed his tune since the weekend debate in Parliament. That Saturday he was decrying allowing Jingye into UK steel manufacturing as a national security issue, but by mid-week, a few days later, he was prepared to be more pragmatic about it.
  2. Making the plant viable cannot mean investing in new blast furnaces. These would become stranded assets before they had reached the end of their design life. Despite the determined rearguard action from Trump and others, trying to carry on as though the world isn’t changing makes no business sense. In 2024, for example, all new steel plants developed in China were Electric Arc Furnaces, designed to use scrap steel as raw material. As yet, production of virgin steel has been dependent on coking coal, but the first production using (green) hydrogen and electricity looks like coming on stream in Sweden by next year; so if virgin steel production is considered an imperative for the Scunthorpe site, that model will have to be looked at and emulated as a matter of urgency.
  3. New investment in different production on the site – like almost all capital investment – replaces labour with capital. As with Port Talbot, far fewer workers would be needed for EAFs. Reynolds has talked about “a different employment footprint” for the plant; which is one way to put it. So, the issue of how the transition can be made in a way that opens up alternative employment with decent terms and conditions has to be negotiated with the workers themselves through their unions.

What’s needed is a clear industrial plan that consolidates the nationalisation as a precedent for other sectors and builds on the Scunthorpe plant’s strengths in producing, for example, 90% of railway tracks used in the UK, as part of a strategic plan for green transition. This has hitherto been focussed on a transition to Electric Arc Furnaces, but linking the production of green hydrogen to new generation furnaces capable of producing the tougher virgin steel needed for a full range of industrial applications should also be part of the process; because blast furnaces can’t be kept open indefinitely if we are to stop the climate running away out of a safe zone capable of sustaining human civilisation by mid century.

Appendix

UK steel production is the 35th largest in the world, comparable to Sweden, Slovakia, Argentina and the UAE. Its 4 million tonnes in 2024 is just over a tenth of the production of Germany, a twentieth of the United States, a thirty seventh that of India and a 250th that of China. 

The niche, almost token, position of UK based steel manufacturing reflects a wider process in which UK based capital is no longer primarily engaged with manufacture.

The last time the steel industry in the UK was nationalised in 1967 it had 268,500 workers from more than 14 previous UK based privately owned companies with 200 wholly or partly-owned subsidiaries. These companies were considered increasingly unviable because they had failed to invest and modernise, so were increasingly uncompetitive. This is part of a wider story about how the UK capitalist class has transformed itself since the 1960s. While the quantity of manufactured goods has increased since then, the proportion of manufacturing in the economy has shrunk from 30.1% in 1970 to 8.6% in 2024. The service sector  has grown from 56% to more than 80%. UK based capital primarily makes money from selling services, mostly financial, to manufacturing capitalists  at home and abroad. They are spectacularly bad at large scale manufacturing start ups, as the debacle of British Volt  (whose approach of setting themselves up a luxurious executive office suite before they’d secured funding to even build their factory might be described as cashing in on your chickens before you’ve sold any).

What that means is that most of “British Industry” is owned by firms based overseas, so might be better described as “manufacturing that happens to take place in Britain”. Consider the automotive sector. While there are locally based SMEs in the supply chain, all the big manufacturers depend on overseas investment. Nissan, Stellantis, BMW, VW, Geely, Tata (again). As with locally based steel production, firms like Morris, Austin, even Rover, are long gone for the same reasons as BSA – once the world’s biggest motorcycle company – now only builds retro classic designs as a niche luxury product and Guest Keen and Nettlefold had to be nationalised to save its assets.

Chinese Embassy comments on government takeover of British Steel

Republished below are the remarks by a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in London regarding the UK government’s takeover of British Steel.

The spokesperson points to the surge of anti-China propaganda among politicians and in the media following the announcement by Jingye, the Chinese company that owns British Steel, that it would be shutting down the blast furnaces at its Scunthorpe plant. For example, UK business secretary Jonathan Reynolds told Sky News that the British government had in the past been “far too naive” about UK-Chinese trade. Various commentators have resurrected tropes about China using its investments in Britain to conduct espionage or to “disrupt infrastructure for geopolitical leverage”. This sort of anti-China rhetoric is “extremely absurd, reflecting arrogance, ignorance and a twisted mindset”.

The spokesperson notes that the Jingye Group is a private enterprise that works on the basis of normal commercial principles, and that the Chinese government has no control over its operations. Having poured vast amounts of money into British Steel and lost hundreds of millions of pounds in the process – and given negotiations with the UK government over the future of the plant had failed to yield results – Jingye made a commercial decision to shut down the blast furnaces. “British Steel’s plan to close its blast furnaces and build electric arc furnaces is a normal decision, and it is understandable that the company conducted negotiations with the government on investment for the transition.”

The comment notes that, in general, “Chinese companies in the UK have operated in compliance with law and achieved steady progress”. Given the importance of Chinese investment and trade in supporting the Labour government’s stated commitment to economic growth, it seems foolhardy to politicise the issue of Jingye’s operations and create a discriminatory business environment.

This message was reiterated by Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian: “We hope that the British government will treat Chinese companies investing and operating in the UK in a fair and just manner, protect their legitimate rights and interests, and refrain from turning economic and trade cooperation into political and security issues lest it should undermine the confidence of Chinese companies in their normal investment and operation in the UK.”

The remarks by the embassy spokesperson also highlight the hypocrisy in fiercely criticising China whilst not offering even the mildest critique of the Trump administration’s unilateral tariff war. “At a time when the US is wielding the tariff stick against all countries, the UK included, and engaging in unilateral and protectionist trade bullying, those British politicians just keep slandering the Chinese government and Chinese enterprises instead of criticising the United States.”

The comments were first published on the website of the Chinese Embassy in the UK.

Question: Recently, there have been various comments in the UK regarding the government’s takeover of British Steel. Several politicians took the opportunity to attack all Chinese companies and the Chinese government. What’s your comment?

Embassy Spokesperson: The anti-China rhetoric of some individual British politicians is extremely absurd, reflecting their arrogance, ignorance and twisted mindset. Regarding the issue of British Steel, I’d like to share a few basic facts.

1. The Jingye Group is a private Chinese enterprise that makes business investments in the UK on the basis of market principles and conducts operation on its own.

2. It is well-known that British Steel had been losing money for many years before its acquisition by Jingye in 2020 and actually went into compulsory liquidation in 2019. After taking over, Jingye put in substantial funding to keep the company afloat to this day. Had it not been for the involvement of this Chinese company, British Steel workers might have already faced the risk of unemployment.

3. It is understood that under the UK government’s net zero strategy, steel companies that use iron ore to make steel must achieve net zero emissions by 2035. To that end, British steel companies including British Steel have all negotiated with the government to find a path to decarbonisation transition. Among them, the Port Talbot Steelworks in Wales closed its blast furnace in July 2024. British Steel’s plan to close its blast furnaces and build electric arc furnaces is a normal decision, and it is understandable that the company conducted negotiations with the government on investment for the transition.

4. Generally speaking, Chinese companies in the UK have operated in compliance with law and achieved steady progress. They have made positive contributions to the local economy. According to statistics available, Chinese companies in the UK have contributed over 115 billion pounds to the UK economy and created nearly 60,000 jobs.

5. At a time when the US is wielding the tariff stick against all countries, the UK included, and engaging in unilateral and protectionist trade bullying, those British politicians just keep slandering the Chinese government and Chinese enterprises instead of criticizing the United States. What on earth are they up to?

6. Any words or deeds that politicise or maliciously hype up business issues will undermine the confidence of Chinese business investors in the UK and damage China-UK economic and trade cooperation. We urge the British government to follow the principles of fairness, impartiality and non-discrimination and to make sure that the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies in the UK are protected. At the same time, it is hoped that the British government will continue to engage in consultations and negotiations with Jingye to actively seek a solution acceptable to all parties. We will continue to follow the development of this situation.

Ambassador Zheng Zeguang: Two Sessions demonstrates the Chinese people’s confidence, resolve, and spirit of unity

The Chinese Embassy in the UK organised a symposium on March 20 for friends of China to learn about and discuss China’s recent parliamentary ‘two sessions’.

Introduced by Minister Zhao Fei, the proceedings began with a keynote speech by Ambassador Zheng Zeguang, who had just returned from attending the meetings in his capacity of a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

He said that the Two Sessions demonstrated the Chinese people’s confidence, resolve, and their spirit of unity and readiness to take action. They also projected China’s main economic and social development targets and outlined a series of important policy measures. 

He added that amid growing global uncertainties, China and the UK should act upon the important common understandings reached by the leaders of the two countries, earnestly implement the outcomes of the China-UK Strategic Dialogue, the China-UK Economic and Financial Dialogue, and the China-UK Energy Dialogue, and uphold the principles of mutual respect, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit. Both sides should seek common ground while resolving differences properly, and advance dialogue and collaboration across various sectors to benefit the people of both countries. He expressed the hope that people from different sectors in both countries would work together to promote the steady and sustained development of China-UK relations.

