Britain Archives - Friends of Socialist China

Chinese Embassy in London holds symposium on the CPC and the world

On the morning of July 6, 2026, the Chinese Embassy in the UK held a symposium entitled “The Communist Party of China and the World”, marking the CPC’s 105th founding anniversary.

The event was chaired by Minister Zhao Fei and Ambassador Zheng Zeguang delivered a keynote speech entitled ‘Reviewing the Glorious Journey, Creating New Historic Success, and Jointly Promoting the Building of a Community with a Shared Future for Humanity’.

In his presentation, Ambassador Zheng elaborated on General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important speech at the rally celebrating the 105th anniversary of the founding of the CPC, held in Beijing on July 1.

He described the speech as a political declaration for Chinese Communists to uphold and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics and continuously achieve new victories in Chinese modernisation on the new journey in the new era. It also serves as an important window through which friends from around the world can better understand the CPC.

He said that on the journey ahead, China will study and implement Xi Jinping Thought on Party Building, uphold a correct view of governance performance, persist in exercising full and rigorous self-governance of the Party, and carry forward the Party’s outstanding qualities, thus ensuring that the Party always maintains strong creativity, cohesion and combat effectiveness. Although the road ahead is full of risks and challenges, requiring constant readiness to withstand high winds, strong waves, and even turbulent storms, the CPC has strong confidence and firm resolve, and will remain steadfast and forge ahead with courage to create new historic successes.

Ambassador Zheng noted that while the CPC is committed to seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation, it is also dedicated to advancing human progress and promoting harmony for the world.

He stressed the CPC’s readiness to engage in dialogue and exchanges and strengthen mutual learning with political parties and governments of all countries on the basis of mutual respect and equality and also briefed the participants on the development of China-UK relations since the beginning of this year.

Following the ambassador’s keynote report, contributions to the discussion were made by the following guests:

Alex Gordon, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB)
Andy Brooks, General Secretary of the New Communist Party of Britain (NCP)
Daniel O’Brien, Vice Chair of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (CPGBML)
Stephen Perry, Honorary President of the 48 Group
The Right Honourable Lord (Neil) Davidson KC, Baron of Glen Cova, Labour Member of the House of Lords
Sir Mark Hendrick, Labour Member of Parliament and Vice Chair of the China All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)
Professor Kerry Brown, Director of the Lau China Institute, King’s College London
Keith Bennett, Co-editor of Friends of Socialist China
Kevan Nelson, International Secretary of the CPB
Dr Ali Al Assam, Committee member of Friends of Socialist China
Dr Francisco Dominguez, Committee member of Friends of Socialist China
George Korkovelos, Culture Secretary of the CPGBML

Diane Abbott: The US plan is for global domination – we have to be determined in the campaign for peace

Nearly 3,000 delegates from across Britain, Europe and further afield packed London’s Westminster Central Hall on Saturday June 20 for a conference against war and militarism hosted by Britain’s Stop the War Coalition. It was the second conference of its kind, the first having been held in Paris in October 2025.

In a day noted for numerous rousing and militant speeches, special mention should be made of that made by Diane Abbott, which, despite its brevity, was unique in its providing an insightful overview of the international situation as a whole, the various struggles against imperialism and war and the significance of China.

After referring to the situations in Venezuela, Cuba, Nigeria, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon, Diane continued:

“There is a military build-up against China, especially through AUKUS. And of course, there is the war and blockade of Iran. Finally, there is the prolonged war in Ukraine, the largest war in Europe since the Second World War, much bigger even than the NATO campaign to destroy Yugoslavia.”

All these have one thing in common, she explained. “The United States is central to them all and initiated most of them.”

Referring to the latest US National Security Strategy, she noted that some people have argued that this means that the United States is now restricting its attention to the western hemisphere. But “none of that is true… It is a plan for global domination.”

Economically, the US is on the retreat and has lost its dominance. It has “lost out to the Global South in general and China in particular.” But it is attempting to recover its position primarily through a combination of trade wars, sanctions, and military methods. In this it relies on the overwhelming dominance of the US military, the global role of the US dollar and its network of allies.

However, not everything is going to plan. The US lost the first few rounds of the trade war with China.

She concludes: “It seems clear that we are in for a prolonged fight… We have to be determined in the campaign for peace, and unite with all those governments, movements and peoples who oppose this US rampage.”

Diane Abbott is the member of parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington in northeast London. She was first elected in 1987, becoming Britain’s first ever black woman parliamentarian. She is now the ‘Mother of the House’ – the longest currently serving woman member of the House of Commons. Having served as Shadow Home Secretary during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, she is currently suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party, due to the discredited regime of Keir Starmer’s war against the left and to her steadfast opposition to austerity, racism and imperialist war.

Carlos Martinez: What would Rajani Palme Dutt have made of contemporary China?

The following is the text of a lecture delivered by Carlos Martinez, author of The East is Still Red: Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century and a co-editor of Friends of Socialist China, marking the 130th anniversary of the birth of Rajani Palme Dutt – theoretician, organiser and, for half a century, one of the foremost Marxist minds in the British movement.

Taking as its starting point Palme Dutt’s 1967 pamphlet Whither China?, written at the height of the Sino-Soviet split and a year into the Cultural Revolution, the lecture asks what this towering figure of British Marxism – who died in 1974 – would have made of the People’s Republic today. Carlos tests Palme Dutt’s critique against the verdict of history: on the Cultural Revolution, on the Theory of the Three Worlds, and on the rival conceptions of peaceful coexistence – finding some of it vindicated, and some of it a product of a European Marxism that struggled to fully grasp a peasant-driven revolution.

