The Tribune

The issue of the extent of the involvement in Britain of China’s huge telecommunications company, Huawei, has finally come to a head. Last week, citing national security concerns, the UK government banned the tech giant from any role in developing the infrastructure of 5G – the nation’s next generation mobile communications network. This effectively reverses the government’s decision in January to allow Huawei to play a limited part in this on the grounds the company would be the answer to delivering faster new generation internet. Now, UK firms are banned from purchasing new 5G equipment from Huawei, thus blocking any of its products for the new network, while any of its existing infrastructure equipment must be removed from the 5G network by 2027.

The UK government states the decision was taken in the security interests of the nation and new and highly restrictive US sanctions in May, including removal of Huawei’s access to products built in the US, combined with diplomatic pressure appears to have been a ‘game-changer’ so that the latest decision was claimed to have been inevitable. Earlier, the US had warned of the opportunity for China to ‘spy, steal or attack’ in this field, and the UK’s action is clearly in the interests of the Americans who have welcomed it as good for trans-Atlantic security while at the same time protecting citizens’ privacy. Equally, the strength of Britain’s domestic political objection to Huawei’s proposed participation in 5G should not be underestimated.

The security concerns are based on the growing evidence that Huawei, despite its claims to the contrary, is not independent of the Chinese state but in reality is part of its security apparatus. There is surely little doubt that, as a communist country with centralised control and where dissent is not allowed, China insists its companies cooperate fully with the nation’s security services – the difference between despotism and democracy. No less an authority than a former head of Britain’s MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, is quoted as saying publicly that ‘no part of the communist Chinese state is ultimately able to operate free of the control of its communist party leadership’.

Huawei, therefore, presents a potential security risk to the UK as the forthcoming 5G network for phones could be used for hidden and underhand purposes. In such circumstances, there seems to be general agreement that it makes no sense to allow a potentially hostile foreign power to be at the heart of the sensitive infrastructure of Britain’s new communications system.

It is the case, of course, that Huawei is already partially involved in 3G and 4G but the UK government maintains 5G is fundamentally different, more sensitive and vulnerable. Meanwhile, it is interesting that Huawei announced – even after having its equipment stripped from 5G - the launch of three new stores in the UK marketing its range of products including its popular smartphones providing internet access, the playing of films and the ability to make phone calls around the world.

The background to all this and the broader context are important. In recent years, China under the leadership of President Xi Jinping – for whom the Party rules have now been changed to enable him to retain his position almost, it appears, indefinitely – is looking to maximise its power across the globe. As I wrote in a recent column about Beijing’s controversial new security law for Hong Kong in which its bilateral treaty with Britain had been brushed aside with blatant impunity, China is showing a more belligerent approach to the rest of the world in its quest for global primacy.

It seems to be seeking pre-eminence as the new superpower – whether it is Xi’s ‘Belt and Road’ initiative or its growing military activity and influence in the South China Sea and renewed threat to Taiwan or its ongoing trade war with the US.

How different the whole picture looked at the time of President Xi’s state visit to Britain in 2015 when the-then Prime Minister David Cameron spoke of a ‘Golden Age’ of good bilateral relations with improved exchanges across-the-board - not only enhanced economic cooperation, investment and trade but also links with universities in order to share advanced scientific and technological research. Now, the situation has changed to the extent that some see these as the Chinese ‘infiltrating’ British universities to obtain intellectual property and sensitive technology to be passed on to the country’s defence establishment.

Five years later, Sino-British relations have soured, with clashes over coronavirus, Hong Kong, Huawei and human rights abuses.

At the weekend, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab expressed concern about the ‘gross, egregious human rights abuses’ perpetrated against more than a million Muslim ethnic minority Uighur people in northern China that have caused international outrage. According to reports, not only have they been subjected to intense state surveillance but mosques have been destroyed and thousands have been sent to re-education camps while even enforced sterilisation has been mentioned. Mr Raab described all this as deeply troubling.

As for Huawei, China has condemned the latest decision and its ambassador in London has called it a bad move for Britain itself. He has also criticised the UK for ‘dancing to the tune of the US’ and warned of a ‘resolute response’ including the threat of retaliation - especially if, separately, the UK imposes sanctions over human rights abuses or in relation to Hong Kong. What is more, he made the meaningless suggestion that Britain had ‘missed the opportunity to be a leading country’. His inappropriate language is likely to be counterproductive, and he might have done better if he had attempted to convince people about Huawei’s claimed independence of its own government even if he knows that not to be true; but, as the book says, envoys are sent abroad to lie for their country!

