In the following brief article for the Morning Star, Carlos Martinez scrutinises the British government’s recent claim that China is engaged in “malicious” cyber activities directed against the UK.
While these allegations are being led by fanatically anti-China Tory MPs such as Iain Duncan Smith, the article notes that Starmer’s Labour Party has also been quick to jump on the bandwagon, with shadow foreign secretary David Lammy promising that a Labour government would put a stop to Chinese cyberattacks by “working with Nato allies to develop new measures designed to protect our democratic values, institutions and open societies”. Carlos comments: “Lammy perhaps missed the irony of lauding Nato’s ‘democratic values’ on the 25th anniversary of that organisation’s criminal bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.”
The slanders about Chinese cyberattacks “contribute to anti-China hysteria, thereby building public support for Britain’s role in a reckless US-led new cold war.” Carlos concludes:
There is no benefit to the British working class of joining in with the new cold war. China does not pose a threat to us. China’s proposal is for mutual respect and non-interference; an economic relationship based on mutual benefit; and for close co-operation on the central issues of our era: climate change, pandemics, peace and development. This is a vision worthy of our support.
On Monday March 25 2024, in an obviously co-ordinated move, the US, UK, New Zealand and Australia accused the Chinese government of backing cyberattacks in order to gather data and undermine Western democracy. On top of their unproven allegations, these countries announced the introduction of new sanctions against China.
Claiming that China was engaged in “malicious” cyber campaigns against MPs, and that it was responsible for a cyberattack on the UK Electoral Commission between August 2021 and October 2022, Deputy PM Oliver Dowden announced: “The UK will not tolerate malicious cyber activity. It is an absolute priority for the UK government to protect our democratic system and values.”
The accusations were led by members of the viscerally anti-China Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), the ostensible purpose of which is to “counter the threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party to democratic principles.”
IPAC lists its funding sources as the Open Society Foundations, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, which should give readers some idea as to its ideological orientation.
Its most prominent British member is Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith, a notoriously fanatical China hawk, who talks often about the “terrible genocide in Xinjiang,” while simultaneously defending Israel’s actual genocide in Gaza. In short, he is an utter reactionary, albeit not a terribly bright one — his rambling utterances bring to mind Marx’s quip about the “British Parliament, which no one will reproach with being excessively endowed with genius.”
His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition was eager to show the ruling class that its foreign policy is every bit as absurd as that of the Tories. Writing in the Mirror on Monday, shadow foreign secretary David Lammy stated: “The wave of cyber-attacks against British politicians and the hack of 40 million voters’ data is chilling. One country, China, is responsible.”
He promised that, if elected, “Labour will work with Nato allies to develop new measures designed to protect our democratic values, institutions and open societies.”
Lammy perhaps missed the irony of lauding Nato’s “democratic values” on the 25th anniversary of that organisation’s criminal bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.
Needless to say, the government singularly failed to back up its accusations with meaningful evidence. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian commented quite reasonably that “there should be comprehensive and objective evidence, rather than slandering other countries without any factual support.”
He added: “China firmly opposes and combats all kinds of cyberattacks, and is committed to working with all countries, on the basis of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit, to strengthen co-operation and jointly deal with the threats of cybersecurity through channels such as bilateral dialogue or judicial assistance.”
He further affirmed that “the evidence provided by the British side was inadequate and relevant conclusions lack professionalism,” and noted that the US, Britain and their allies themselves have a long history of cyberattacks and espionage against China.
He called on the US and Britain to “stop politicising cybersecurity issues, stop smearing China and imposing unilateral sanctions on China, and stop cyberattacks against China.”
A statement issued by the Chinese embassy in London branded Britain’s accusations “completely unfounded and malicious slander,” adding that “China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.”
The embassy statement observed drily that: “whether the British government is good or bad, the British people will come to a conclusion sooner or later.”
Of course, the key purpose of these latest slanders is to contribute to anti-China hysteria, thereby building public support for Britain’s role in a reckless US-led new cold war.
An editorial in the Global Times pointed out that Britain’s shift away from a “golden era” of relations with China towards a position of hostility coincides with an increased economic and political dependence on the US in the aftermath of Brexit.
“It seems that the only way for Britain to secure its position in the ‘co-pilot’ seat is by closely aligning with the US and causing trouble for China.” Issuing slanders against China is simply an example of “deliberately stoking fear to advance their political agendas and achieve their political goals.”
An additional incentive for Britain in painting China as a security threat is to promote protectionism, for example in relation to Chinese-made electric vehicles — which are well known to be both cheaper and better than their European and North American counterparts, and could help meet Britain’s stated environmental objectives.
There is no benefit to the British working class of joining in with the new cold war. China does not pose a threat to us. China’s proposal is for mutual respect and non-interference; an economic relationship based on mutual benefit; and for close co-operation on the central issues of our era: climate change, pandemics, peace and development.
This is a vision worthy of our support.
Dropping bombs is not democracy!