Following the Ambassador’s opening, remarks were made by:

  • Andy Brooks, General Secretary of the New Communist Party (NCP) of Britain.
  • Ella Rule, Chair of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (CPGBML)
  • Ruth Styles, Chair of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB)
  • Stephen Perry, Honorary President of the 48 Group Club
  • Lord (Neil) Davidson of Glen Cova, Labour member of the House of Lords and former government minister
  • Martin Jacques, former Senior Fellow of Cambridge University and author of ‘When China rules the World’
  • Keith Bennett, Co-editor of Friends of Socialist China
  • Helen Jones, Director of Global Engagement of the Science Museum Group
  • Sam Daws, Senior Advisor to Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative
  • Hugh Goodacre, Secretary of the Xi Jinping Thought Study Group (Institute for Independence Studies); and
  • Frances Wood, former curator at the British Library, Sinologist, historian and author.

A brief contribution from the distinguished sociologist Professor Martin Albrow, who was unable to be present, was read by Counsellor Kong Xiangwen.

The discussion continued over lunch, with further contributions, including from Maise Riley, Chair of the Young Communist League (YCL) of Britain, and David Peat, Secretary of the Friends of Socialist China Britain Committee.

We reprint below the report that was published on the website of the Chinese Embassy, along with Keith Bennett’s remarks in the discussion.

The Chinese Embassy in the UK Holds Symposium for People from Various Sectors in the UK to Highlight Key Takeaways from China’s Two Sessions

On 20 March 2025, the Chinese Embassy in the UK hosted a symposium with representatives of people from various sectors in the UK to introduce the key messages of China’s Two Sessions, during which, Ambassador Zheng Zeguang delivered a keynote speech, and participants engaged in discussions.

In his speech, Ambassador Zheng emphasised that the recently concluded Two Sessions were a significant event in China’s political agenda. Given the evolving international and domestic landscapes, this year’s Two Sessions attracted even greater attention and carried profound significance.

The Two Sessions demonstrated the Chinese people’s confidence, resolve, and their spirit of unity and readiness to take action. The Two Sessions also projected China’s main economic and social development targets and outlined a series of important policy measures. 

China remains committed to advancing Chinese modernisation through high-quality development. Measures will be taken to implement proactive and effective macroeconomic policies, boost consumption, expand domestic demand and effective investment, advance technological innovation andfoster new quality productive forces. Efforts will also be made to promote high-standard opening-up,and stabilise foreign trade and investment. Despite the challenges and difficulties, we are confident in achieving the goals set out at the Two Sessions.

Continue reading Ambassador Zheng Zeguang: Two Sessions demonstrates the Chinese people’s confidence, resolve, and spirit of unity

Could China’s rise be Britain’s opportunity?

We are pleased to reprint below the report by Morning Star editor Ben Chacko, carried in that newspaper, of the meeting ‘China in Springtime: Sharing Opportunities with the World’, organised by the China Media Group together with the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in the UK (CCCUK) and the China-Britain Business Council (CBBC), with the support of the Chinese Embassy, and held at the Bank of China, in the City of London, the capital’s financial district, on March 17. The key purpose of the gathering was to report on and discuss China’s recent two (parliamentary) sessions and the resulting prospects for business and economic cooperation between China and Britain from the policies rolled out there.

Reporting on the keynote speech delivered by Chinese Ambassador Zheng Zeguang, Ben notes how he, “referenced President Xi Jinping’s three signature initiatives, the Global Development Initiative (for economic co-operation in place of trade systems that benefit corporations in rich countries at the expense of the Global South), the Global Security Initiative (replacing concepts of security based on power blocs like NATO with an inclusive international security architecture) and the Global Civilisation Initiative, which promotes multipolarity and argues for a world order based on respect for different civilisations, rather than one whose institutions have all been designed in the framework of the European political tradition.”

China would meet its five per cent growth target and its role as a scientific innovator should be recognised, he argued, pointing to its leading role in the global green transition (non-fossil fuels accounting for 40 per cent of Chinese electricity generation last year and 70 per cent of all electric vehicles worldwide being sold in China) as well as its progress in quantum technology and AI, most notably with DeepSeek, the “low-cost, open source large language model [which] has stunned the world.

“On sci-tech, we were playing catch-up but have now become a frontrunner.” But unlike the US, which seeks to stymie China’s development by blocking access to chips and software, “we don’t believe in ‘small yard, high fence’ — we believe in mutual learning and sharing.”

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, Chairman of CBBC, contrasted China’s “serious government” to too many in the West, pointing out China has a record of achieving its economic growth targets and should be seen as a key export market for British goods and services.

Lord (Neil) Davidson, Labour Member of the House of Lords and former government minister, said London should view China’s advances as opportunities, not threats.

The City should pay close attention to the “BRICS-Pay project – another platform for trade finance as an addition to the dollar-based system… this could be characterised as a threat to dollar hegemony, but historically the City has looked to assess financial innovations for their objective effects rather than rhetoric,” he argued, hinting that Britain too could benefit from an end to US financial supremacy.

“The view that China can be pressured into policies it rejects, if ever true, is plainly bankrupt. The view that China is dependent on the West for technology is eroding speedily. The view that China is merely a low-cost provider of goods belongs in the past,” he added.

We also carry below the report on the event published on the website of the Chinese Embassy. It noted Ambassador Zheng as stating:

“China will promote the development of new quality productive forces, fostering industries such as biomanufacturing, quantum technology, embodied AI, and 6G, and continuously advancing the AI Plus initiative and AI application in different industries. China will expand higher-standard opening up, strengthening policies to stabilise foreign trade and foreign investment, and increasing the number of countries eligible for visa-free entry. China will promote green and low-carbon transition, improving incentives for green consumption, and accelerating the development of a green and low-carbon economy.”

The Ambassador also pointed out that China and the UK should seize opportunities, expand collaboration and create a new future of mutually beneficial cooperation. In the face of a turbulent and changing world, a stable and constructive China-UK relationship is even more important to both countries and the world.

“The two sides must uphold the principles of mutual respect, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs and equality, and properly handle differences and sensitive issues. We must say no to those who have been trying to talk China down. We must say no to those who have been trying to undermine normal exchanges between our two countries. We must say no to those who have been trying to disrupt China-UK collaboration.”

Following the formal proceedings and a networking reception, Creation of the Gods II: Demon Force, a 2025 historical blockbuster, was screened.

Could China’s rise be Britain’s opportunity?

Will Labour take a more rational approach to China than the Tories did? Or continue the drive to trade decoupling and war led by the United States?

Optimism was in the air at a China Media Group meeting bringing together the country’s ambassador to Britain Zheng Zeguang and business figures earlier this week. The Donald Trump government was not named, but its disruptive character was referenced — Zheng observed that “unilateralism and protectionism are on the rise and power politics runs rampant;” the chairman of the China-British Council, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, spoke of the “orange-coloured elephant in the room.”

China in Springtime reported back on the recent Two Sessions, as the simultaneous meetings of China’s national policy-making forums — the legislative National People’s Congress, and the advisory People’s Political Consultative Conference — are known.

Zheng countered propaganda depicting China’s rise as a threat to a “rules-based” — read US-policed — world order. “China champions an equal and orderly multipolar world and universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalisation.”

Here he referenced President Xi Jinping’s three signature initiatives, the Global Development Initiative (for economic co-operation in place of trade systems that benefit corporations in rich countries at the expense of the global South), the Global Security Initiative (replacing concepts of security based on power blocs like Nato with an inclusive international security architecture) and the Global Civilisation Initiative, which promotes multipolarity and argues for a world order based on respect for different civilisations, rather than one whose institutions have all been designed in the framework of the European political tradition.

Continue reading Could China’s rise be Britain’s opportunity?

China, Britain pledge to jointly address climate change

Chinese Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang met with Ed Miliband, British Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, in Beijing on Monday 17 March. According to a UK government press release, this was the first formal bilateral discussion between the two countries on climate action in nearly eight years.

At the meeting, Ding Xuexiang stated that developing stable and mutually beneficial relations between China and the UK serves the common interests of the two peoples, facilitates global economic growth, and promotes joint efforts to address global challenges.

Xinhua reports: “Miliband said the UK government sincerely hopes to enhance engagement with China, is committed to developing a long-term and constructive bilateral relationship, and stands ready to strengthen cooperation with China on energy security and addressing climate change.”

Miliband also met with Wang Hongzhi, head of China’s National Energy Administration, after which meeting the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding, outlining key areas of cooperation including power grids, battery storage, offshore wind power and green hydrogen.

As Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez commented to the Morning Star, it is a positive sign that Miliband has visited Beijing and that the British government is exploring opportunities for cooperation with China around the climate emergency.

After all, China is the world’s only renewable energy superpower, and is leading the way globally in terms of electric transport, afforestation, biodiversity protection, pollution reduction, sustainable water management, and more. A report from Yale School of the Environment notes:

Today, China has more than 80 percent of the world’s solar manufacturing capacity. The extraordinary scale of China’s renewables sector output has driven down prices worldwide, and this is a key factor in reducing the cost barrier to renewable systems for poorer countries. Today China not only holds important positions in wind and battery technologies, but a Chinese company, BYD, has become the world’s biggest EV manufacturer, and China is poised to pose a formidable global challenge in all aspects of electric transportation to established vehicle brands.

The idea that the West can solve the climate crisis while simultaneously “decoupling” from China is thus entirely unrealistic, and clearly there is a great deal Britain can learn from China.

Miliband’s visit to Beijing is a step in the right direction. Less helpful are his remarks in the Guardian on 14 March 2025, promising to “raise issues including forced labour in supply chains, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and human rights in Hong Kong”.

