China, Britain and the Integrated Review

The United Kingdom’s Integrated Review has called for the UK to deepen ‘engagement in the Indo-Pacific, establishing a greater and more persistent presence than any other European country’.

Given the UK’s previous role as colonial power in India, Hong Kong, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and others, it is natural for the UK to wish to look to the Indo-Pacific, perhaps in the same way France looks to Africa. Hence, an aspiration to be more involved than other European nations is perhaps understandable historically.

The Integrated Review signals a change of approach from preserving the post-Cold War ‘rules-based international system’ to an international system that can adapt to a more competitive and fluid international environment by working with others. The element of

The legacy of the Opium Wars, carve up of Shanghai, and again the colonial rule in Hong Kong, does see China particularly sensitive to the UK’s post-Brexit renewed interest in the Indo-Pacific.

Equally Australia, India, Malaysia, Singapore and others will not fall on the coat tails of ‘Mother England’ nor will China allow Gun Boats up the Yangtze River. So, while the UK’s renewed interest has a valid historical grounding, the power dynamics between both potential allies and potential adversaries is vastly different now compared to the colonial era. Is the UK ready for this, or indeed relevant in this?

The UK’s Integrated Review is not the only indication of growing western power interest in the Pacific. The current ‘rise’ of China has a lot of people rattled. The flexing of the ‘Sinomilitary might’ is, for many, upsetting a pre-existing perception of the natural order of global governance being dominated by western powers, western culture and western military, which prior to World War Two meant British domination.

This is a dangerous balance of ‘previous power’ versus ‘future power’ may lead to a clash of ideologies and militaries that could, in the worst case, lead to an unnecessary war.

Those who hold the view of a western ‘natural order of governance’ may perhaps like to consider that for most of the last 2,000 years India and China have dominated the globe’s economy and military might. Since the birth of Jesus Christ, ‘western’ powers have dominated for perhaps only 25% of the time, with the UK less than 10% of the time, not that you would notice if you were brought up in a western education system.

If you, like the author, were brought up in a western education system you were likely taught that Jesus existed, the Roman Empire fell, and then the world went through roughly 1,000 years of the ‘Dark Ages’, where basically nothing happened.

Strange to think that there was no Roman Numeral for the number zero, and without zero one could not have our money system and decimal counting system today. So where did zero come from?

Perhaps, like the author’s, your school did not teach you that Muhammad Al Khwarizmi perfected the use of the number zero and algebra in his mathematical university in Khiva, Uzbekistan, along the Silk Road in the 8th and 9th centuries. Nor were you taught the word ‘algebra’ derives for Khwarizmi’s seminal book or that the word ‘algorithm’ is the anglicisation of Al Khwarizmi’s name.

So why is it that we don’t teach our children of Khwarizmi’s work that we use every single day of our lives?

Perhaps you were not told of Mirza Ulughbeg who’s work in the 15th century, also on the Silk Road, measured the length of the year to the most accurate point until computers were invented.

Both Ulughbeg and Khwarizmi are great examples of world significant work done along the ancient Silk Road during the period we were taught were the ‘Dark Ages’. Far from the world going backwards, only western civilisation retreated, with massive advancements in mathematics, science and medicine all occurring on the Silk Road, outside of western culture and outside of western history books.

Perhaps you were taught that Marco Polo ‘discovered’ the Silk Road in the 13th Century and perhaps you were unaware that Emperor Augustus was already aware of the great trading route in 1 AD. Marco Polo was 1200 years late to the party.

The truth is

and not even today’s history books teach it with anything like the same perspective that Arabs and Chinese look at the millennium of human advancement.

Hence, today, when we hear of China wanting to re-establish the ancient Silk Road through Xi Jinping’s ‘Belt Road Initiative’, there is a temptation to think of the Belt Road Initiative merely through an economic lens rather than seeing it for what it is: a driver of Chinese policy desire to ‘return’ (not merely ‘rise’) China to the dominant global force in economics, politics, military, science and trade. From the Chinese perspective western dominance is the ‘spike’ not the norm.

