We are pleased to republish the following article, which originally appeared in China Daily, in which Grenville Cross recaps the furore which ensued at the Glastonbury music festival in England after punk rock duo Bob Vylan gave expression to the sentiments shared by the overwhelming majority of the many thousands of people present, who stood as one in solidarity with the Palestinian people and against Israel’s genocidal war of aggression.
Grenville writes: “Although Bob Vylan must have been surprised by the reaction, they were not cowed. In an Instagram statement, they denied they were ‘the number one threat to world peace’. They did not advocate the death of any group, Jewish or otherwise, but were ‘for the dismantling of a violent military machine’ that had ‘destroyed much of Gaza’.”
In the measured terms befitting a senior lawyer, he adds: “If, however, Bob Vylan’s critics had shown some sense of perspective, they might have had more credibility,” before going on to itemise a series of Israeli atrocities and noting:
“Although the Gaza Health Ministry, on June 25, reported 56,200 Palestinian dead since October 2023, the first independent survey of deaths, reported last month by the journal Nature, estimated almost 84,000 Palestinians had died. The study, posted on the preprint server medRxiv on June 27, revealed that over half of the victims were women aged 18 to 64, children, or individuals over 65 years old.”
What this means, he notes, is that Bob Vylan’s critics “treat a chant as far graver than daily killings in Gaza, about which they are silent.”
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, he writes, “should focus on bringing Netanyahu to justice. The UK is a signatory to the Rome Statute, which created the ICC [International Criminal Court], and is obliged to execute its arrest warrants… Starmer’s duty is clear, and he must uphold British honour, even if it upsets the US. It is Netanyahu who should be in the dock, not Bob Vylan or the BBC. Global justice must finally prevail.”
Ian Grenville Cross GBS, SBS, SC joined the Attorney General’s Chambers of Hong Kong as Crown Counsel in 1978. He served as the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions of Hong Kong from 1990 to 1997, and as the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from 1997 to 2009. In 1974, he was called to the Bar of England & Wales by the Middle Temple and to the Bar of Hong Kong, in 1981. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1990, becoming Senior Counsel in 1997. He is the Vice Chairman (Senate) of the International Association of Prosecutors.
The Glastonbury Festival of Contemporary Performing Arts is held annually in Somerset, the United Kingdom. Many musicians showcase their talents, although this year the audience got rather more than it expected.
On June 28, when the punk rock duo Bob Vylan performed, the rapper, Pascal Robinson-Foster, deviated from the script. Referring to the Israel Defense Forces’ activities in the Gaza Strip, he chanted “death, death to the IDF”, which the BBC livestreamed. When they chanted “Free! Free!”, the crowd responded: “Palestine!”
BBC’s director-general Tim Davie decided the duo’s set should not be made available to watch on demand, although the chant remained on iPlayer for five hours.
Britain’s Defence Minister, the largely and justifiably unknown John Healey, has made an extraordinary threat to go to war with China over the question of Taiwan, an island province that Britain legally recognises – not least according to the bilateral agreement concluded in 1972 between the two countries that elevated their diplomatic relations to ambassadorial level – as part of China.
Speaking on board the HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carrier, after it had docked in the north Australian port of Darwin, where it is to join the United States and other countries in the warmongering Talisman Sabre exercises largely aimed at China, Healey was asked by the right wing Telegraph newspaper, “what the UK is doing to help countries like Taiwan to prepare for potential escalation from China, Mr Healey said: ‘If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.’”
The HMS Prince of Wales is on a nine-month deployment to the Pacific region and is widely expected to sail through the Taiwan Strait around upcoming visits to Japan and South Korea. Already, the Royal Navy provocatively sailed the HMS Spey warship through China’s Taiwan Strait on June 18. It was the first such incident in four years.
Never one to miss out on a free trip, David Lammy, Britain’s equally preposterous Foreign Secretary, accompanied Healey. He has previously said that the UK plans to conduct more so-called “freedom of navigation operations” in the Taiwan Strait.
Further underlining the gravity of the situation, the Labour supporting Mirror newspaper noted:
“In April, Keir Starmer met the crew onboard HMS Prince of Wales during an overnight stay ahead of their voyage. The PM said the mission showed the UK’s ‘leadership on global issues and security and defence’.