The slanderous accusations of forced labour in Xinjiang have been used to impose sanctions on Chinese renewable energy materials, and as such form a direct impediment to global climate action.

Meanwhile it’s Miliband’s own government which is basing its growth strategy on the expansion of the arms industry rather than pursuing a Green New Deal. This same government has actively contributed to NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine, which is having a disastrous environmental impact – aside from its tragic more immediate human impact.

Furthermore, the British government’s recent cuts to its overseas aid budget will “make it more difficult for the government to deliver on a promise to increase climate finance to developing countries”. This doesn’t compare favourably with China’s construction of a Green Belt and Road, providing investment in renewable energy and green infrastructure projects across the Global South.

British politicians would do well to drop their empire nostalgia and to avoid hectoring their Chinese counterparts. When it comes to humanity’s shared project of preventing climate catastrophe, Britain has more to learn than to teach. While China has established itself as by far the global leader in renewable energy, Britain “has lost its position as a global leader on climate action”.

Miliband is correct to say that “it is simply an act of negligence to today’s and future generations not to engage China.” Parroting Washington’s anti-China Cold War propaganda will only create friction in this important relationship. It is to be hoped that Miliband’s trip to Beijing is a springboard for further cooperation.

FoSC joins annual Karl Marx commemoration in London

A delegation from Friends of Socialist China joined the annual commemoration of the death of Karl Marx, organised by the Marx Memorial Library and the Communist Party of Britain (CPB), at his tomb in north London’s Highgate Cemetery, on Sunday, 16 March 2025.

In her address to the ceremony, which was attended by hundreds of people, Ismara M. Vargas Walter, the Ambassador of Cuba, said that “the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in 1959 was not just the fall of a tyrant; it was the birth of a socialist project inspired by Marxism, by the belief that the workers and peasants must be the true owners of their destiny… Marxism is not a relic in Cuba; it is a living practice… Despite the relentless attacks against our right to self-determination, Cuba stands firm, proving that socialism is not only viable but necessary in the face of capitalist crises, growing economic inequality and environmental destruction… When Cuba sends doctors, not bombs; when we develop vaccines, not monopolies; when we educate, not exploit, this is Marxism in action. Marxism is not a dogma; it is a tool for liberation… We must continue to innovate in how we teach and apply Marxist principles, ensuring that they speak to the challenges of our time: digital capitalism, climate change and the need for a multipolar world.

“Cuba’s Marxist Revolution stands with Palestine, demanding an end to genocide. Cuba’s Marxist Revolution stands with Venezuela and Nicaragua against US criminal unilateral coercive measures. Cuba’s Marxist Revolution stands with all nations resisting imperialism because Marx taught us that capitalism’s exploitation is global, and so too must be our solidarity.

“From Havana to Gaza, young people are rediscovering Marxism not as a 19th century doctrine but as a road map for survival and resistance. And they are proving that the fight is not over, that the revolution is not a relic, but a necessity.”

The Cuban Ambassador was followed by Dr. Ashok Dhawale, member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPIM) and National President of the All India Kisan Sabha (All India Farmers Union).

He referred to the rightward shift in many countries, “which sometimes takes the form of far-right and neo-fascist attacks on racial, religious and other minorities, including immigrants,” adding that “the political and ideological bankruptcy of social democratic parties and their unprincipled compromises have helped the far-right to advance.

“The opposite trend is the leftward shift in some countries of Latin America, Asia and Europe, where left forces could win over sections of the people.

“On this occasion, we salute the socialist countries like Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the left-led countries of Latin America and Siri Lanka, who are working hard to ensure the rapid and just socio-economic progress of their people.”

Following the speeches, floral tributes were laid by the CPB, the Marx Memorial Library, the Young Communist League and the Morning Star, followed by the diplomatic representatives of China, Vietnam, Laos and Sri Lanka. Flowers from Friends of Socialist China were presented by Professor Radhika Desai, a member of our Britain Committee as well as our Advisory Group. Other tributes were paid by representatives from communist parties of Iran, Chile, Cyprus, Iraq, Spain, Sudan, Greece, Palestine, Malaya and Italy, as well as the New Communist Party (NCP) of Britain and the London District of the CPB.

The ceremony, which was chaired by Professor Mary Davis, the Secretary of the Marx Memorial Library and of the Marx Grave Trust, concluded with the singing of the Internationale.

Resist the escalating New Cold War on China

The following text is based on a speech given by Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez at the Stop the War Cymru AGM, held on Saturday 8 March 2025. Carlos participated in the panel Imperialism’s Drive to War: Middle East, Ukraine, Russia, China, Cuba, alongside Andrew Murray (Deputy President of Stop the War Coalition), Bethan Sayed (former Member of the Senedd [Welsh parliament] for Plaid Cymru) and Ismara Mercedes Vargas Walter (Cuban Ambassador to the UK). The session was chaired by David McKnight (co-chair of Stop the War Cymru).

The speech takes up the questions of the Trump administration’s strategic orientation towards confrontation with China; whether the global working class should take sides in a conflict between the US and China; and what the tasks of the British anti-war movement are in relation to the US-led New Cold War on China.

Likelihood of a further escalation of the New Cold War

What can we expect in terms of the US-China relationship in the coming months and years?

First, we need to consider the Trump administration’s moves towards extricating itself from the quagmire in Ukraine. Presumably most people understand that Trump and his cabinet are not motivated by any abstract love of peace; they’re not attempting to recreate the spirit of Woodstock and “make love not war”. Rather, they are carrying out a strategic reorientation to fight a New Cold War on one main front instead of two. This means reducing conflict with Russia in order to focus their efforts and resources on the project of containing and encircling China.

A number of commentators have pointed to the parallels with Henry Kissinger’s “triangular diplomacy” of the early 1970s, in which the US sought to befriend China in order to concentrate on attacking their number one strategic enemy at the time: the Soviet Union.

Half a century later, the People’s Republic of China is considered the greatest threat to the long-term interests of US imperialism. China is the world’s largest economy in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. It’s the major trading partner of over two-thirds of the world’s countries. It’s catching up with – and indeed surpassing – the US in a number of crucial areas of technology and science. Furthermore, China is at the core of the trajectory towards a multipolar world.

In a recent article, Ben Norton cites various statements from Trump and his team indicating that a strategic reorientation towards aggression against China is precisely what they are planning. For example, in an interview with Tucker Carlson last year, Trump stated that “you never want Russia and China uniting… I’m going to have to un-unite them, and I think I can do that, too. I have to un-unite them.” Similarly, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, said in his Senate hearing last year: “The Chinese see great benefit in Ukraine because they view it as: the more time and money we spend there, the less time, and money, and focus we have on them.”

Trump’s cabinet is packed with China hawks. Marco Rubio is an anti-China fanatic who stands for increased tariffs, more sanctions, more slander, more support for Taiwanese separatism, more provocations in the South China Sea, and more destabilisation in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Mike Waltz (national security advisor) has long pushed for closer military cooperation with India, Japan, Australia and other countries in the region in preparation for war against China. Pete Hegseth, defence secretary, says that the US is “prepared to go to war with China”.

Continue reading Resist the escalating New Cold War on China

Wang Yi: China, Britain need to strengthen dialogue, communication

In a further sign of the relative normalisation of relations between China and Britain, since last year’s UK general election, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited London on February 13.

Meeting with Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Wang said that China is willing to collaborate with Britain to consolidate the positive momentum towards stabilising and improving bilateral relations. The successful meeting between President Xi Jinping and Starmer at the end of last year has launched the process of improving and developing China-Britain relations. The recent China-UK Economic and Financial Dialogue has produced fruitful results and exchanges at all levels have been resumed.

This demonstrates the huge potential of practical cooperation between the two countries, and also fully proves that the Labour government’s rational and pragmatic policy towards China is in line with the interests of the country and people and conforms to the trend of the times, Wang said. He added that China stands ready to work with Britain to implement the important consensus reached by the leaders of the two countries, so as to deepen and expand cooperation in infrastructure, trade and investment, clean energy and other fields, bringing more benefits to the people of both countries.

He noted that the world is becoming volatile and changes unseen in a century are unfolding at a faster pace. As permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, China and Britain should strengthen strategic communication, enhance mutual understanding and trust, demonstrate their responsibilities as major countries, and deepen cooperation in key areas concerning the future of humanity, including climate change, artificial intelligence, and green development, thereby contributing to greater certainty and stability in the world.

Wang also met with Jonathan Powell, the British prime minister’s national security adviser and secretary to the National Security Council, and Foreign Secretary David Lammy, with whom he co-chaired the 10th China-UK Strategic Dialogue.

The Chinese Foreign Minister said that the two sides have resumed exchanges in various fields and reestablished mechanisms of communication, with positive outcomes. This has boosted the confidence of the two societies and has sent a positive message to the world. It has been proven that strengthening dialogue and cooperation between China and Britain is the right choice, serves the interests of both sides, and aligns with the global trend. It is only natural that there are differences and disagreements between China and Britain, as the two countries have different political systems, history and culture. What is important is to have an objective and rational perspective and strengthen dialogue and communication in the spirit of mutual respect.

He added that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, as well as the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. Under the current circumstances, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and Britain should demonstrate their responsibility as major powers, practice multilateralism, support free trade, promote the political settlement of hot-spot issues, and jointly promote world peace and stability.