Confronted with two stubborn facts – that the People’s Republic still exists while the Soviet Union does not – Palme Dutt, who even in 1967 refused to write China out of the socialist camp, would, Carlos argues, have recognised China as the largest and most developed socialist society in history. He would have recognised that in China it is the state that disciplines capital, not the other way round. The lecture closes with a call to carry forward Palme Dutt’s enduring principle: solidarity with a socialist country under imperialist siege, “irrespective of any differences”.

Revolutionary traditions and rural revitalisation – A young communist’s impressions of China

In the following article, which we are pleased to reprint from the Morning Star, Maisie Riley, Chair of the Young Communist League (YCL) of Britain, reports on her impressions of China, having led a recent delegation of young communist cadres from Europe and North America, invited by the Communist Party of China International Department (IDCPC).

Maisie recounts how, at a meeting in Hubei, she compared the decline of rural Britain with the rural revitalisation programmes the delegation had witnessed in China:

“We heard testimony from local community members about their rural revitalisation work. Zhang Hua, a domestic service worker, had taken an upskilling programme enabling her to earn her own income. She said she was so happy when she got her first pay packet, it inspired her to help other women obtain education, qualifications and references through the programme.”

Maisie writes that: “As part of our CPC history study we visited revolutionary memorials, including the Xibaipo Memorial Hall where comrades in our delegation sang The Internationale in their own languages with their party flags to commemorate Victory over Fascism Day on May 9.

“The People’s Daily media reported this, and a video of our visit went viral on Chinese social media. From then on, we were stopped in museums, at monuments and regularly on the street for photos!

“We also visited Nanniwan, site of the Red Army’s [food] self-sufficiency campaign [during the period when the CPC was based in nearby Yan’an following the conclusion of the epic Long March], where a gigantic, red hammer and sickle monument is inscribed in [the original] German with the [text of the] Communist Manifesto.”

“Our arrival caused quite a stir and after many photos with visiting Chinese aunties, we danced with them in the square, ending with them joining us in a conga in front of the monument!

“This was just one example of the warm welcome we received from ordinary people in China.”

Maisie also notes that: “The differences in approach to traditional cultures between China and Britain is stark. Whereas China cultivates and supports traditional cultures and rural peoples in the context of socialist modernisation, in Britain we see a decline in the number of people able to afford to learn and practice traditional crafts, with many at risk of becoming extinct.

“Rural revitalisation is an issue about which we can learn much from China. In Britain, rural communities struggle to access education, jobs, healthcare and public transport. While in China the age of rural communities is [also] increasing as younger people move to cities for better economic opportunities, China is bringing better job opportunities to villages and providing equal access to education and healthcare as part of its plan for full-basic, socialist modernisation by 2035.”

Nissan, Chery and the case for cooperation with China

In early June 2026, the Financial Times reported that Nissan’s Sunderland plant – the UK’s largest car factory, employing 6,000 people – has secured its long-term future through a deal to manufacture vehicles for the Chinese carmaker Chery from 2027. In the following article, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez argues that the agreement offers a concrete glimpse of a different economic path for Britain.

With Nissan’s global restructuring threatening thousands of jobs, and the motor industry’s own trade body admitting that Britain’s 2035 production targets are unreachable without Chinese manufacturers, Chinese industry is offering British workers what no British government has for forty years: high-quality jobs in a globally competitive, future-facing sector.

The predictable cries of ‘national security’ and ‘Chinese influence’, Martinez writes, are merely a manifestation of empire nostalgia. The real choice facing Britain is between embracing the multipolar transition or managing further decline in the service of a declining United States.

Two railways, two systems: HS2 and the case for socialism

In the following article, originally published in the Morning Star, our co-editor Carlos Martinez uses the unfolding HS2 fiasco to illustrate the stark difference between the British and Chinese political economies, and to make the case for socialism.

On May 19, it was announced that Britain’s high-speed rail project will cost some £103 billion and will not carry passengers for at least another decade. Carlos sets these figures against China’s record: at roughly £736 million per mile, HS2 track is around 25 times more expensive than Chinese high-speed rail, and is being built at a fraction of the pace. China laid 31,000 miles of high-speed rail in 22 years; Britain may manage 140 miles in 19.

The explanation, Carlos argues, is not technical but political. Where China builds through vertically integrated state-owned enterprises under coordinated national planning, Britain’s project has been handed to a fragmented patchwork of private contractors, each adding its margin – the predictable result of four decades of privatisation and deindustrialisation.

The HS2 fiasco is not just a story about one botched railway project. It is a story, ultimately, about the fallacy of neoliberalism, about the consequences of four decades of deindustrialisation and privatisation, about the consequences of treating public infrastructure as an opportunity for private extraction rather than as a public good.

And it is a story about how, as Deng Xiaoping put it in 1984 (at the start of capitalism’s neoliberal era), “the superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of the productive forces than under the capitalist system.”

It was announced on May 19 that Britain’s ill-fated HS2 high-speed rail project is set to cost three times more than originally budgeted, and will not start running for at least another decade.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander stated that, following a review of the project, the estimated final cost will be £103 billion. What’s more, this only covers the first phase, between Old Oak Common (in west London) and Birmingham Curzon Street — a distance of 140 miles.