“‘We all know that the world is more uncertain than it felt a few months or years before – we’re in a new era,’ Mr Starmer said at the time. ‘We are sending a clear message of strength to our adversaries, and a message of unity and purpose to our allies.’”
As with most, if not all, members of the current British government, it is difficult to fathom whether Healey’s outburst represents blood-curdling bellicosity, strategic myopia, rank ignorance and stupidity, gross irresponsibility, or just plain inexperience. However, the smart money is likely to be on any combination of all of the above.
In an editorial response, the Morning Star noted that: “British troops will be engaged in provocative manoeuvres viewed by Beijing as part of Washington’s bid to encircle it militarily. That is itself part of a wider US strategy to derail China’s rise… That is the overarching war game in which Operation Talisman Sabre takes place. Britain should have no part in it.”
China’s Global Times was more hard-hitting, noting that: “Chinese observers slammed the blatant remarks over China’s internal affair, saying it was a show of residual British colonial mentality.”
It added: “Observers also pointed out that, amid warming China-Australia relations highlighted by the Australian Prime Minister’s successful July visit to China, the British defence official’s remarks attempt to place Canberra in a difficult position. Full alignment with the UK and the US is not a wise choice.”
“If the said report is true, I am sure the UK official will regret having said that. China will never allow anyone to separate Taiwan from China in any way. Nor will China allow any external forces, the UK and Australia included, to undermine our efforts for complete reunification.”
Earlier, on July 25, the spokesperson responded to Foreign Secretary Lammy and Yvette Cooper, the tinpot totalitarian Home Secretary, having issued a joint statement making unwarranted comments on the law enforcement action taken by the Hong Kong SAR police against anti-China disruptors who have fled abroad:
“Hong Kong is China’s Hong Kong, and Hong Kong affairs are purely China’s internal affairs. China urges the UK to abandon its colonial mentality, stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs, cease meddling in China’s internal affairs, stop shielding criminals, and refrain from going further down the wrong path.”
Prior to Healey’s outburst, on 25 July 2025, the Chinese Embassy in the UK held a reception celebrating the 98th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army of China. Ambassador Zheng Zeguang pointed out in his speech that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the recovery of Taiwan. Taiwan has been an inalienable part of China’s territory since ancient times. Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, issued by major victorious nations of WWII, including China and the UK, stated in explicit terms that Taiwan is a territory that Japan had stolen from the Chinese, and shall be restored to China. All these instruments have confirmed China’s sovereignty over Taiwan and formed an important part of the post-WWII international order.
The Ambassador further emphasised that the Chinese people and their armed forces will never allow anyone to separate Taiwan from China in any way. Nor will they allow any external forces to undermine their efforts for complete reunification. All countries having diplomatic ties with China must properly handle Taiwan-related issues, which is key to the smooth development of bilateral relations with China.
Zheng Zeguang also noted that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War. More than 80 years ago, the peoples of China and the UK fought valiantly against fascist aggression on the main Eastern Front and the European battlefield, making enormous contributions to the global victory against fascism. China’s fight was the earliest to begin, and the longest-lasting. The Chinese people suffered the most significant human and material losses before ultimately defeating Japanese aggressors.
Ambassador Zheng emphasised that it should never be forgotten that China and the UK were allies and fought shoulder to shoulder during the war. That part of history has left behind many touching stories of solidarity and mutual support in the flames of war. In 1942, Chinese fishermen from Zhoushan risked their own lives under Japanese gunfire to save 384 British prisoners of war on board Lisbon Maru, which was mistakenly torpedoed by a US submarine. Also in 1942, the Chinese Expeditionary Force successfully rescued British troops besieged by the Japanese army in Myanmar. In 1938, George Hogg, a young Briton, travelled thousands of miles to China, where he established schools, aided orphaned children and gave his life for the Chinese people’s righteous cause. We should remember history, honour those fallen heroes, cherish peace and strive for a better future.
In characteristically pugilistic terms, George Galloway responded to Healey in his MOATS (Mother of all Talk Shows) broadcast.
Denouncing his remarks as madness, George noted that Britain, a bankrupt and broken country that has given billions to the ‘thief of Kiev’ and spends millions on reconnaissance flights to facilitate the Gaza genocide, was now threatening China with war. Referring to the 1949 Amethyst Incident, George recalled that the last time Britain had ‘sailed a gunboat up the Yangzi [river]’, the Chinese had sunk it. And China is now a far more powerful country than it was 76 years ago.