The two sides agreed to strengthen exchanges at various levels, deepen cultural and people-to-people exchanges, enhance mutual understanding, and continue to promote the comprehensive and effective implementation of the Paris Agreement on climate change and enable each other’s green transition.

In a detailed discussion of the Ukraine crisis, Wang stressed that China has always called for “no expansion of the battlefields, no escalation of hostilities and no fanning flames.” The developments on the ground have proved the rationality and constructiveness of China’s position, he said.

The website of the Chinese Foreign Ministry identified six outcomes of the Strategic Dialogue:

  • The UK Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Emissions (Ed Miliband) will visit China for the China-UK Energy Dialogue.
  • The UK Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle) will visit China for a meeting of the China-UK Joint Committee on Science, Technology and Innovation Cooperation.
  • The UK’s Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson) will visit China for ministerial consultations.
  • Preparations will be accelerated for holding the China-UK Economic and Trade Joint Committee, as well as dialogues on health, industrial cooperation, and other mechanisms.
  • Achievements in cooperation in financial services, clean energy, and AI will be highlighted.
  • Cooperation will be deepened in global governance, development partnerships, climate change response, and cyber security.

Following his departure from London, Wang Yi attended the 2025 annual meeting of the Munich Security Conference.

The following articles were originally published by the Xinhua News Agency.

China ready to work with Britain to consolidate bilateral ties: FM

LONDON, Feb. 13 (Xinhua) — Visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said here on Thursday that China is willing to collaborate with Britain to consolidate the positive momentum towards stabilizing and improving bilateral relations.

Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, said this during a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Wang first conveyed the cordial greetings from Chinese President Xi Jinping to Starmer, saying the successful meeting between Xi and Starmer at the end of last year has launched the process of improving and developing China-Britain relations.

Under the strategic guidance of the leaders of the two countries, the recent China-UK Economic and Financial Dialogue has produced fruitful results and exchanges at all levels have been resumed, Wang said.

Continue reading Wang Yi: China, Britain need to strengthen dialogue, communication

On the history of working-class solidarity and people-to-people friendship between Wales and China

The Morning Star held its first Wales Conference on Saturday February 15, 2025, at the Cardiff offices of the UNISON trade union, with the theme ‘Which way for Wales? Developing progressive policies’ and a stated aim of setting the progressive agenda in Wales to combat the far right ahead of the 2026 Senedd [Welsh Parliament] elections. The Reform Party led by Nigel Farage is predicted to make a major breakthrough in these elections, with no single party securing a majority. This threat was underlined on the eve of the conference with the election of a Reform councillor in a Torfaen Council by-election – the party’s first such election victory in Wales.

In a full day of discussion, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Keith Bennett spoke in an afternoon session on Wales for peace and anti-imperialism. He was joined on the panel by Betty Hunter, Honorary President of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC); Roger McKenzie, Foreign Editor of the Morning Star; Dylan Lewis-Rowland, National Secretary of CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) Cymru; and Jim Scott, a PARC Against DARC campaigner. (DARC, or Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability, involves plans to build space radar dishes that would allow the United States “to militarily dominate all of space” from Wales and has a key role in the AUKUS project aimed at China. An update on the campaign can be read here.)

With an opening keynote address by Morning Star editor Ben Chacko, the array of speakers included Shavanah Taj, TUC (Trades Union Congress) Cymru General Secretary; Jess Turner, UNISON Wales Regional Secretary; Pasty Turner, UNITE Wales Political Officer; Steve Skelly, RMT Regional Organiser; Luke Fletcher, Plaid Cymru Member of the Senedd; Robert Griffiths, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB); Beth Winter, former Labour MP who recently resigned from the party; Hussain Said from Black Lives Matter; Jo Galazka, UNITE Wales Equalities Officer; Jenny Rathbone, Labour Member of the Senedd; and Mairead Canavan, national executive member for Wales of the National Education Union (NEU).

In his speech, Keith focused on the history of working-class solidarity, people-to-people friendship and sub-national diplomacy between Wales and China and the benefits that could accrue from a revival and strengthening of such links, including in trade, two-way investment, sustainability and the rural economy, and education.

We reproduce the text of his speech below. A preview of the conference and a subsequent report were carried by the Morning Star.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion on Wales for peace and anti-imperialism.

We established Friends of Socialist China in May 2021 as a platform based on supporting the People’s Republic of China and promoting understanding of Chinese socialism. With China playing an ever more important role in the world, as well as the daily more acute international situation, not least the new Cold War, we believe that the need for an organisation such as ours has never been greater. China is also the most prominent force pushing for the establishment of a multipolar system of international relations and a new international economic order. And it is emerging as the global leader in the struggle to avoid climate catastrophe.

For all these reasons and more, we see the building of people-to-people friendship with China as an important part of the type of overall progressive agenda for peace and socialism that this conference aims to help develop.

The People’s Republic of China has always maintained that there are three types of international relations, defined by the country’s first Prime Minister Zhou Enlai as government-to-government, party-to-party and people-to-people.

Of course, these three strands are inter-related, but they are also distinct and have their own dynamics. And in recent years, along with a renewed emphasis on people-to-people diplomacy, China has also been promoting what it calls sub-national diplomacy. By this they mean engagement with devolved administrations, regional and provincial assemblies and parliaments, and local authorities and local government generally.

Now, in terms of people-to-people friendship and solidarity, on the part of the organised working class in particular, as well as on sub-national diplomacy, Wales already has a good tradition and history which can be inherited and can help to build the future.

In 1983, Cardiff became the first city in the UK to sign a twinning agreement with a Chinese city – with Xiamen, a major port in Fujian province.

In 1987, Swansea signed a friendship agreement with Nantong in Jiangsu province. A double ceremony saw the Welsh red dragon flying over Nantong while in Swansea, then Deputy Council Leader Charles Thomas helped raise the Chinese five star red flag over the Guildhall.

In 2006, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by First Minister Rhodri Morgan, on behalf of the Welsh government, and the municipal government of Chongqing, in the west of China. (Incidentally, the municipal area of Chongqing is approximately the size of Austria, only with a population of 32 million compared to Austria’s 9 million.) This was followed by a formal cooperation agreement, again signed by Rhodri Morgan in Chongqing, during his second visit in 2008. This agreement had originally been proposed by then Vice Premier (and later Premier) Wen Jiabao when he visited Wales in 2000.

Continue reading On the history of working-class solidarity and people-to-people friendship between Wales and China

Sino-British Concert: East-West Dialogue, Spring Sequence of New Sounds

On February 2, 2025 the ‘Sino-British Concert: East-West Dialogue, Spring Sequence of New Sounds’ was held at London’s Royal Academy of Music. David Peat, Secretary of Friends of Socialist China (FoSC) Britain Committee, attended the event on invitation. The following is his report.

On Sunday 2nd February, visitors to London’s central Shaftesbury Avenue and surrounding streets were able to take part in Chinese New Year (CNY) celebrations. The breadth of China’s historic culture and modern development were all displayed: exuberant traditional ‘Lion Dances’ took place next to China’s cutting-edge high-tech electric BYD vehicles. People could purchase good fortune souvenirs, and enjoy street snacks and the sounds of firecrackers, all along the temporarily pedestrianised thoroughfare. Each year London’s main Chinese New Year celebration, which expanded beyond the bounds of Chinatown proper since the mayoralty of Ken Livingstone, can be enjoyed by both tourists and residents of the capital city. With the recent viral success of the Xiaohongshu [Red Note] app, western users have been able to witness the amazing CNY celebrations that take place all over China, so no doubt some attendees were keen to enjoy that closer to home.

To the west of Chinatown proper, another event was held, which was a stunning display of musical skill and proof that artistic cultures – and cultures in general – benefit from sharing traditions and influence across borders. This event was the Sino-British Concert: East-West Dialogue, Spring Sequence of New Sounds, hosted by the Sino-British Ensemble, the Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding (SACU), and the UK Beijing Arts Centre.

In attendance at the event was Chinese Ambassador Zheng Zeguang and his wife Counsellor Hua Mei, along with Minister Zhao Fei. Among others present were representatives of organisations that have sought to build connections and understanding between China and the UK, including Special Guest Michael David Wood, historian and SACU President, who is especially known for his book and BBC documentary on China’s iconic Tang dynasty poet Du Fu. Prior to the performances, Professor Wood gave a brief talk outlining the history of musical exchanges between the west and the east and highlighted the ongoing potential for artistic collaboration to build bridges between nations and peoples.

This sold-out event was held in the beautiful Duke’s Hall of the Royal Academy of Music. The program was expansive and diverse, with more than 80 musicians performing 10 ‘dialogues’, in which one piece of music from the western tradition and one from the eastern were performed alternately, or even directly in conversation with one another. The Sino-British orchestra features musicians from China, the UK, India, Germany, Italy, Romania and other countries, and also foregrounded pieces and musical styles from China’s ethnic minority musical traditions.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has highlighted how China in its history has long cherished the notion of “harmony without uniformity.” In a speech at UNESCO headquarters in 2015 titled ‘Exchanges and Mutual Learning Make Civilizations Richer and More Colorful’, President Xi quoted Yan Zi, prime minister of the State of Qi during the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 BC), who is recorded as observing: “Only by combining the texture, length, rhythm, mood, tone, pitch and style adequately and executing them properly can you produce an excellent melody… Who can tolerate the same tone played again and again with one instrument?”[1] This observation matches the purpose of the concert: appreciating the new connections and possibilities that can be created when diverse musical traditions and peoples are brought into contact. As the enormous interest in apps like RedNote has shown, people in both East and West are intensely curious to make connections with one another, and the results are ‘win-win’ when they do. Events like the Sino-British concert are a wonderful way to establish and strengthen these sorts of links.