To put the figures in perspective: £103bn divided by 140 miles works out at around £736 million per mile. By comparison, the average cost of a mile of high-speed rail in China is in the region of £30m. HS2 track is therefore around 25 times more expensive than Chinese HSR.

The contrast in pace is if anything even more striking. Construction on HS2 began in 2017. If we see a train running in 2036, the pace of construction will have been a smidgen north of seven miles per year.

Chinese Ambassador to UK condemns political farce of arresting and convicting Chinese citizens and warns of firm countermeasures

On May 7, two Chinese citizens, Chung Biu Yuen, 65, a former Hong Kong police officer now employed at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (HKETO) in London, and Chi Leung Wai, 40, an ex-UK Border Force officer and special constable at City of London Police, were both convicted under the draconian National Security Act 2023 on charges of “assisting a foreign intelligence service by conducting unauthorised information‑gathering and unlawful surveillance in the UK to benefit China”, following a trial at the Old Bailey in London. They have been remanded in custody and are due to be sentenced at a date yet to be confirmed.

The next day, Chinese Ambassador to the UK Zheng Zeguang requested a meeting with a Foreign Commonwealth and Development (FCDO) official, during which he made further representations with the UK side on the so-called verdict by a UK court on two Chinese, refuted the unfounded accusations of the UK side and urged the UK side to correct its mistake, stop the anti-China political manipulation, stop wantonly arresting and convicting Chinese citizens in the UK, and stop emboldening anti-China elements.

Ambassador Zheng pointed out that the UK side used trumped-up crimes to arrest and indict Chinese citizens in the UK. The so-called conviction was the outcome of abusing the law and manipulating the judicial process by the UK side. It is nothing but a political farce.

The UK side, he continued, harbours wanted criminals and wantonly arrested and convicted Chinese citizens in the UK. This act disrespects the rule of law and seriously violated basic norms of international relations. It has gravely undermined China-UK relations. This is totally intolerable to the Chinese side.

The Ambassador urged the UK side to correct its mistake, stop the anti-China political manipulation, stop wantonly arresting and convicting Chinese citizens in the UK, and stop backing and emboldening those anti-China elements. The UK side must know that any acts aimed at jeopardising China’s interests will be met with firm countermeasures.

The previous day, a spokesperson for the embassy stated: “The Chinese side has made clear its principled position on the relevant case many times. The facts of this case clearly show that this is nothing but a political move of abusing the law and manipulating the judicial process by the UK side. Its sole purpose is to embolden those anti-China elements who are hiding in the UK and bent on destablising Hong Kong, and to smear the Chinese government and the Hong Kong SAR [Special Administrative Region] government.”

Chinamaxxing in the 1960s and 1970s

The following is the full text of the presentation prepared by our co-editor Keith Bennett for our April 12 webinar on the subject of ‘Socialist Chinamaxxing: How China’s achievements are a product of socialism’. Due to time constraints, Keith previously delivered an abbreviated version of his remarks. The livestream of the webinar and videos of all the speeches as delivered can be viewed here. The video of Keith’s speech is embedded below the text.

We’ve heard some excellent speakers on the present trend of Chinamaxxing.

For my part, I’m going to attempt to give a certain historical and comparative perspective. Going back to the 1960s and 70s. And therefore, if you like, making a case that what we see today is at least Chinamaxxing 2.0, even if the term itself didn’t previously exist.

My focus here is on the cultural and intellectual rather than the party political. Although the background and context are inevitably political.

The late 1960s and 70s were a time of great change in China. Political life was still in tumult, but the mass mobilisations of the Cultural Revolution abated and were curtailed. A stridently revolutionary foreign policy gave way to handshakes between Chairman Mao and President Nixon. And a procession of other western political leaders generally from the right of the political spectrum, such as Britain’s Edward Heath.

But what remained at the time was a sense that China was a remote and somewhat mysterious place. Literally a world away from the West. Few people went there. Besides political considerations on both sides there were also objective factors. Social media and mobile telephony simply did not exist. As late as the mid-1980s, the London-Beijing flight with BA was London-Rome-Bahrain-Hong Kong-Beijing.

Yet the fascination for China in important sectors of western societies belied and overcame the physical and mental remoteness.

The political seeped into the cultural and each impacted on the other.

Barely two months after France had been shaken by the events of May 1968, and four months after demonstrators protesting the American war in Vietnam had clashed with police outside the US embassy in London, the Beatles recorded a track entitled Revolution, composed by John Lennon. Initially released as the B side to the single Hey Jude, it includes the lines:

But if you go carryin’ pictures of Chairman Mao

You ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow

Apparently, this was a late addition to the words, being added in the studio, but Lennon said in a promotional clip that he regarded them as the song’s most important lyrics.

They may have been meant to express disapproval, but he had certainly noticed the phenomenon. Moreover, they encountered a backlash.

New Left Review dismissed the song as “a lamentable petty bourgeois cry of fear.” But by January 1971, in a conversation with Tariq Ali, Lennon said of the song: “I made a mistake, you know. The mistake was that it was anti-revolution.” The following year, he remarked: “I should have never said that about Chairman Mao.”

See China’s achievements for yourself – Britain’s visa-free travel to China explained

Friends of Socialist China Britain Committee Secretary David Peat recently attended a London event organised by the Chinese National Tourism Office (CNTO) and industry partners celebrating and raising awareness of the Chinese government’s recent policy change allowing British passport holders to visit the People’s Republic of China for tourism or business purposes visa-free for up to 30 days. In the article below David explains how the policy works and how China’s tourism strategy is a fitting and effective way for the country to celebrate its successes and show the world how its system is working to improve its citizens’ lives—a living and vibrant contrast to the increasing chaos and declining living standards in the Western world.