Noting the contempt shown for democracy, as highlighted by the fact that Britain’s rubber stamp parliament had not even been consulted or informed, George addressed Healey: “You little runt are threatening China with war.” A man who had never heard a shot fired in anger in his miserable life was threatening a war to be waged at the expense of the British people “and with the blood of your sons and daughters.”
On 15 July 2025, Friends of Socialist China, in collaboration with the International Manifesto Group and the Communist Party of Britain, hosted a round-table discussion with a delegation from the Academy of Marxism at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) at London’s Marx Memorial Library.
Introducing the discussion, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez noted that the Academy of Marxism is the leading Marxist think tank in China, and that it plays an important role in developing the ideological principles underpinning policymaking in China. He emphasised the importance of engaging with Chinese Marxists, who are making some of the most important contributions to the development of Marxism in the 21st century. Carlos also highlighted the need for people-to-people ties, at a time when Western governments are pursuing policies of containment, encirclement, decoupling and New Cold War.
The five delegates from CASS were led by Professor Chen Zhigang, Vice President of the Academy of Marxism, who gave a detailed presentation on the development of Chinese Marxism, stating that it’s because of Marxism that China has been able to achieve remarkable successes. Chen discussed the meaning and relevance of Xi Jinping Thought, as the latest development of Marxism in China; a Marxism adapted to the conditions prevailing in the 21st century and the array of new challenges that present themselves.
Professor Chen pointed to what should be a well-understood and obvious truth: that as society develops, theory must develop along with it. “If Marxism does not evolve, its vitality will be limited”. He also noted that Socialism with Chinese Characteristics has thrived by combining Marxist ideas with Chinese culture and traditions, hence Chinese people do not think of Marxism as a foreign phenomenon.
Regarding the global applicability of Xi Jinping Thought, Chen said that China seeks to offer Chinese wisdom towards the solution of problems of global governance. The concept of a Global Community of Shared Future, the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Civilisation Initiative and the Global Security Initiative are all based on the principles of mutual learning, exchanges and dialogue, and all seek to promote peace, sustainability, development, cooperation and friendship.
The discussion then opened up to the 20 British participants. There was a rich and lively exchange of ideas, with contributions on topics including how to cultivate a new generation of Marxist thinkers; the need to overcome dollar hegemony; the significance of the concept of Common Prosperity; the relevance of China’s development model for the Global South; China’s foreign policy; the need to develop a more profound understanding of Chinese socialism in the West; and the reasons why socialist revolution has succeeded first in relatively underdeveloped countries rather than the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe and North America.
Following the discussion, the CASS delegation was given a tour of the Marx Memorial Library, after which the delegates joined the British comrades for a dinner at Hiba Palestinian restaurant in London.
The following is a short report by Bhabani Shankar Nayak, who participated in the discussion.
An Evening with Chinese Comrades in London
As dusk settled over the cloudy British sky above London, summer humidity lingered in the air, clinging to the busy streets and concrete jungle of a decadent city shaped by colonial legacies, capitalist wealth and imperialist power. A few drops of rain brought a sense of calm to a mind otherwise clouded by the busyness of the day. Comrades gathered to reflect on developments in China, aiming to demystify the anti-Chinese propaganda that seeks to undermine the revolutionary achievements of the Chinese people and to expose the hypocrisy of Western capitalist development models, which prioritise profit over people.
The media trials and various forms of anti-Chinese propaganda reveal the racist, colonial, capitalist and imperialist character of American, British and European capitalism and their ruling elites. They prefer to see China as merely the world’s factory and the Chinese people as passive workers, incapable of developing revolutionary consciousness for their own emancipation. As a result, Western media and its backers promote fraudulent and illiberal visions of democracy, wrapped in the illusion of individual freedom and the delirium of the American Dream. In contrast, the Chinese system promotes a form of decentralised working-class democracy that guides China’s unique path of democratic, socialist and peaceful development. At the heart of this system—led by the Communist Party of China—is the pursuit of human emancipation from poverty, hunger, homelessness, illiteracy, unemployment, insecurity, and everyday risks.