For those interested in similar events in future, check SACU’s website at Home – Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding (SACU)

[1] Xi Jinping, The Governance of China Vol 1, pp. 283 – 289.

Pragmatism not ideology should define Britain’s relationship with China

In the following article, which was originally published in the Morning Star, our co-editor Keith Bennett assesses the recent China visit by UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves, the highest profile British visit to the country since Theresa May visited as Prime Minister in January-February 2018.

Keith notes that the visit, “restarted the Economic and Financial Dialogue (EFD) between the two countries, delivered limited but definite gains for the British economy, and was mired in domestic political controversy.”

Outlining the hesitant and partial nature of the Labour government’s re-engagement with China, and the backlash that even such tentative moves have engendered, he concludes:

The moves by the Labour government to reengage positively with China, limited and partial as they are, need to be welcomed. But the labour and trade union movement should press for them to go much further if Britain is to secure the jobs and investment we need and if we are to work constructively to tackle global challenges. This, in turn, will require standing up to the most reactionary sections of the ruling class and doubtless also to the incoming Trump administration across the Atlantic.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves returned to London on Monday January 13, following a three-day visit to China that took her to Beijing and Shanghai.

This first visit by a British Chancellor to the Asian economic giant in more than five years restarted the Economic and Financial Dialogue (EFD) between the two countries, delivered limited but definite gains for the British economy, and was mired in domestic political controversy.

In protocol terms, the high point of Reeves’s visit was her meeting with Chinese Vice-President Han Zheng.

According to the Xinhua News Agency, Han said that China and Britain are both major economies and financial heavyweights in the world, adding that strengthening economic and financial co-operation in the spirit of strategic partnership is of great significance to promoting economic growth, improving people’s lives and encouraging green development in the two countries.

China, he added, is willing to continue to expand openness and exchanges with Britain, enhance mutual understanding and trust, and deepen mutually beneficial co-operation to bring more benefits to the two countries and the world.

The news agency quoted Reeves as replying that the British side attaches importance to developing relations with China and is willing to strengthen candid dialogue and mutually beneficial co-operation to promote the economic development of each country.

The Economic and Financial Dialogue was co-chaired by Reeves and Vice-Premier He Lifeng. According to the British side, the total value of what was agreed is worth £600 million over the next five years for the British economy.

A briefing paper released by HM Treasury added: “Overall, this government’s re-engagement with China already sets us on course to deliver up to £1 billion of value for the UK economy.”

However, details of how the latter figure, in particular, was arrived at remain scant to non-existent.

Regarding the former figure, a Treasury factsheet drew particular attention to financial services, asserting that financial markets play an important role “in tackling shared global issues — whether climate change, biodiversity loss or ageing populations — and in delivering growth and prosperity” and welcoming China’s decision to grant new commercial licences and quota allocations for British firms, its commitment to issuing an inaugural offshore sovereign green bond in Britain in 2025, and Bank of China London branch’s intention to issue new dual currency sustainability related bonds in Britain in 2025.

Continue reading Pragmatism not ideology should define Britain’s relationship with China

Chinese Embassy in London comments on tidal wave of McCarthyite propaganda

The recent decision by Britain’s Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) to uphold the ban on a Chinese businessman from entering the UK on supposed grounds of “national security” has predictably unleashed a tidal wave of McCarthyite ‘red scare’ propaganda and witch-hunting heavily overladen with thinly disguised racial prejudice on the part of the right-wing media and a number of parliamentarians who are yet to see an anti-China bandwagon that they are not desperate to jump on. The ban was originally imposed by then Home Secretary Suella Braverman.

Braverman is a notorious and shameless extreme right-wing demagogue who in January 2023 was told by a holocaust survivor: “When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others.”

Earlier, in October 2022, she said that she would love to see a front page of the hard right Daily Telegraph reporting the sending of asylum seekers to Rwanda, describing it as her “dream” and “obsession”. In November 2023, she callously proposed new laws in England and Wales to limit the use of tents by homeless people, stating that many of them see homelessness as “a lifestyle choice”.

Describing demonstrations in support of the Palestinian people and against genocide as “hate marches”, she wrote to Chief Constables: “I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as: ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’… in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence,” adding that, “behaviours that are legitimate in some circumstances, for example the waving of a Palestinian flag, may not be legitimate such as when intended to glorify acts of terrorism.”

She has boasted of having “close family members who serve in the Israel Defense Forces”, yet has also spoken of being engaged in a “battle against Cultural Marxism”, a term generally associated with anti-semitism.

Responding to the tabling of an “urgent question” on the issue in the House of Commons on December 16, the spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in London commented:

“As for the anti-China clamours made by a handful of UK MPs, they have done nothing but fully revealed their twisted mentality towards China, as well as their arrogance and shamelessness. This is a typical case of a thief crying ‘catch thief’. What they are really up to is to smear China, target against the Chinese community in the UK and undermine normal personnel exchanges between China and the UK.”

The spokesperson added: “We always believe that a sound and stable China-UK relationship is not a one-sided favour but what meets the common interests of both sides… We urge the UK side to immediately stop creating trouble, stop anti-China political manipulations, and stop undermining normal personnel exchanges between China and the UK.”

Earlier, speaking to the Morning Star newspaper, Robert Griffiths, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB), noted that it, “may be no coincidence that this story has resurfaced at the very time the Labour government says it wants to improve economic relations with China.”

An editorial in the same newspaper criticised “the determination of parts of the ruling class to prevent any warming of relations between Britain and China under the new Labour government, which has, so far, seemed marginally more willing than its predecessors to consider cooperation rather than conflict with a country that is the world’s second-largest economy, biggest manufacturer, and a global leader across multiple emerging technologies, including in the crucial renewable energy sector.

“‘Decoupling’ from China will hurt British industry, disrupt a green transition and carries the historically demonstrable risk that trade wars precede actual wars.”

The following article was originally published on the website of the Chinese Embassy in London.

Question: It is reported that the businessman banned from entering the UK has asked his legal team to disclose his identity. This businessman has also made it clear in a statement that he has done nothing wrong or unlawful. In the meantime, the UK Parliament this afternoon heard an urgent question on this issue, during which a few MPs continued to accuse the businessman of being a “Chinese spy”. What is your comment?

Embassy Spokesperson: We have noticed that the businessman has issued a statement to make a clarification.

As for the anti-China clamours made by a handful of UK MPs, they have done nothing but fully revealed their twisted mentality towards China, as well as their arrogance and shamelessness. This is a typical case of a thief crying “catch thief”. What they are really up to is to smear China, target against the Chinese community in the UK and undermine normal personnel exchanges between China and the UK. We strongly condemn this.

I must point out that the CPC and the Chinese government uphold that countries should pursue friendship and cooperation on the basis of mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit. This is what we have been saying and what we have been doing. This is also why China has so many friends around the world.

I also want to reiterate that the United Front led by the CPC endeavours to bring together various political parties and people from all walks of life, ethnic groups and organisations to promote cooperation between the CPC and people who are not members of it and promote people-to-people exchanges and friendship with other countries. This is above-board and beyond reproach. Though some UK politicians attempted to demonise China’s United Front work, they are doomed to fail.

We always believe that a sound and stable China-UK relationship is not a one-sided favour but what meets the common interests of both sides. The UK side must have a right perception of China, see the historical trend clearly, and handle its relations with China on the basis of mutual respect, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit.

We urge the UK side to immediately stop creating trouble, stop anti-China political manipulations, and stop undermining normal personnel exchanges between China and the UK.

Assessing recent high level encounters between Britain and China

In the following article, which was originally published by the Morning Star, Kenny Coyle assesses the significance of two recent high level encounters between Britain’s new Labour government and China, namely Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s China visit in October and Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s meeting with President Xi Jinping the next month, in the margins of the G-20 Summit in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro.

Comparing and contrasting the Chinese and British read outs of the two meetings, Kenny notes how Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi rebuffed Lammy’s attempts to interfere in China’s internal affairs, forcing him, with what Kenny wittily describes as a “double-Lammy”, into stating that: “Britain  remains steadfast in honouring its commitment to the Taiwan question since the establishment of diplomatic relations and will stick to it in the long term.”

Kenny then spells out exactly what this means: “Although you wouldn’t know from Britain’s readout, which does not mention Taiwan even once, Wang Yi made Lammy squirm. The British side essentially had to reiterate longstanding British policy, dating back to 1972 in the [Sir Edward] Heath era, where Lammy’s predecessor as foreign secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, stated to the House of Commons that: ‘The government of the United Kingdom acknowledge the position of the Chinese government that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China.

“‘Both the government of the People’s Republic of China and Taipei maintain that Taiwan is a part of China. We held the view both at Cairo and at Potsdam that Taiwan should be restored to China. That view has not changed. We think that the Taiwan question is China’s internal affair to be settled by the Chinese people themselves.’”

It need only be added that given Lammy’s general level of (in)competence and manifest unsuitability for his current position, it is highly likely that he was utterly clueless as to what Alec Douglas-Home might have said on the matter when the two countries established full diplomatic relations. It is at least equally likely that Douglas-Home’s knowledge of the international agreements forged towards the end of World War II was considerably superior to that of the present Foreign Secretary.