The Integrated Review speaks a lot of the future, but little of the historic roles of colonial powers and the continued desire for adversaries and allies to be ‘unchained’ from that colonial history.

It is this difference in perspective, the lens through which the Chinese see the world, that we need to examine more closely to understand what is going on in the world and to plan so that China’s rise to power does not come with an unnecessary military conflict.

There are many parts of Chinese policy perspectives that are different from the west’s and perhaps we need to look at some significant areas of disagreement from differing perspectives if we wish to avoid war. Let me take just four examples: The Uyghur people, Hong Kong, Taiwan and climate change

I should say from the outset that trying to understand the Chinese perspective does not necessarily mean ‘agreeing’ with their perspective – but understanding those with whom you disagree is even more important when one does not agree when one seeks to avoid conflict.

Let us start with some general common ground. More or less since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 a general principle of international affairs has been that a country should not interfere in the internal affairs of another country. Absent a UN Security Council declaration of a threat to international peace and security, or a triggering of the often-ignored obligation to intervene set out in the Genocide Convention, a country should not intervene in another country’s internal affairs.

Terrorism has challenged these norms though.

For most of the last 20 years western countries have been involved in what has been colloquially termed the ‘war on terror’. Since September 11, 2001 various western governments have been tied up in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places in a battle with ‘radical Islam’. China senses that as their economy returns to dominance it is quite possible that radical elements of Islam increase violent responses to China’s dominance.

This is particularly so as Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and atheism a far more antithetical to more extreme Islamic thinking than are Judaism and Christianity, which are religions that share the same God of Abraham as Islam.

Indeed, some historians of the 8th and 9th centuries along the Silk Road called Islam, Judaism and Christianity ‘sects of the same religion’. In a world where Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians all mixed with the Abrahamic Religions, perhaps one can see their point.

The Integrated Review is light on the challenges raised by this dilemma.

In April UK parliamentarians voted to declare the actions of the Chinese Government in Xinjiang a ‘Genocide’. Without making a judgement as to the actions in Xinjiang it is still worth noting that the 1948 Genocide Convention in Article 1 states Genocide “is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.”

The proactive element of ‘prevention’ requires States to intervene to stop Genocide and is a reason why any declaration of ‘Genocide’ is a rare event. When looked at from the Chinese perspective, such a declaration from UK parliamentarians is a threat to Chinese sovereignty that colours the ability for the UK to act in areas more closely aligned with the UK’s historical interests, such as Hong Kong.

Whose sovereignty is Hong Kong? There is no dispute that Hong Kong is Chinese sovereign territory. Hong Kong was never UK sovereign territory. It was only leased territory. Much like a tenant leases a house, but never owns it.

Hong Kong is Chinese sovereign territory and hence Westphalian non-intervention in sovereign territory applies there too. This however is tricky as the west has perceived that Hong King is ‘more free’ than the rest of China. To the Chinese though this is hypocritical hyperbole as for the vast majority of the time that the UK ruled their Hong Kong colony there was no democracy and no parliament.

Absent the international agreement with the UK at the 1997 handover, the UK calling for democracy in Hong Kong could be seen from the Chinese perspective as a bit like a tenant asking the landlord to fix a leaky pipe twenty years after the tenant left the building.

Is Hong Kong an issue over which the West should fight China, or is it a battle lost a century ago when Britain determined that the Hong Kong people were not deserving of democracy?

While Hong Kong is an emotional issue for the UK, is Hong Kong really where the UK wishes to draw a red line, or are there more important issues in which the UK could play an active role? The Integrated Review is light on the issues involving Hong Kong, save for the granting of special immigration status to Hong Kong Residents. Should Hong Kong be considered ‘history’ and are their bigger fish to fry?

Moving to Taiwan, we have a much trickier issue. Whose sovereignty is Taiwan’s? How does the Westphalian ‘non-intervention’ apply to the island?