The recent viral phenomenon of “Chinamaxxing”—in which Westerners, increasingly exposed to less biased content highlighting the reality of everyday life in China, are expressing their excitement and admiration of aspects of Chinese culture (see the upcoming online seminar on the topic, organised by Friends of Socialist China)—is set to receive a further boost in Britain as it has just recently joined the group of countries whose citizens can visit the People’s Republic of China (PRC) without requiring a visa, allowing more and more people to conveniently see the country’s achievements for themselves.

The new policy came into effect on February 17 and allows UK passport holders to visit the country for the purposes of “business, tourism, family/friends visit, exchange and transit purposes.” Britain joins around 50 other countries, including most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and many others, to which China has offered a unilateral visa-free policy,^[1] alongside around 30 countries with which China has bilateral agreements. All part of the Communist Party of China’s strategy to facilitate people-people connection and show the world a “more open, accessible China.”^[2]

Stop the War Coalition reaffirms campaigning priorities and highlights heightened danger of war in the Pacific

Several hundred people packed central London’s Hamilton House on Saturday March 14 for the annual conference of Britain’s Stop the War Coalition (StW).

Amidst the most dangerous international situation in the lifetime of most if not all of the delegates, the day’s proceedings represented a powerful, united and militant expression of determination to do everything possible both to end the brutal imperialist wars currently being waged against Iran, Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere and to prevent the outbreak of a third world war that would threaten the very existence of humanity.

Stop the War’s website reports that during the opening session, Mustafa Barghouti, the renowned Palestinian figure, thanked StW for its solidarity with the Palestinian and Iranian people and drew attention to the devastating attacks Israel is currently conducting against Lebanon.

Jeremy Corbyn MP spoke of StW as a voice for peace, and of UK complicity in the destruction of Gaza, noting how the UK continues to send weapons to Israel.

Maryam Eslamdoust, railworkers’ union TSSA general secretary, who has family in Iran, reminded conference of the human tragedy of war. Maryam said Trump’s attacks were designed to strike fear and terror into civilians to achieve an uprising, fast victory and regime change. However, she believed Iran would not crumble as the imperialists hoped, and that the US would face a Vietnam-style defeat.

A motion on opposition to British foreign policy, moved by Stop the War deputy president and founding chair Andrew Murray, in an exceptionally fiery and impassioned speech, notes that:

The Trump administration has embarked on a rampage of aggression that is imperilling the entire world.

It has launched a barbaric and illegal attack with Israel on Iran (including murdering its leader) and Lebanon, kidnapped the President of Venezuela, bombed Yemen and Nigeria and is trying to bring down the government in Cuba. It has also threatened Panama, Colombia and Greenland. It has embarked on an intensification of the nuclear arms race.

All this is aimed at reversing the relative decline of US imperialism, particularly in the face of China’s growing strength, and securing a new redivision of power and profit in the world to its advantage. It threatens a third world war.

Keir Starmer has committed the British government to support for this reckless and bloody policy. All his professed support for international law disappears in the face of Washington’s illegalities. He is craven in his appeasement of Trump when he is not actually joining in with his wars.

Instead of aligning with most of the world in condemning this war drive, Britain backs the aggressors. This policy also threatens to beggar the British people with entirely unsustainable and unnecessary increases in military spending, on a scale which will make urgent social improvements all-but impossible.

The government also works to prolong the dangerous conflict in Ukraine and to engage in military provocations directed towards China in the Far East.

This is all accompanied by a war psychosis designed to condition the population to the inevitability of an impending great power war.

Conference resolved:

Deal diplomacy: Starmer’s China trip bets on business over ideology

In the following analysis for Beijing Review, Carlos Martinez assesses British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s January visit to China as a significant moment in the recalibration of Britain-China relations amid accelerating geopolitical changes. The trip – the first by a British prime minister in eight years – signals a cautious thaw after a prolonged diplomatic “ice age” marked by security rhetoric, sanctions, and absurd propaganda.

Carlos contextualises the visit within Britain’s domestic economic pressures and the wider strain on the US-led international order. Accompanied by senior politicians and a broad business delegation, Starmer’s meetings with Xi Jinping and other senior Chinese leaders produced tangible outcomes, including visa-free entry, tariff reductions and new cooperation frameworks across trade, climate and education. The breadth of agreements reflects Britain’s urgent need for growth and investment in a stagnant economy.

The article argues that London’s previous hardening stance toward Beijing was driven largely by alignment with Washington’s containment strategy. However, as US pressure intensifies and transatlantic relations grow more volatile, the US’s traditional allies are starting to gradually reassess the extent to which their interests are served by subjugating themselves to Washington. China, by contrast, has proven itself to be a reliable advocate of multilateralism and mutually beneficial cooperation.

While resistance from US officials, British “China hawks” and sections of the media remains strong, the article contends that full Atlanticist alignment is increasingly untenable. Starmer’s visit, while bearing relatively modest fruit, reflects a broader shift toward multipolarity. Britain now faces a strategic choice: continue subordinating its interests to Washington, or adapt pragmatically to a world in which engagement with China is economically and politically unavoidable.