Kenny also focuses on the absence of any mention of Xinjiang in the British read out of Starmer’s meeting with President Xi, let alone of any question of supposed genocide in the Chinese autonomous region, a preposterous charge that the hapless Lammy in particular was previously all too happy to bandy about.

As Kenny notes: “The current and previous British governments stand accused of complicity in a televised, live-streamed genocide, namely the one in Gaza. Starmer’s own rancid apologetics for Israeli war crimes is a matter of public record.”

Indeed, it was in the same month as Starmer’s meeting that 37 rights organisations excoriated Lammy’s wilful obfuscation and denial with regard to the all too real ongoing genocide in Gaza. (The full text and list of signatories may be found here.)

Similarly, and ironically on the very day that Starmer met Xi, William Schabas, former president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars and the author of more than 20 books on genocide and other international law topics, lacerated both Starmer and Lammy for their denial of the Gaza genocide. He told Middle East Eye:

 “These people are hypocrites. They speak with a forked tongue. They do not interpret or apply the Genocide Convention in a consistent manner.”

Regarding the situation in Xinjiang, he added: “There is no serious evidence of killings. Not millions. None. The treatment of Uyghurs in China and that of Palestinian Arabs cannot be compared.”

TWICE over the past two months, senior British government figures have met with their Chinese counterparts. The first encounter was Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s meeting with Chinese foreign policy chief Wang Yi in Beijing in October; the second was the talk between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil in November.

As is usual with high-level diplomatic bilateral meetings, the full transcripts of the discussions have not been disclosed. Aside from initial pleasantries and photo opportunities, the substantial items of these bilateral talks are always private and confidential.

What we can glean from these two meetings for now is set out in the official “readouts” issued by each government. These readouts are usually predictably formulaic. First, each side indulges in diplomatic pleasantries, second, they highlight areas of broad agreement, and then subtly, the readout may mention issues of disagreement. Finally, it often ends with anodyne suggestions along the lines of “We really should catch up more.”

A careful inspection of the readouts of Lammy’s meeting with Wang Yi and the Starmer-Xi Rio talks is helpful for revealing not just what they say but what they don’t.

If we look at Britain’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FDCO) interpretation of the October Lammy meeting, it starts positively enough. It sets out shared aims of “achieving the global green transition” and “promoting secure and resilient growth through increased trade and investment, which creates jobs, drives innovation, boosts productivity and provides economic stability and certainty” for the British economy. They agreed that Britain and China can support both countries” growth objectives.”

Britain’s readout then moves on to obvious areas of difference on the Nato-Russian war in Ukraine and the crises in west Asia (Middle East).

“The Foreign Secretary urged Wang Yi to take all measures to investigate and to prevent Chinese companies from supplying Russia’s military. The Foreign Ministers agreed to continue to discuss this and other broader foreign policy issues, such as the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.”

No mention of preventing Britain from supplying Israel’s military, of course, but no big surprises here.

Then Lammy unwisely turns to China’s internal affairs.

“Human Rights were discussed, including in Xinjiang, and the Foreign Secretary referenced this as an area in which Britain and China must engage, even where viewpoints diverge. Hong Kong is a shared interest, and the Foreign Secretary raised serious concerns around the implementation of the National Security Law and the ongoing treatment of British national Jimmy Lai, again calling for his release.”

How does China’s readout of the same meeting compare? Beijing’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs note largely agrees with the FCDO on the obvious benefits of co-operation rather than conflict.

“The British Labour government has put forward the proposal to develop a long-term, stable and strategically significant relationship with China. The Chinese side has positively evaluated this proposal, as it conforms to the historical logic and practical needs of the bilateral relationship, serves the fundamental interests of the two peoples, and aligns with the historical trend and the international situation.”

But then comes the pushback. First of all, Wang Yi gently reminds Britain’s Foreign Secretary that an MP for Tottenham lecturing China on Chinese soil about Chinese issues is hardly conducive to the “bilateral engagement” that Britain leaders claim to seek.

“Noting that Taiwan and Hong Kong affairs are China’s internal affairs, and non-interference in internal affairs is a fundamental principle of international relations, Wang said both sides should respect each other’s concerns, strengthen dialogue on the basis of equality, enhance understanding, and create an atmosphere for communication and co-operation.

Then the Chinese move in for the second strike, a double-Lammy, if you will.

“Britain remains steadfast in honouring its commitment to the Taiwan question since the establishment of diplomatic relations and will stick to it in the long term, Lammy said.”

Although you wouldn’t know from Britain’s readout, which does not mention Taiwan even once, Wang Yi made Lammy squirm. The British side essentially had to reiterate longstanding British policy, dating back to 1972 in the Heath era, where Lammy’s predecessor as foreign secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, stated to the House of Commons that: “The government of the United Kingdom acknowledge the position of the Chinese government that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China.

“Both the government of the People’s Republic of China and Taipei maintain that Taiwan is a part of China. We held the view both at Cairo and at Potsdam that Taiwan should be restored to China. That view has not changed. We think that the Taiwan question is China’s internal affair to be settled by the Chinese people themselves.”

Naturally, this does not sit well with the increasingly visible and well-funded Taiwan-separatist lobby at Westminster. It shows, of course, that what British leaders tell China is not necessarily what they tell the British people.

Tellingly, Lammy downgraded the Xinjiang question from one of alleged and utterly unproven “genocide,” a pre-election position held by the Parliamentary Labour Party, to the vague but unimpeachable appeal to human rights.

The Downing Street readout on the November 18 Rio summit was terse, just eight paragraphs. This is the key one.

“The Prime Minister said that he also wanted to engage honestly and frankly on those areas where we have different perspectives, including on Hong Kong, human rights and Russia’s war in Ukraine.”

No mention of Xinjiang at all, nor of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, not even Taiwan.

A number of commentators have assumed that the policy shift on Xinjiang is related purely to the Starmer government’s hope to reset economic relations with Beijing, see for example, “Labour backtracks on Uighur ‘genocide’ stance as Lammy heads to China” (Daily Telegraph, October 17). However, given Britain’s continued utilisation of the Hong Kong situation, this is unlikely to be the whole story.

One other explanation is that the Xinjiang genocide propaganda simply hasn’t worked where it was supposed to. The majority Muslim countries of west, central and south-east Asia have, more often than not, expressed guarded support or at least sympathy for China’s view that one key factor in the Xinjiang question is the role of global Islamist extremist networks and terrorist groups.

Uighur terrorists have been apprehended as far afield as Thailand and Indonesia, for example. The recent resurgence of terrorist attacks in Syria’s Aleppo region, which by sheer coincidence synchronised with the Lebanon-Israel ceasefire, involves armed groups drawn from several Turkic-speaking terror groups. These include Chinese Uighur fighters from the Al Qaida-linked Katibat al Ghuraba al Turkistan (KGT).

Or perhaps, just as with the allegations of Tibetan genocide, which notably intensified in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and then gradually dissipated, there is neither the evidence nor continuing credulity to sustain these propaganda projects.

However, there may be yet another rather more obvious reason.

The current and previous British governments stand accused of complicity in a televised, live-streamed genocide, namely the one in Gaza. Starmer’s own rancid apologetics for Israeli war crimes is a matter of public record.

Whether through shame, embarrassment, or guilt, the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have good reason to drop the term genocide from their anti-China rhetoric. It seems Starmer and Lammy, or their advisers, are fully conscious of this absurd and self-incriminating juxtaposition.

Reflecting on the history of solidarity between the peoples of China and Wales

The Communist Party of Britain (CPB) held its Welsh national congress in Pontypridd on November 30, 2024.

In addition to summing up its work since its last Congress, analysing the current situation in Wales and charting its path ahead in the next period, it welcomed Liz Payne from the CPB’s Executive Committee, along with four guest speakers, namely:

  • Beth Winter, Labour MP for Cynon Valley, 2019-2024, who recently resigned her Labour membership in protest at the party’s steady rightward trajectory under Keir Starmer
  • Owain Meiron from Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg (the Welsh Language Society)
  • Twm Draper from Cymru Cuba; and
  • Keith Bennett from Friends of Socialist China

In his contribution, Twm said in part:

I was lucky enough to visit Cuba for May Day in 2022 as part of a Young Workers Trade Union delegation. I had the opportunity to see firsthand the benefits a socialist country can bring. One example was the creation of vaccines to protect people against Covid and sharing their supplies with developing countries. A true sign of solidarity and internationalism.

We also heard about how the Young Communist League in Cuba was at the forefront during lockdowns, helping their neighbours in isolation to get essentials whilst keeping the community safe.

May Day had to be the highlight of the trip and something I’ve never experienced before or since. The march saw close to one million workers being celebrated for their contributions to society and every role was seen as equally important. The respect for workers and the importance of union organisation could be seen in all aspects of society.

Whilst this brought me hope that a different future is possible in Britain, it was clear how the inhumane 64-year-old US blockade impacts Cuban lives on a daily basis.

Whilst Cuban doctors were able to create five Covid vaccines, this was out of necessity because the US blockade played with Cuban lives, preventing them getting medical supplies such as needles to administer the vaccines.