On 15th of July 2025, Friends of Socialist China in the UK, led by Comrade Carlos Martinez and Comrade Keith Bennett, organised a roundtable at the Marx Memorial Library in London. The event brought together comrades, researchers, and professors from the Institute of Marxism at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)—a research institution established by the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 2005. Comrade Professor Chen Zhigang, Vice President of the Institute, led the discussion, offering valuable insights into the workings of the CPC and its role in China’s development. He addressed the challenges facing rural development in China and elaborated on the concept of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the guiding principles of Xi Jinping thoughts, and its fundamental opposition to the Western model of globalisation and imperialist agendas. Professor Chen advocated for a model of inclusive globalisation that benefits all nations.
Throughout the discussion, he reiterated China’s commitment to building an ecological civilisation grounded in world peace and inclusive development. Comrade Han Dongjun translated Professor Chen’s remarks, while comrades Liu Yan, Fang Tao, and Zhuo Mingliang highlighted various achievements of China under the leadership of the CPC.
During the roundtable, comrades from the UK posed a range of ideological questions on various issues, which were thoughtfully addressed by the delegates from CASS. The discussion concluded with a shared commitment to developing and coordinating a new generation of Marxist thinkers, intellectuals, and organisations dedicated to the empowerment and emancipation of working people around the world. It was agreed that more such exchanges should be organised to help the Western left gain a deeper understanding of Chinese socialism and its revolutionary praxis.
The roundtable concluded at the Hiba Restaurant in Holborn, where the Chinese comrades shared their revolutionary praxis in a relaxed social setting over generous portions of Palestinian and Lebanese food, accompanied by Gaza Cola drinks, real ales, and a few bottles of white and red wine. The Chinese comrades represented a range of age groups and held various political and professional positions within their organisational hierarchy. Yet, there was absolutely no observable power distance among them. They interacted with one another as equals—with warmth, confidence, and camaraderie—sharing food and conversation as comrades and friends. This experience laid bare the hollowness of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, which are widely taught in universities around the world. These frameworks are not only flawed but stem from a supercilious, Eurocentric misreading of Chinese society, politics, and culture. The revolutionary praxis of the Communist Party of China has transformed a historically feudal, unequal and poverty ridden society into one that is modern, progressive, prosperous, and fundamentally egalitarian.
This revolutionary praxis has enabled China to emerge as a bankable state for the working poor in both rural and urban areas, while offering emancipatory hope to working people around the world. From toys to supercomputers, from agricultural science to space technology, from needles to iPhones, and from modern medicine to traditional and alternative health practices, China’s development demonstrates that there is a viable alternative to capitalism, imperialism, and their hegemonic control over people and the planet. Yet, imperialist powers and their capitalist regimes remain determined and working actively every day to undermine China, its people, and their revolutionary achievements.
As the evening came to an end and we prepared to leave Hiba Restaurant, Comrade Professor Chen and Comrade Zhuo Mingliang warmly wished, “Goodbye, comrade,” followed by the words, “Long live Indo-China friendship.” This self-reflective, harmonious and memorable evening with Chinese comrades in London renewed the collective commitment to the revolutionary and emancipatory politics of the working class—and to the belief in its potential to offer a genuine alternative to racialised capitalism and its warmongering, imperialist hegemony, which undermine peace and disempower people. In contrast, China stands as a model of peaceful and progressive development, dedicated to the empowerment and emancipation of working people.
The British government published a new National Security Strategy (NSS) on June 24. Before last year’s general election, the Labour Party said that it would carry out a comprehensive audit of the UK’s relationship with China within 100 days of taking office. With the publication of the NSS, a little over 350 days after taking office, the government announced that the audit had been completed. However, contrary to widespread expectations, it will not be published. Rather it is summarised in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of the NSS.
The strategy does at least draw a certain line under the more unhinged positions emanating from sections of the Conservative Party, including the short-lived Prime Minister Liz Truss in that it accepts that not engaging with China at all is simply not realistic:
“The actions taken by China, on issues from international security to the global economy, technological development or climate change, have the potential to have a significant effect on the lives of British people.”
“This work underscores the need for direct and high-level engagement and pragmatic cooperation where it is in our national interest – similar to all other members of the G7. In a more volatile world, we need to reduce the risks of misunderstanding and poor communication that have characterised the relationship in recent years. China’s global role makes it increasingly consequential in tackling the biggest global challenges, from climate change to global health to financial stability. We will seek a trade and investment relationship that supports secure and resilient growth and boosts the UK economy.”