Both mainland China (in Beijing) and Taiwan (in Taipei) claim to be the legitimate government of all of China. Both claim to govern the other, and both claim sovereign territory over the other. This can be complicated when it comes to sovereignty and international affairs, as demonstrated by the Korean War.

After World War Two, the United Nations was set up with a Security Council that included five permanent members each of whom had a veto. China was one of the permanent countries with a veto. Not long after its establishment the Security Council passed a motion backing the government in South Korea, with its US allies, in a conflict against North Korea and its then Chinese allies.

So how is it that the UN Security Council voted against a Chinese ally when China had a veto?

The answer is that the China that sat on the Security Council was the Republic of China represented by the Government in Taipei not the People’s Republic of China represented by the government in Beijing. Then most Governments around the world recognised the Taipei government as the government for all of China. Hence Taipei voted against Beijing’s ally in Korea.

In the 1970’s things changed. President Nixon is said to have ‘recognised’ China. He didn’t recognise China for the first time, rather Nixon changed the recognition from the Taipei government to the Beijing government but maintained a ‘one China’ policy.

Taiwan continues to claim sovereignty over all of China as Beijing does. However there is a growing movement for a potential declaration of independence on the island of Taiwan, although it is neither official government policy nor yet overwhelmingly supported by the people. In a recent opinion poll (https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3951560) just over half of the people surveyed supported independence and just under half supported the status quote or reunification with China. It is not as clear cut as one may think.

In terms of Westphalian sovereignty, most countries in the world, including the US, UK and Australia still have a formal policy of ‘one China’. These countries formally changed their recognition of the legitimate government of China from Taipei to Beijing half a century ago.

From a Beijing perspective then, not only is Taiwan ‘their’ territory, western policy formally agrees that there is only one sovereignty and not even Taiwan is claiming to be independent.

Looked through that lens, do western countries want to go to war with China to defend an independence for Taiwan that Taiwan is not yet claiming, and that western policy has specifically rejected for over half a century? Looked through a Chinese lens, what is this if not inconsistent policy from the west, at best, or hypocritical at worst?

China now has the largest navy in the world when measured by ship numbers, but not yet by tonnage. One reason is that China’s navy is largely built with Taiwan and the relatively shallow South China Sea in mind.

For China the question is if the west was not going to intervene to defend Crimea, would they really intervene for Taiwan? For the west the question is are we prepared to go to war over an island that is not claiming independence with the consequent death of civilians and soldiers and the resulting economic chaos?

The Integrated Review doesn’t mention Taiwan nor does it mention the need to build a fleet flexible enough to respond to a coastal action should China take control in Taiwan.

The three issues of Uyghurs, Hong Kong and Taiwan are all flash points in the global relations with China. China’s economic rise – no return - to global significance and their consequent rise in military power challenges the west like never before to question how economic, military and human rights issues inter-relate.

Climate Change does make a mention in the Integrated Review. Collective action is required at the global level to counter climate change. But question whether Asian collectivist cultures are more capable of responding to climate change than western ‘individual liberty’ cultures are? China, while being a large emitter of carbon is also investing huge amounts in post carbon technologies and is the world’s largest manufacturer of batteries.

How will the UK deal with potential collaboration with China on this global level?

There are no simple answers and no pure answers. But a closer examination of the question must take place in the minds of policy makers and the public, otherwise the danger of sleep walking into an unnecessary war and its consequent human cost will be the tragedy that marks the potential transition of power to China.

While the Integrated Review sets up a model of military response around a potential clear adversary, history of colonialism and the future post climate change both suggest a much more nuanced and empathetic and pragmatic approach to significant cultural and political differences will be required if we are to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Andrew MacLeod is a visiting professor in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. He is a Non-Executive Chairman of British based Griffin Law, Non-Executive Director at Burnham Global, founding Director of child protection charity Hear their Cries and a Vice Chancellor’s distinguished Fellow at Deakin University amongst other activities.

Read the full collection here.