At the beginning of this month, Cuba was without electricity for a second time in a matter of weeks following another hurricane. Due to the US blockade, Cuba was unable to import repair parts or fuel, leaving millions without electricity

These are just a couple of examples of many where the US blockade impacts Cubans’ lives daily. And despite everything Cuba is faced with, they remain true to their internationalist values of sharing the resources and expertise that they have with the rest of the world.

We have been promoting and enjoying the people’s release of ‘Comrade Tambo’s London Recruits’ this week. Cuba was at the forefront of internationalist action. In the words of Nelson Mandela, ‘if it were not for Cuba, I would not be a free man today.’”

In his contribution, Keith focused on outlining some of the history of people-to-people ties between Wales and China and of the mutual support and solidarity between the working class and peoples of the two nations.

The main congress resolution, adopted unanimously, identified one of the party’s priorities in the coming period as being to: “Improve and increase the work of the Communist Party in the peace and international solidarity movements in Wales, not least through Stop the War Cymru, CND Cymru, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Cymru-Cuba and Friends of Socialist China.”

We publish the text of Keith’s remarks below. A report on the congress was published by the Morning Star.

Dear Comrades

First, on behalf of Friends of Socialist China, I would like to extend warmest greetings to all members of the Communist Party in Wales. Thank you for the invitation to attend your Congress and to make a presentation. We wish success to all your deliberations.

Friends of Socialist China is a young organisation. We were set up in May 2021, with the goal of supporting the People’s Republic of China and spreading understanding of Chinese socialism. We have, throughout, enjoyed excellent working and comradely relations with the Communist Party of Britain, along with the Young Communist League and the Morning Star. One of our very first activities was a joint webinar, organised with the Morning Star, to celebrate the centenary of the Communist Party of China, held on July 3, 2021.

With China playing an ever more important role in the world, with its continuing advance along the road to socialism, as well as the daily more acute international situation, not least the new Cold War, we believe that the need for an organisation such as ours has never been greater.

I could speak further about this, but you can find plenty of material on our website, socialistchina.org, in the books and pamphlets available at the back, including ‘The East is still Red’, written by my comrade Carlos Martinez and ‘People’s China at 75: The Flag stays Red’, as well as in the regular excellent features and editorials in the Morning Star, including today’s centre spread on ‘China’s bridges to a socialist future’.

Continue reading Reflecting on the history of solidarity between the peoples of China and Wales

Keir Starmer dares to lecture President Xi on human rights?!

As we reported last week, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer held his first in-person meeting with President Xi Jinping on November 18 on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro. As we noted in our introduction to that report, “much of the goodwill generated by the meeting would have been spoiled by Starmer’s tactless and undiplomatic behaviour in publicly raising a number of contentious issues”.

In the video embedded below, Andy Boreham, a journalist from New Zealand who lives in Shanghai and speaks fluent Mandarin, reports on the meeting, observing that Britain is not in a position to lecture China on human rights, given its shameful support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its repression of British citizens who express solidarity with the Palestinian people, including Asa Winstanley and Craig Murray.

Mr Starmer, you have absolutely no right to lecture anyone on human rights.

Andy notes that Starmer also raised the case of Jimmy Lai, who is charged with conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and to publish seditious material. Andy points out that “Lai used his influence and money to try to destabilize China. He’s now facing the legal consequences of his actions – consequences he’d face in any country, including the UK.”

The video also takes up the story that appeared in the Western media that Chinese officials “kicked out” British journalists when Starmer raised the issue of human rights. Andy explains that it’s standard practice for journalists to only be allowed to attend the first few minutes of meetings between world leaders, before the discussion of substantive issues begins, and this is exactly what happened in this instance.

The video was first posted on the Reports on China YouTube channel.

Xi Jinping meets Keir Starmer in Brazil

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer held his first in person meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping on November 18, on the sidelines of the G20 summit, being held in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro. The two men had previously held a telephone conversation on August 23.

In his opening remarks, borrowing from the British Labour Party’s stated policy goals, Xi noted that the new government was “working to fix the foundations of the economy and rebuild Britain.” He added that while the two countries differ in history, culture, values, and social systems, they share extensive common interests and enjoy vast space for cooperation in such areas as trade and investment, clean energy, financial services, healthcare and people’s well-being, which should be further expanded to better benefit both peoples.

Starmer responded by saying that, in advancing their shared goals, his approach would be consistent, respectful and pragmatic.  The Prime Minister’s office’s read out of the meeting, added: “On climate, in particular, both said that this should be high on the agenda and there was more work to be done to accelerate global progress towards net zero. Both the UK and China have an important role to play in support of the global clean power transition.”

The British Prime Minister welcomed the recent visit to Beijing and Shanghai by Foreign Secretary David Lammy, looked forward to the planned China visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, planned for early next year, and expressed hope for the resumption of full, high-level bilateral engagement with China, which has been interrupted over recent years.

However, much of the goodwill generated by the meeting would have been spoiled by Starmer’s tactless and undiplomatic behaviour in publicly raising a number of contentious issues, in particular the case of Jimmy Lai, publisher of the former scurrilous newspaper, Apple Daily, who has been described by the Chinese Embassy in London as, “one of the most notorious anti-China elements bent on destabilising Hong Kong…  Jimmy Lai was a major plotter and instigator of the anti-China riots in Hong Kong. He blatantly colluded with external forces in jeopardising national security, solicited foreign support, and committed various sinful deeds.”

It is, of course, an act of the most revolting and blatant hypocrisy for Starmer, who has defended and abetted Israeli genocide in Gaza, the most egregious violation of human rights in the world at present, and who continues to do so; and whose government is engaged in a brutal campaign of politically motivated persecution and attempted intimidation of journalists who dare to point out the truth of what is happening in Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East, such as Richard Medhurst, Sarah Wilkinson and Asa Winstanley, to accuse the leaders of other countries of abuses of human rights or violations of press freedom.

In its editorial comment on the meeting, the Morning Star described it as “long overdue”, noting:

“There is plenty of room for growth, especially in exports to China, where Britain lags far behind Germany, France and Italy. Relaxing the US-inspired ban on selling key electronic, micro-processing and [supposed] ‘dual use’ (civilian-military) engineering products to China would help.

“Restrictions on Chinese investment in Britain already hold back the roll-out of 5G technology and the application of quantum physics – in which China leads the world – to computing, communications, geology and medicine.”

The following articles were originally published by the Xinhua News Agency and the Morning Star.

Xi calls on China, Britain to adopt rational, objective perspective on each other’s development

RIO DE JANEIRO, Nov. 18 — China and Britain should adopt a rational and objective perspective on each other’s development, Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Monday.

Xi made the remarks when meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the sidelines of the 19th G20 Leaders’ Summit.

The two countries should enhance strategic communication and deepen political mutual trust to ensure a steady, substantial, and enduring development of bilateral relations, he said.

Noting that the world has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation, Xi said that China and Britain, both as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and major global economies, share the responsibilities of advancing their respective national development and addressing global challenges.

Both countries should stick to their strategic partnership, adhere to the principles of mutual respect, open cooperation, and mutual learning, strive for mutual benefit and win-win outcomes, and jointly write the next chapter of healthy and stable development of bilateral relations, he added.

Continue reading Xi Jinping meets Keir Starmer in Brazil

Alex Salmond – a great and sincere friend of China

Friends of Socialist China expresses its sincere condolences following the shocking death of Alex Salmond, who died on October 12, 2024, from a massive heart attack while attending an international conference in North Macedonia. The enduring contribution he made to political life was reflected in the tributes paid from across the political spectrum, in Scotland, the UK and beyond, as well as from people of all walks of life, not least in the minute of applause by thousands of Scotland football fans ahead of their team’s international match against Portugal on October 15.

The founder and leader of the Alba Party, Salmond served as the First Minister of Scotland from 2007-2014. He also served as the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) from 1990-200 and from 2004-2014. He founded the Alba Party in 2021.

Alex Salmond was a great and sincere friend of China.  He strongly supported friendship and cooperation with China throughout his time as Scotland’s First Minister. The March 2014 edition of ‘Voice of Friendship’, the magazine of the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, reported on his November 2013 visit to Beijing, describing him as, “an old friend who visited China successively in the years from 2009-2011.”

On that occasion, Salmond presented State Councillor Yang Jiechi with his government’s document, ‘Scotland’s Strategy for Stronger Engagement with China’.

Reporting his visit to the Confucius Institute Headquarters, ‘Voice of Friendship’ noted: “Since he took office, Mr. Salmond has attached great importance to carrying out cultural exchanges with China. Right now, Confucius Institutes have been set up in four universities and Confucius Classrooms in 13 primary and secondary schools in Scotland, with a total of 150 schools and institutions teaching Mandarin.”

When the Conservative government threatened to ban Confucius Institutes in 2022, in contrast to some fair-weather ‘friends’, Salmond retorted:

“This is the sort of Cold War mentality on display by Westminster which ends in hot wars. The Scottish Government should defend these valuable cultural exchanges and oppose any attempts by the UK Government to close them down. We have nothing to fear from talking and exchanging culture. The real danger is from those who wish to divide the world into armed camps and who wish to shut Scotland out from the international community.”

Just last month, he gave an interview to the Xinhua News Agency, in which he identified wind energy as one of the potential areas for cooperation between Scotland and China.  He expressed enthusiasm for Chinese involvement in Scotland’s wind energy sector, “particularly given both sides’ substantial expertise in both onshore and offshore wind power.”