However, it then goes on to repeat a number of slanders, false accusations and Cold War tropes, for example:
“Each pillar of the Strategic Framework contains measures that are designed to bolster our overall security with respect to China and other state actors that have the ability to undermine our security.”
“Yet there are several major areas, such as human rights and cyber security, where there are stark differences and where continued tension is likely. Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years. Our national security response will therefore continue to be threat-driven, bolstering our defences and responding with strong counter-measures.”
Other anti-China positions and statements are also scattered throughout the militaristic document. For example:
Many of the rules which have governed the international system in the past are eroding. Global commons are being contested by major powers like China and Russia, seeking to establish control and secure resources in outer space, cyberspace, the deep sea, and at the Arctic and Antarctic poles.
The possibility of major confrontation in the Indo-Pacific continues to grow, with dangerous and destabilising Chinese activity threatening international security.
Authoritarian states are putting in place multi-year plans to out-compete liberal democracies in every domain, from military modernisation to science and technology development, from their economic models to the information space… As the second largest economy in the world, with strong central government control, the challenge of competition from China – which ranges from military modernisation to an assertion of state power that encompasses economic, industrial, science and technology policy – has potentially huge consequences for the lives of British citizens.
The hard realities of our geography, security and trade necessitate a prioritisation of the Euro-Atlantic area as part of our “NATO first” approach. But evidence of countries like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea cooperating across theatres – sometimes opportunistically and sometimes by deepening strategic ties – demonstrates the interconnectedness of the Euro-Atlantic with different theatres like the Middle East and Indo-Pacific, where we already have strong partnerships.
The UK’s bilateral relationships and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific are designed to enhance the international security on which our shared prosperity depends. Among others, these include our Global Strategic Partnership with the Republic of Korea, Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty and AUKUS agreement with the US and Australia, our Global Strategic Partnership and joint development of the next generation combat aircraft with Japan alongside Italy, and science and technology collaborations with New Zealand. We will underscore our investment in the stability of the region with the sailing of the UK Carrier Strike Group to Australia, reaffirming the UK’s commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.
The centrality of the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait to global trade and supply chains underscores the importance to the UK of regional stability. There is a particular risk of escalation around Taiwan… We do not support any unilateral attempts to change the status quo. As part of our strong unofficial relationship with Taiwan we will continue to strengthen and grow ties in a wide range of areas, underpinned by shared democratic values.
The AUKUS programme remains a priority project for UK defence and collective security, as part of a NATO-first, but not NATO-only, approach. The US, Australia and the UK will co-develop an advanced fleet of interoperable nuclear-powered attack submarines, which will be operated by both the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy, and other advanced capabilities that will strengthen deterrence.
Responding to Pat McFadden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who introduced the report in the House of Commons, Labour’s Emily Thornberry, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, asked:
“In the absence of the published China audit, which we have all been looking forward to so much, the national security strategy has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by many of us. On China, it states:
“‘Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years.’
“May we have some guidance on how we will address that, because that is not entirely clear? In particular, what advice is being given to the nations and regions when they are dealing with our third-biggest trading partner, with whom we need to promote but also protect ourselves?”
The British government published its new “defence” strategy on June 2.
According to a summary carried by the South China Morning Post (SCMP), it “aims to put a ‘stronger, more lethal’ Nato at the forefront of British defence plans as the country boosts its nuclear deterrent, rebuilds munitions and weapons stockpiles and invests billions of pounds into technologically advanced warfare methods.”
Filled with bellicose, Cold War rhetoric, the strategy, as reported by the SCMP:
Recommends that Britain should begin discussions with the US and NATO on the “potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced UK participation in NATO’s nuclear mission”. The government wants to achieve this by renewing its existing nuclear deterrent, investing £15 billion (US$20 billion) in its warhead programme.
The review is explicit in the need for Britain to play a greater role in nuclear deterrence, as the only European country to assign its nuclear capability to the defence of NATO – something that France does not currently do. The need for stepped-up UK action is driven by “the unprecedented challenge” of the US facing two “near-peer” nuclear powers in Russia and China.
With Trident already absorbing much of the UK’s defence expenditure, the policy is likely to be expensive. As well as the investment in nuclear warheads, Britain plans to build as many as 12 new submarines.