The Starmer visit is further explored in articles we posted on 4 February: Breaking the ice: Starmer’s pragmatic turn to China and Keir Starmer’s small-stick diplomacy.

British Premier Keir Starmer’s visit to China on January 28-31 was the first trip by a British prime minister to Beijing in eight years. It came at a time of uncertainty in both British domestic politics and international relations, reflecting wider geopolitical shifts.

China says: Hong Kong has long returned to China and British colonial rule over Hong Kong has long ended

On February 9, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of China sentenced Jimmy Lai, an instigator of anti-China riots in Hong Kong, to 20 years in prison.

Lai was found guilty in December by the High Court of the HKSAR on two charges of conspiring to collude with external forces and a charge of conspiracy to publish seditious materials. Mitigation hearing for Lai’s case began on January 12 and concluded on January 13.

The Xinhua News Agency quoted a spokesperson for the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People’s Government in the HKSAR as noting that the 156-day public trial, which involved the examination of 2,220 exhibits, over 80,000 pages of case files and testimonies of 14 prosecution witnesses, had established that Lai colluded with external forces to endanger national security.

A commentary published by the news agency asserted that: “Disguised as a media man while acting as an agent for external anti-China forces, Lai was the principal mastermind and perpetrator of a series of riots that shook Hong Kong and undermined the fundamental interests of both the country and the HKSAR. The reality of Lai’s crimes is clear, backed by conclusive evidence. The traitor has received the penalty he deserves… The days when external forces and anti-China destabilising elements could act with impunity are obviously over.”

An article posted on the social media account of the Hong Kong and Macao Work Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee noted:

“People have realised that Jimmy Lai has never been the so-called ‘fighter for freedom, democracy and human rights,’ but rather the chief culprit and a traitor to the nation who has harmed the country’s fundamental interests and the well-being of Hong Kong residents. Lai’s sentencing has once again proved that justice may be late, but it will come in the end.”

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive John Lee said that Lai had long used the now-defunct Apple Daily to poison the minds of Hong Kong people, by inciting hatred, distorting facts, deliberately stirring up social antagonism and glorifying violence. Lai had openly begged for external forces to impose sanctions against China and the HKSAR, sacrificing the well-being of the people of China and the HKSAR.

Lai betrayed the country and harmed the HKSAR. His conviction is supported by overwhelming evidence and he for sure deserves his punishment after all the harm he has done.

The sentence passed on Lai has led to renewed outbursts on the part of international anti-China, anti-socialist forces, not least the British government and media.

British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said in a statement: “We stand with the people of Hong Kong, and will always honour the historical commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British Joint Declaration. China must do the same.”

A joint statement by Cooper and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced an “expanded Hong Kong British National (Overseas) route” whereby, “Thousands more Hong Kongers will be able to build new lives in Britain as the government strengthens safe and legal routes to the UK… It is estimated 26,000 people will arrive in the UK over the next 5 years.”

This from a government that is engaged in a relentlessly wicked, cruel and blatantly racist crusade against the most oppressed sections of the working class, particularly refugees and asylum seekers, the overwhelming majority of whom are fleeing from the devastation caused to their homelands by centuries-long and continuing wars, poverty and climate disasters directly resulting from colonial and imperialist super exploitation and oppression.

Keir Starmer’s small-stick diplomacy

In the article below, published in the Morning Star on 4 February, Andrew Murray argues that Keir Starmer’s visit to China marks a rare moment of realism in British foreign policy after years of hopelessly counterproductive hostility shaped by the demands of Washington. Starmer’s pragmatism reflects an overdue recognition that rebuilding relations with China is in Britain’s material interest.

Andrew dismisses the loud and oft-repeated fears about Chinese spying and influence as hypocritical, noting Britain’s own intelligence operations and aggressive military posture in the Asia-Pacific alongside the US and its allies.

China is not parking aircraft carriers off our coast, nor entering into an Aukus-like bloc to help encircle Britain and drag it into an escalating arms race. Nor even did it hold the Isle of Wight as a colony for a century. And the considerable place it has secured in our markets was achieved without recourse to gunboats. Imagine!

The article underlines the importance of engagement in terms of the British government’s much-vaunted growth agenda: China has grown at roughly 7.5 per cent annually over the last decade, while Britain has stagnated at around 1.2 per cent.

Starmer’s willingness to proceed with the visit despite pressure from Donald Trump is praised, though Andrew notes Britain’s continued aggression in East Asia: “Britain continues to indulge in various military provocations in the Far East directed at China, alongside the US, Japan and Australia, all in service of the imperial vanity project ‘global Britain’”.

Ultimately, no major British constituency benefits from confrontation with China. The British government appears to be slowing getting to grips with this fact.

One cheer for Keir Starmer. The hapless Prime Minister has finally found a problem bequeathed by the Tories that he is addressing with some sense of purpose.

His visit to Beijing is the moment when the monkey at No 10, furiously pounding at the typewriter of governance for the last 19 months has finally produced, if not Shakespeare, at least a line or two of coherent prose.

Breaking the ice: Starmer’s pragmatic turn to China

In the following article, which was originally published by the Morning Star, Keith Bennett notes that the recent China visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer marked the end of a long diplomatic hiatus and produced tangible, if limited, economic results.

It had been nearly eight years since a British prime minister, Theresa May, had set foot in China. In contrast, French President Emmanuel Macron had made three visits, the most recent in last December, and the leader of Germany has also visited multiple times, with a further visit scheduled for this month.