“I hope to see greater collaboration between Chinese and Scottish experts in both continental and offshore wind power,” he said.

Salmond’s unwavering backing for friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation with China, and his opposition to the new Cold War, was consistent with his overall political stance. Along with Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway – both of whom paid tribute to him – he was one of a handful of leading British politicians to oppose all imperialist wars in his political lifetime, including those against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

He was a strong and passionate supporter of the Palestinian people. Middle East Eye reported:

“The former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, who died unexpectedly during a conference in North Macedonia at the weekend, was one of the most vocally pro-Palestinian western leaders of his generation and a vociferous opponent of the Iraq war.

“The former SNP leader was a longtime supporter of the Palestinian cause. In 2004, he opposed Britain’s abstention on a UN resolution condemning Israel’s assassination of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

“Then in 2010, as SNP leader, Salmond slammed Israel’s assassination of Hamas member Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai.

“As first minister, he called for an embargo on arms sales to Israel in August 2014, amid Israel’s bombardment of Gaza.

“Salmond later stirred controversy in 2016 as a representative for UK in Europe by attacking the Israeli representative for criticising Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s presence in France during a Holocaust commemoration service.

“His pro-Palestinian stance continued after his departure from the SNP in 2018, and when he became leader of a new pro-independence party called the Alba Party from 2021 onwards.

“Earlier this month Salmond slammed Britain’s Labour government on social media platform X, asking: ‘Is the UK to ‘stand with Israel’ in Gaza, in Lebanon, in flagrant breaches of international law, in tens of thousands of civilian deaths over the last year?’

‘This was in response to Starmer promising support for Israel after it was hit by an Iranian missile attack.

“Salmond added: ‘Britain is the former colonial power and the Middle East is one of the few areas where what is said by the PM actually matters.

“‘Would a better policy not be to simply say ‘we stand to uphold international law and unequivocally back the UN’s pursuit of peace?’”

“Earlier this year he also made headlines for demanding that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu be arrested ‘and sent to the courts’ if he steps foot on Scottish soil, following the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor seeking an arrest warrant for Israeli and Hamas leaders.”

Middle East Eye further reported:

“Salmond firmly opposed Britain’s invasion alongside the US of Iraq in 2003, and later said there was ‘substantial evidence’ that Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair had intended to deceive the public.

“In 2016 as the SNP foreign affairs spokesperson, Salmond tabled an unsuccessful motion in the House of Commons calling for parliamentary committees to investigate Blair.

“In 2015, Salmond… led a mission to Tehran to boost business and cultural links between Scotland and Iran.”

Domestically, as First Minister of Scotland, Salmond implemented a number of progressive policies favourable to working people, including free prescriptions and free university tuition.

China’s Consul General in Edinburgh has sent a letter of condolences to the First Minister of Scotland mourning the death of Alex Salmond.

We take this opportunity to express our condolences to Alex’s wife Moira, his other family members, his colleagues in the Alba Party and his countless friends.

We reprint below the statement from the family and also embed a short clip from Alba’s conference in May this year, in which Alex speaks on the ongoing genocide in Gaza with passion and principle.

Family Statement on the Death of Alex Salmond

The family of Alex Salmond would like to extend our sincere thanks for the many hundreds of kind messages, calls and cards.

Alex was a formidable politician, an amazing orator, an outstanding intellect, and admired throughout the world. He loved meeting people and hearing their stories, and showed incredible kindness to those who needed it. He dedicated his adult life to the cause he believed in – independence for Scotland. His vision and enthusiasm for Scotland and the Yes movement were both inspirational and contagious.

But to us, first and foremost, he was a devoted and loving husband, a fiercely loyal brother, a proud and thoughtful uncle and a faithful and trusted friend.

In our darkest of family moments, he was always the one who got us through, making this time even more difficult, as he is not here for us to turn to. His resilience and optimism knew no bounds.

He led us to believe in better. Without Alex, life will never be the same again. But he would want us to continue with his life’s work for independence, and for justice, and that is what we shall do. “The dream shall never die.”

Moira, Margaret, Gail, Bob, Neil, Ian, Karen, Christina and Mark

Alex Gordon: PRC’s 75th anniversary a moment of hope and inspiration for peoples around the world

The following is the text of the speech delivered by Alex Gordon to the opening session of our conference held on September 28 to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, “a moment of pride and achievement for the people of China, but also a moment of hope and inspiration for peoples around the world.”

Alex refers to President Xi Jinping’s May Day message this year to the Chinese working class as well as his letter to Serbian steel workers and contrasts this to the looming job cuts at the at the Port Talbot steel plant in South Wales.

He goes on to compare the fiasco of Britain’s HS2 high-speed rail project with the relevant experience in China:

“In the decade it took to turn HS2 from a rail infrastructure project into luxury homes opportunities for billionaires, China developed a 40,000 km publicly owned, high-speed rail network, the largest in world history.”

He also outlines the work of the Chinese trade union movement, noting that Xi Jinping had emphasised that the unions should earnestly safeguard the rights of workers and strive to solve practical problems concerning their vital interests, in particular for workers in new forms of employment.

Alex Gordon is the President of the rail workers and seafarers’ trade union RMT, the Chair of the Marx Memorial Library and Workers’ School and a member of the Political and Executive Committees of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB).

Chair, Minister, Your Excellencies, Comrades and Friends,

On behalf of the Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB), please allow me first to pay tribute to the great work and militant life of our late comrade Sitaram Yechury, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI[M]). CPB General Secretary, Robert Griffiths has paid tribute to Comrade Sitaram in a eulogy published in the Morning Star. Comrade Sitaram was a friend of China, but also a friend of the CPB and did so much to strengthen and deepen the links between our two parties. We mourn his loss and send our condolences to all his comrades. Vale comrade.

The 75th anniversary of the founding of People’s China is a moment of pride and achievement for the people of China, but also a moment of hope and inspiration for peoples around the world.

On behalf of the CPB, I want to recognise also the significance of this achievement for the working class in our country. But my remarks apply to workers more widely across the developed G7 economies and beyond.

In his May Day greeting to China’s working people this year, President Xi Jinping called on them to “actively participate in advancing Chinese modernisation with high-quality development and work tirelessly to promote the building of a strong country and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts.” He asked party committees and government bodies at all levels to “realise, safeguard and develop the legitimate rights and interests of workers.”

President Xi also replied to a letter from Serbian workers at the HBIS Smederevo Steel Plant who he met on a state visit to Serbia in 2016.

Continue reading Alex Gordon: PRC’s 75th anniversary a moment of hope and inspiration for peoples around the world

Building a peaceful, nuclear-free tomorrow

The following text is of a speech by Sophie Bolt, incoming general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), at the World We Want conference held in London on 12 October 2024.

Sophie’s speech outlines the current geopolitical situation, in particular the risk of nuclear war, and the need for a mass movement to demand peace and disarmament. She observes that US global dominance is the number one obstacle in the way of a “peaceful, just, sustainable and nuclear-free world”. While many may have hoped that the end of the Cold War would have brought about a more peaceful world, the US developed an aggressive new strategy – the “Wolfowitz doctrine” – which aimed to prevent the rise of any rival power that could challenge US hegemony. “Using its political, economic and military might, the US has attempted to force countries to subordinate their economic and political interests to it. A carrot-and-stick approach, in which the US nuclear arsenal is the ultimate stick.”

Sophie notes that the global economic and political situation is changing, particularly with the emergence of China and the rise of BRICS. In a state of relative decline, the US is increasingly resorting to the use of military power to maintain and reassert its hegemony. “This is the key driver of global tensions which is pushing the world to the brink of destruction.”

The speech calls on the peace movement to mobilise against the US-led drive to war – including the New Cold War on China – and to support peace initiatives emerging from the Global South. For example, Brazil and China are coordinating towards peace talks between Russia and Ukraine; meanwhile South Africa has been blazing a trail on international legal action against Israel for its war crimes in Gaza.

Sophie concludes:

We must take hope and courage from these significant, progressive developments taking place across the global South. And the determined, committed movements that are growing here in the global North.

The text of the speech was first published in the Morning Star on 14 October 2024.

So, the world we want to see! For the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, we want a peaceful, just, sustainable and nuclear-free world. But, given where we currently are, how can we secure such a world?

From CND’s perspective, central to this question is overcoming the major obstacle — which is US global dominance.

Since the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the US has pursued a military doctrine that allows no rival economic or military power to emerge that can challenge it.

Far from ending the second world war, the dropping of these nuclear bombs was a ruthless, barbaric act to ensure the US emerged as the major superpower. It was a warning to every other country.

The bombing unleashed the nuclear arms race and started the cold war, taking the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, this doctrine was explicitly formalised, coined the “Wolfowitz doctrine,” after Paul Wolfowitz, under-secretary of defence to Dick Cheney. This is why — rather than disbanding Nato — the US aggressively expanded the nuclear-armed alliance right up to Russia’s borders.

Using its political, economic and military might, the US has attempted to force countries to subordinate their economic and political interests to it. A carrot-and-stick approach, in which the US nuclear arsenal is the ultimate stick.

But today, China’s economic growth has overtaken the US, and it is now the biggest economy in the world. Economic co-operation between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — known as Brics — means these combined economies are larger than the G7. And this economic co-operation is growing, with Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates joining this year.

Continue reading Building a peaceful, nuclear-free tomorrow