The study also describes China as a “sophisticated and persistent challenge” while falling short of calling it a threat – in line with the government’s existing approach to the Asian nation. It does warn, however, that the UK is likely to face Chinese technology wherever and with whomever it fights.
Simon Tisdall, foreign affairs commentator for the Guardian newspaper, described the new strategy as escalating the global nuclear arms race and “bringing us closer to Armageddon.”
He writes: “Plans by Keir Starmer’s government to modernise and potentially expand Britain’s nuclear weapons arsenal, unveiled in the 2025 strategic defence review (SDR), seriously undermine international non-proliferation efforts… This dangerous path leads in one direction only: towards the normalisation of nuclear warfare.
“These unconscionable proposals are a far cry from the days when Robin Cook, Labour’s foreign secretary from 1997 to 2001, championed unilateral nuclear disarmament and helped scrap the UK’s airdropped gravity bombs. They are a continuation of a redundant, inhuman, immoral, potentially international law-breaking deterrence policy that cash-strapped Britain can ill afford, will struggle to implement at cost and on time, and which perpetuates illusions about its global power status.”
Responding to the review, a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Defence rebuked Britain for hyping up the so-called “China threat”. He urged the British side to perceive China in a correct manner and objectively and rationally view China and its military development. “The British side should make more practical efforts to contribute to the growth of relations between the two countries and their militaries.”
Liu Jianchao, Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee (IDCPC), recently visited Cyprus, Britain and Norway.
On June 6, he met with Cyprus President Nikos Christodoulides.
Christodoulides said that Cyprus-China relations have a solid foundation and will grow better and stronger no matter how the international situation changes. He expressed Cyprus’s gratitude to China for the valuable support for the Cyprus problem in the UN Security Council, and said Cyprus’s commitment to the one-China principle remains unchanged. Cyprus is willing to, together with China, strengthen high-level visits and promote cooperation in the Belt and Road cooperation, economy, trade, culture and other fields. Cyprus and China both adhere to multilateralism and oppose unilateralism. In the face of a challenging international situation, cooperation is the only choice, while trade wars should be avoided.
Liu said that China appreciates Cyprus’s firm adherence to the one-China principle and will continue to firmly support Cyprus in safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity and support a comprehensive, fair and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem under the framework of relevant UN resolutions. China is willing to work with Cyprus to implement the important consensus reached by the leaders of the two countries, strengthen the alignment of development strategies, expand exchanges and cooperation in economy, trade, agriculture, innovation, culture and education under the framework of the Belt and Road cooperation, and promote greater development of China-Cyprus strategic partnership. In the face of a turbulent and complex international situation, China and the European Union (EU) should adhere to the positioning of our partnership, adhere to mutual respect, mutual benefit and win-win results, and inject more certainty and stability into the world. Cyprus is a good partner of China in the EU and will serve as the rotating presidency of the EU in the first half of next year. China supports Cyprus in playing a greater role in international affairs and hopes that Cyprus will continue to play an active role in promoting the healthy and stable development of China-EU relations.
A major purpose of Liu’s visit was to strengthen ties with the Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL), Cyprus’s communist party. AKEL is a mass party, the second largest in the country’s parliament, holding 15 out of 56 seats.
On June 5, Liu met with AKEL General Secretary Stefanos Stefanou.
Liu noted, China and Cyprus enjoy a profound friendship. China appreciates Cyprus’s firm adherence to the one-China principle, firmly supports Cyprus’s efforts to safeguard its national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and supports a comprehensive, fair and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem under the framework of relevant UN resolutions. China is willing to, together with Cyprus, strengthen the alignment of development strategies, expand practical cooperation in various fields, and strengthen people-to-people and cultural exchanges.
He said that the CPC and the Progressive Party of Working People are good comrades and good partners with similar ideals and beliefs. Next year, the Progressive Party of Working People will celebrate its 100th anniversary, and the CPC will celebrate its 105th birthday. The CPC is willing to work hand in hand with the Progressive Party of Working People to strengthen exchanges and political dialogue at all levels, expand youth exchanges, deepen mutual learning of experience in party building and state governance, and push practical cooperation between the two countries in various fields.