Moreover, while travelling in the first month of the year, Starmer was already the third European head of government to visit China, being preceded by those of Ireland and Finland, and the second from the Anglophone “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance, being also preceded by his Canadian counterpart. Starmer was thus beating an already well-trodden path.

Among the results of Starmer’s visit were a Chinese pledge to unilaterally grant short-stay visa free entry to UK passport holders – a facility already enjoyed by the citizens of some 50 other countries, a halving of tariffs on whisky, and a decision by Chinese company Chery Commercial Vehicles (CCV) to open its European headquarters in Liverpool.

However, the visit predictably attracted opposition from reactionary quarters at home and abroad.

Asked what he thought of Starmer trying to forge closer business ties with China, US President Donald Trump, who himself plans to visit China in April, said: “Well, it’s very dangerous for them to do that.”

Negative reaction also came from Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, the Liberal Democrats, Reform UK and the right-wing press. Keith opines that: “To face all this down may require not simply common sense and pragmatism but degrees of political skill and courage that the Prime Minister has yet to show signs of possessing.”

For his part, Chinese Premier Li Qiang said that China and Britain should continue to carry forward the “ice-breaking spirit” and tighten their bonds of cooperation. In so doing, he invoked China’s continued respect for the July 1953 “Icebreaker Mission” — the first business delegation of its kind from any Western nation following the founding of New China — that led to the formation of the 48 Group of British Traders with China, with its core values, inspired by premier Zhou Enlai, of equality and mutual benefit.

A version of the article was also published by China Today.

The sun has risen in the east – George Galloway’s message to Europe

The following is an interview with George Galloway, former member of the British parliament and leader of the Workers’ Party of Britain, published by the Chinese newspaper Global Times on January 25, focused on the present position and prospects of Europe in geopolitics.

Asked first about the reported ‘framework of a deal’ supposedly reached by NATO and US President Trump in the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, regarding the Danish colony of Greenland, which Trump is threatening to annex, George replies:

“We’ll have to wait and see what deal emerges, whether it will be acceptable to the people of Greenland, and whether it will be acceptable to the people of Denmark. But none of that, even if there is a deal, can wipe out the sheer thuggery – really mafia-style gangsterism – of the current US administration’s conduct over this matter in the last few months.

“The world has never seen a situation where an ally can be so openly aggressive, belligerent and threatening toward a country like Denmark, which has been an unquestioning supporter of everything the US has ever asked of it. It was the very first country in the whole world to recognise the NATO annexation of Kosovo, when Kosovo was torn from its motherland in Serbia.”

In his view, relations between Europe and the US “are comprehensively ruined, and that’s why European leaders who have been lecturing, badgering, and pressuring China for years are all making hasty reservations – not for a slow boat to China, but a quick one. That’s why Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was there. That’s why French President Emmanuel Macron was there. That’s why British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is coming.”

In this new situation, Europe “should make peace and amity with China and with Russia, make new arrangements with the rising powers in the world.” However, “their current political leadership almost certainly will not do that, because, if I can quote Shakespeare in Macbeth – they are steeped in blood so far that it is difficult to know whether to go on or to go back.”

[“I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o’er” – William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act III, Scene IV]

Referring to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos speech, where he said that “the so-called rules-based order is not just fading; it was always a lie. He said the rest of us knew that it was a lie, but we went along with it because it benefited us to do so,” George adds:

“This is a remarkable admission. I’m not sure whether there has been a more remarkable admission in modern history than this. Some clear-sighted politicians and observers have been saying it all along, for which they were insulted, marginalised or even punished, but this view is now being openly acknowledged by a member of NATO, and by the prime minister of a Five Eyes country.”

The Jimmy Lai case is none of your business – China rebuffs British interference

China has reacted firmly to the attempts by Britain and a number of other Western countries to interfere in the case of Jimmy Lai. A chief instigator of riots and violent turmoil in Hong Kong in 2019-20, in active collusion with foreign forces, the former proprietor of the now defunct Apple Daily was on, December 15, found guilty in the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on two counts of conspiring to collude with external forces and of conspiracy to publish seditious materials. He will be sentenced at a later date.

On 15 December, Chinese Ambassador to the UK Zheng Zeguang met with a senior official of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to lodge solemn representations over the UK side’s statement that made irresponsible remarks on the Hong Kong High Court’s guilty verdict in the case. He urged the UK to abandon its colonial mindset, immediately stop interfering in Hong Kong’s judicial affairs, stop meddling in China’s internal affairs, and stop making the case for anti-China rioters bent on destabilising Hong Kong.

Ambassador Zheng described the British actions as a gross interference in China’s internal affairs, which tramples on the spirit of the rule of law, and seriously violates the basic norms governing international relations. China firmly opposes this and condemns it in the strongest terms.

“Facts have fully proven that Jimmy Lai was the primary planner and participant in a series of anti-China riots in Hong Kong, a pawn of external anti-China forces, and the instigator behind the turbulence over the amendment bill in 2019. What he did was by no means ‘peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression’, as claimed by the UK side. Lai is a Chinese citizen, and China has never recognised dual nationality.

“The UK’s colonial rule over Hong Kong ended long ago, and the UK is in no position and has no right to point fingers at or interfere in Hong Kong affairs. Any attempt by the UK to interfere in Hong Kong’s judicial affairs will only further expose its malicious intent to destabilise Hong Kong, will only provoke society-wide indignation in Hong Kong, and will get nowhere. China urges the UK to immediately stop interfering in Hong Kong’s judicial affairs and China’s internal affairs, stop making the case for anti-China rioters bent on destabilising Hong Kong, and stop going further down the wrong path.”