Stefanou welcomed the CPC delegation, which was visiting the headquarters of the Progressive Party of Working People and said that the CPC is a reliable friend and close comrade. He said, the Progressive Party of Working People thanks China for the long-term valuable support to Cyprus and is willing to further expand exchanges with the CPC and promote mutually beneficial cooperation in such areas as economy and trade between the two countries. Hailing the CPC’s achievements in leading the Chinese people to successfully build socialism with Chinese characteristics, he said, we are willing to learn from China’s experience. The Progressive Party of Working People firmly adheres to the one-China principle and appreciates China’s just position on the Cyprus problem. The EU should not regard China as an opponent. The two sides should strengthen cooperation on the basis of equality and mutual respect. The Progressive Party of Working People is willing to play its role in the European Parliament, especially in the European United Left-Nordic Green Left grouping, to promote the development of EU-China relations.
Liu also held discussions on June 7, with the grassroots organisation of the Paphos District Committee of AKEL.
The recent Friends of Socialist China delegation to China contributed to a parallel session of the Dialogue on Exchanges and Mutual Learning Among Civilisations, organised by Schwarzman Scholars of Tsinghua University, on the theme of Youth power in dialogue among civilisations.
Callum Norris, a member of the Young Communist League of Britain and of Friends of Socialist China’s Britain committee, gave the following brief presentation focused on the challenges faced by young people in Britain, and how British youth can provide much-needed leadership in developing people-to-people relations and grassroots friendship with China.
I want to say thank you to our hosts for allowing me the privilege to speak at this event; it’s an honour to share the experiences of Britain’s youth alongside friends from around the world.
Britain’s youth are faced with numerous problems, many of which correlate closely with young people in other parts of the world. It is common for young people to struggle to find long term, affordable and inadequate housing, dealing with endless rent increases and extortionate house prices. Houses and flats are often filled with mould and damp – in my own experience in tenant unions I have witnessed young people affected by serious, long term health conditions as a result of poor housing conditions.
Education is another big issue in Britain. Tuition fees continue to increase, discouraging many working class youth from attending university. For those able to attend, at the end of their studies they often find a hostile job market with few opportunities available. From personal experience, a close friend achieved a master’s degree in history, but now can only find work in McDonald’s. This is by no means an isolated case, but is increasingly common for people leaving higher education.
There is also the twin threats of war and global warming hanging over the heads of British youth, considering the context of three continuous years of war with Russia in Ukraine, as well as the horrific genocide in Gaza, which the British government has been directly involved in and supported. With regards to Ukraine, the British military has suggested that young people in Britain should prepare for war with Russia by 2030. This all alongside young people who have grown up amidst permanent war headed by NATO and western Imperialism across the Global South.
The issue of war also links into the threat of climate catastrophe; with every bomb dropped, we move a step closer to climate breakdown. The climate crisis has seen the formation of numerous environmental protest groups, their memberships largely made up of young people, which have come under continued state suppression.
This combination of issues has created a generally pessimistic attitude amongst the youth in Britain, who see diminishing prospects for a liveable and rewarding life. It is interesting then, to contrast this with the experiences of young people in China, where cures are often found for these issues. In terms of housing, the majority of people in China own their homes. Meanwhile, educational institutions continue to improve, attracting international recognition. Peace and not war has been the agenda for China since 1949, and China is leading the world in the battle against climate breakdown.
The question then must be how do we better spread this information to young people in Britain. On the positive side, many young people are no longer falling into the propaganda trap laid by Western media organisations. The use of social media, especially TikTok and most recently RedNote, has seen increased direct communication between young people in China and Britain, and has helped greatly to break down the pervasive anti-China narrative.
On the other hand, there are still many who have not been able to see past these lies and smears. It seems to me that the remedy to this is a continued push on digital media in order to foster continued direct people-to-people relationships between China and Britain, with a specific focus on those issues which young people in Britain are most affected by: the aforementioned housing crisis, educational crisis, permanent war and the climate crisis, and contrasting them with China’s continued success in these areas.
I would again like to thank our hosts for allowing me to speak at such an important event, which I hope will continue to foster people-to-people relations between China and the rest of the world, and look forward to the day when young people in China, Britain and the rest of the world can unite together to overcome the many challenges facing the world today and build a brighter future.
On Saturday May 17, 2025, the Free Mumia Abu Jamal Campaign UK, which campaigns in solidarity with the African-American freedom fighter and revolutionary who has been imprisoned since 1981, the majority of that time on ‘death row’, held a meeting and social event in memory of Comrade Tongogara (born Danny Morrell), who passed away on May 11, 2023, after a lifetime of work in the anti-racist, anti-imperialist and Marxist-Leninist movements. The UK campaign in support of Mumia was launched on Tongogara’s initiative.
The meeting was held in Vida’s ‘My Social’, a community space in Brixton, south London, especially but not exclusively for seniors. It is named after Vida Walsh, a pioneering African-Caribbean community and social activist in the Brixton area in particular. In the 1970s, Vida set up and ran an informal ‘tea and chat club’ for pensioners in Brixton. Despite the support of Age Concern Lambeth and the local residents’ association, resources were limited. Because of this, members congregated in each other’s homes, enabling pensioners to meet on a regular basis to chat and to maintain contacts within the community. This was particularly important for those older residents who, for whatever reason, were unable to rely on familial support structures for advice or assistance. To have a dedicated community space for this work was Vida’s dream and mission.
The campaign invited Friends of Socialist China co-editor Keith Bennett, who was a friend and comrade of Tongogara since the 1970s, to give a talk on the theme of African liberation and China, combining as it does two key aspects of Tongogara’s life and work.
Keith’s talk sought to weave together Tongogara’s own world outlook and political path with China’s historical support to the African revolution in the 1960s and 1970s in particular, citing examples especially from Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Congo, Guinea Bissau, Niger and South Africa.
The talk was followed by a lively ‘Q&A’ and discussion, focused especially on events around Angola’s independence in November 1975 and on present-day relations between China and Africa.
The meeting also heard a heartfelt tribute to Tongogara from Cecil Gutzmore, veteran Pan-African community activist and historian, and a stalwart of the campaign, which was read on his behalf by Wilf Dixon, as well as a brief report from that day’s Palestine solidarity demonstration in central London, which was attended by an estimated 600,000 people.
The formal proceedings were followed by a social with music and delicious home-prepared food.
The following is the main body of Keith’s speech.
It is an honour for me to be invited by the Free Mumia Abu Jamal Campaign UK to give this first Tongogara Memorial Talk, just over two years since he joined the ancestors. I hope it will be the first of many and that this will in some small way help to keep his memory alive in the way he would surely have wanted – enabling others to be inspired by his life and work, to learn from his example and to carry on the cause to which he devoted the great majority of his years.
Let me take this opportunity, on behalf of Friends of Socialist China, to congratulate the Free Mumia Campaign for all the steadfast and unflinching work you have done over years, work in which Tongogara was at the heart, to ensure that this unyielding revolutionary and internationalist is not forgotten in the hell hole of the US prison system.
As Mumia himself has said: “Know this: throughout it all. I have never felt alone. To the eye, I was alone in solitary confinement, on death row, but the eye cannot really see all that is, for behind brick and steel, I felt our love, sometimes like a wave, sometimes like a whisper, but always there, ever present.”
Why should I be giving this talk today? Perhaps it’s for the organisers rather than me to say. But I’m the co-editor of Friends of Socialist China, a platform established four years ago to support the People’s Republic of China and promote understanding of Chinese socialism and the Chinese revolution.
The Chinese revolution and its impact on the world has fascinated me since my early teens. And that’s essentially how I came to know Tongogara. Anyone who knew him, would appreciate that for Tongogara, the Chinese revolution and the teachings of Mao Zedong were central to his outlook on life – a veritable political compass, alongside his unshakeable commitment to the liberation of African people worldwide. At home and abroad, to borrow Marcus Garvey’s expression.
I can’t remember exactly when I first met him, but we certainly knew each other by the summer of 1976, just before my 18th birthday. Danny Morrell, as he was then known, was at that time a member of a small communist organisation, which was going to start producing a factory newspaper for the engineering factory in north London where he and a couple of other comrades had taken jobs.
Obviously, it would have marked the end of their employment, and hence of the political project in which they were engaged, had they openly distributed the paper themselves. That was my job and the night before I stayed at Danny’s bedsit to be there for the early morning shift.
That night we talked – obviously – and that’s when I started to really get to know him. I was touched by the loving photos of family back in Jamaica, which held pride of place alongside the posters produced by the Youth Forces for National Liberation (YFNL), a vibrant Marxist-Leninist organisation in Jamaica at that time. One of them commemorated the Morant Bay Rebellion of 1865.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