Additionally, a statement issued by the Chinese Embassy noted that: “On 15 December, the UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper issued a statement, which made irresponsible remarks on the conviction of Jimmy Lai and smeared the National Security Law for Hong Kong. This blatantly interferes in China’s internal affairs and tramples on the rule of law and seriously violates the basic norms governing international relations. We strongly oppose and condemn such an unjustified move by the UK side.”

Lai “publicly begged foreign countries to impose sanctions on China and the Hong Kong SAR, brazenly proclaimed ‘fighting for the US,’ colluded with ‘Hong Kong independence’ and ‘violent riots’ organisations as well as foreign forces, abused media tools to incite hatred and intensify confrontation, and drummed up support for violent activities, in an attempt to destabilise Hong Kong and pursue a ‘colour revolution.’… Lai’s doing was by no means what the UK side claimed to be ‘peacefully’ exercising his right to freedom of expression.”

It added that: “Hong Kong has long returned to China and British colonial rule in Hong Kong has been put to an end long ago. Hong Kong-related affairs are purely China’s internal affairs. The UK is in no position and has no right to point fingers at or interfere in Hong Kong-related affairs. The UK side’s attempt to interfere in Hong Kong’s judicial affairs will only further expose its sinister motive to destabilise Hong Kong.”

To engage with China, Britain should learn from France and Germany

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer made a speech on foreign policy on December 1 at the Lady Mayor’s Banquet at the Guildhall, London. The major part of his speech related to China.

Starmer said that the US, the EU and China are the three global giants today, and that the absence of the UK’s engagement with China should not continue. He said the UK needs to engage with China and work and trade with China. At the same time, he claimed that China poses “national security threats” to the UK and that the UK will continue to take measures in response. He also touched upon issues related to Hong Kong and other matters.

In response, the spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in London said that China firmly opposes the erroneous remarks in Starmer’s speech that spread the so-called “China threat,” make groundless accusations against China, and interfere in China’s internal affairs.

Reporting these developments, the Chinese newspaper Global Times quoted Li Haidong, a professor at China Foreign Affairs University, as saying that Starmer’s remarks amount to a “have-it-both-ways” strategic calculation: he seeks to constrain China’s development space and international influence to satisfy domestic hardliners, while still hoping to extract economic benefits from China.

Starmer, who it is understood hopes to visit China at the end of January 2026, bemoaned the flip flops of previous Conservative governments with regard to China policy, ‘from golden age to ice age’, and noted:

“The result is that, whilst our allies have developed a more sophisticated approach, the UK has become an outlier. President Trump met President Xi in October and will visit China in April. Since early 2018, President Macron has visited China twice, and he’ll be again there later this week. German leaders have visited four times, and Chancellor Merz will be there in the New Year. Yet, during this same period, no British Prime Minister has visited China.”

Professor Li’s response is that Starmer’s apparent “envy” of the frequent visits to China by French and German leaders underscores how Europe is relying on active engagement with Beijing to advance its own strategic autonomy. France and Germany have strengthened their interactions with China to safeguard their national interests, while the UK, constrained by its tendency to follow the policy frameworks of another country (referring to the United States), has struggled to escape the passive role of a “political dwarf.”

Martin Jacques and Carlos Martinez discuss Western misconceptions of China

In this episode of Wave Media’s Roughly Chinese podcast, hosted by Mimi Zhu and recorded live in Shanghai in October 2025, Martin Jacques (British academic and author of the bestselling When China Rules the World) and Carlos Martinez (co-editor of Friends of Socialist China and author of The East is Still Red) discuss their motivations for researching and writing about China; the trajectory of Britain-China relations; changing perceptions of China in the West; the long-term crisis of capitalism and its manifestation in an ascendant far-right in Britain; and more.

Trump makes fools of Britain’s China hawks

In this witty and perceptive article, originally published on his Substack, ‘The Rest is Bullshit’, Steve Howell excoriates Britain’s right wing anti-China hawks in politics and the media, arguing that Donald Trump’s positive meeting with President Xi Jinping in the Republic of Korea has exposed their foolishness.

Having noted that, “The US and China surprised almost everyone last week by calling off their trade war – for now at least. The summit between presidents Xi and Trump ended with both parties dropping plans for tougher trade restrictions and tariffs,” Howell adds:

“This was awkward for the British media. For weeks, they had been pumping out headlines on what they called the China spy scandal – the collapse of the prosecution [of] two men accused of passing information to China. There were virtually no dissenters to the view that the charges being dropped was bad news. The only issue for the media was who to blame for the failure to convict the two defendants, as if the small matter of their actual guilt was not in doubt.”

Giving the recent historical background, he writes that:

“In the build up to the US elections of 2016, both Bernie Sanders and Trump – from very different perspectives – made cheap imports from China an issue and blamed them for the de-industrialisation of the Midwest ‘rust belt’ states. On being elected, Trump introduced the first wave of tariffs on China, marking the start of a new Washington consensus that President Biden not only continued but escalated. True to form, Britain fell into line.”

However: “Amid the furore over the China ‘spy’ case, our commentariat appears not to have noticed the emerging change of policy in Washington.

“The Telegraph’s Sherelle Jacobs was certainly caught out badly, having written shortly before the summit that the government’s ‘refusal to break with China has explosive geopolitical implications.’ She thought that Britain’s ‘inaction over China’ could send Trump ‘over the edge’ and claimed that ‘if anything ends up destroying the Special Relationship it will be our gutless cosying up to Beijing.’ She must have been mortified when Trump described his meeting with Xi as ‘the G2 summit’, relegating the G7 – of which Britain is a member.”

He adds: “It remains to be seen what Trump’s China game plan is. The trade agreement arising from his summit with Xi has yet to be finalised. There is talk of Xi visiting Washington. Whatever happens, a couple of things are clear. Firstly, Britain’s long-standing policy – whoever occupies Downing Street – of hanging on to America’s coattails is a recipe for being badly bruised when there is a sudden change of direction. Secondly, if the US has had to treat China with respect, it is absurd for Britain to act as if it is ready to send gunboats up the Yangtze again.”

Steve Howell served as the Labour Party’s deputy director of strategy and communication in 2017, during the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. He is the author of ‘Game Changer: Eight Weeks That Transformed British Politics’, about Britain’s 2017 general election; ‘Collateral Damage’, a political and international relations thriller; and ‘Cold War Puerto Rico: Anti-Communism in Washington’s Caribbean Colony (Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond)’ (forthcoming).

The US and China surprised almost everyone last week by calling off their trade war – for now at least. The summit between presidents Xi and Trump ended with both parties dropping plans for tougher trade restrictions and tariffs. Asked to evaluate it on a scale of one to ten, Trump said that he thought “it was a 12.”

This was awkward for the British media. For weeks, they had been pumping out headlines on what they called the China spy scandal – the collapse of the prosecution two men accused of passing information to China. There were virtually no dissenters to the view that the charges being dropped was bad news. The only issue for the media was who to blame for the failure to convict the two defendants, as if the small matter of their actual guilt was not in doubt.

When a death in Brixton united the Irish and Chinese revolutions

On Sunday 26 October, the Irish community in London, together with friends, gathered outside Brixton Prison for the annual Terence MacSwiney Commemoration. This year’s gathering marked 105 years since the death of the Lord Mayor of Cork, after 74 days on hunger-strike, and was once again organised by the Terence MacSwiney Committee [London].

Committee Chair Frank Glynn welcomed the approximately 60 people gathered outside the south London prison. The day’s keynote speaker was Thomas Gould, Sinn Féin TD (member of the Irish parliament) for Cork North-Central, who delivered a powerful address that appealed to the solidarity and internationalism of those living in London to support the campaign to build a new and united Ireland.

Drawing inspiration from the example of Terence MacSwiney, Gould extended solidarity to the suffering people of Palestine amidst the ongoing occupation of their land and Israel’s genocidal war. He appealed for class unity at this time, noting that the establishment and those in power are desperately seeking to turn poor people against one another. He equally paid tribute to those Irishmen and women who were forced to leave their country over the past decades, assuring them that their sacrifice is not forgotten back home.

The commemoration also heard from Pat Reynolds of the Irish in Britain Representation Group (IBRG); Pam Blakelock, who spoke about her husband’s descendance from Muriel MacSwiney (Terence MacSwiney’s widow); and the Palestinian activist, Samar Maquishi, who spoke about the unwavering support of the Irish people for the cause of Palestine. As Samar observed, “Even if the whole world was quiet, the Irish won’t be silenced!”

Longstanding London-based Irish republican Denis Grace read the Proclamation of Easter Week 1916 on behalf of the Commemoration Committee. Music was provided by the stalwart London-Irish balladeer Seán Brady and Achill Island’s own Tom Lynch on the Uilleann Pipes. Special mention was also made of the election of Catherine Connolly as the next President of Ireland. There was overwhelming support expressed for Ms Connolly, whose campaign was supported by a broad range of left-wing and progressive forces in Ireland, particularly as a candidate who placed voting rights for Irish citizens outside of the twenty-six-county state and the ongoing struggle for Irish reunification at the centre of her election platform.

(The above is an edited version of the press statement issued by the Terence MacSwiney Committee [London].)

McSwiney’s 1920 death on hunger strike, during the 1919-1921 Irish war of independence, had a profound international impact, including on such leaders of the Indian freedom movement as Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. A young Ho Chi Minh, who was working in London at the time, was profoundly moved, saying: “He died for his country. How courageous! How heroic ! A nation which has such citizens will never surrender.”

But whilst Ho Chi Minh could see for himself the very public outpouring of grief on the part of London’s Irish community, another young progressive, who was later to become an important Asian communist leader, was following the news from Japan, where he was studying at the time.

That student was Guo Moro, who was to become a senior leader of the People’s Republic of China and a close comrade of Mao Zedong. He served as Chairman of both the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the China Federation of Literary and Art Circles from their inception after liberation in 1949 to his death in 1978.

In a 2020 article written for Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ, the Irish broadcasting service), Francis Kane, a lecturer at Ulster University, explains:

“In 1920, China was in chaos, a divided country dominated by foreigners and warlords, its ancient empire having finally collapsed in 1911. In his idealistic youth, the poet Guo Moruo cannot have known that one day he would become a man of enormous power and prestige… He died not long after his comrade and friend Chairman Mao, whom he praised relentlessly.”

Kane writes that Guo penned “an astonishing poem, an emotional ‘in real time’ commemoration of fellow writer MacSwiney in 1920, usually translated as ‘Victorious in Death’.”