Whatever happens, it is likely Chinese leaders will not want to be seen by the Party faithful to be bowing to the West while at the same time it is in their own interest to maintain good trade relations with Britain. For is part, despite the current difficulties, Britain must surely remain fully engaged with China as a leading player on the world stage, but it has taken firm action by announcing yesterday suspension of its extradition treaty with Hong Kong.

Offended they may be, but it doesn’t make them right

Amid the continuing calls for much-needed effective action to battle racism and police brutality in the US almost two months since the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, one of the consequences the other side of the Atlantic of the activities of Black Lives Matter has been an accelerated debate about the ‘woke movement’.

While many contend that the growth of illiberalism emanated originally from the US, in Britain this movement is developing as a strange and increasingly insidious phenomenon. There seems to be a growing institutional disdain for freedom of expression so that people are beginning to feel they are no longer living in a free society. Instead, this ‘woke movement’ seems to consist of those who are trying to enforce their extreme views on others by shaming or ruining those who think differently.

The so-called ‘cancel culture’, which is apparently the latest expression of ‘wokeness’, looks to be defined as criticising and shaming people – often on social media - and attempting to undermine or destroy the professional standing of anyone who deviates from ever-more extreme standards of political correctness. People are now required to submit to a new ruling orthodoxy from which it is a sin to deviate.

Of course, the notion of political correctness has been around a long time. Reportedly, in the 1970s and early 1980s it was first used wittily by liberal politicians to refer to extremism in some left-wing issues. It seems now to be understood by most people as the need to avoid language or behaviour that could offend some individuals or a particular group of people – or, more positively, actively using language, behaviour, policies or measures that are intended to avoid offence or disadvantage to them, particularly those who are considered marginalised or discriminated against because of race.

To most people that sounds fair and reasonable, though political correctness is often taken to extremes by those too easily offended without justification and where subjective judgment can be flawed. But, by and large, it works. What is now taking hold in Britain – in public life and national institutions, universities and schools, the police, the press and other media, big business and even the Church – is the promotion of a ‘woke’ ideology which demands anyone who departs from the new orthodoxy is decreed evil and beyond redemption.

All this may sound fanciful to some but the ‘woke movement’ is growing. It is interesting, however, that voices are now being raised in opposition to what is seen as a minority of activists trying to dictate to others how they should live and what they should think. For example, British comedian Ricky Gervais, pictured, has stood up publicly for free speech, describing ‘wokeness’ as weird – as he says, just because you are offended does not mean you are right. In addition, last week a letter was sent to Harper’s Magazine by some 150 liberal philosophers, writers and intellectuals denouncing the current ‘intolerant climate’ of public discourse.

It seems to me there is some doubt about what exactly constitutes the new orthodoxy and who has defined it. There is insufficient space today to make a proper case for free speech. But, generally in the Western world people accept instinctively the need for a logical exchange of ideas and opinions through argument and counter-argument in determining the truth and reaching measured conclusions on an issue – as enunciated by the 19th century German philosopher Hegel in the ‘dialectic’ named after him. In a democracy, shutting down debate, imposing conformity and crushing dissent is unacceptable and should be resisted. As someone said, if you don’t support free speech for people with whom you disagree, you don’t support free speech.

A wedding and an investiture - all in a day’s work for the queen

Despite the gloom and doom of new coronavirus restrictions here at home, I hasten to offer some positive and happy news from faraway Britain. Last Friday, The Queen attended the wedding of her granddaughter, Princess Beatrice who is the daughter of Prince Andrew, at Windsor. Because of social distancing requirements it was a small private event attended only by close friends and family. Prince Philip was also there looking fit and well at the age of 99. It was a rare appearance for him since his official retirement in 2017 and his first ‘public’ engagement in a year.

Later the same day, Captain Thomas Moore was knighted by The Queen. It was he who had raised earlier this year the enormous sum of about $40 million for the National Health Service by completing 100 laps of his garden in time for his impending 100th birthday. Captain Tom, as he became known, captured the hearts of the nation for his determination in a worthy cause and he was seen as a symbol of hope and perseverance during the coronavirus crisis so that he became a national treasure.

At the unique, open-air, personal investiture ceremony in the grounds of Windsor Castle in brilliant afternoon sunshine, The Queen was reported to have thanked the-now Sir Tom for his extraordinary fundraising efforts and remarked that 100 was a wonderful age, while he himself expressed his own thanks and appreciation for being honoured in this way – and with typical humour apparently quipped that, if he had to kneel down for the ceremony, he might never get up again!

So Friday was indeed a happy day to gladden the heart – a lovely wedding for the new bride and bridegroom and a fitting climax to the Thomas Moore story. It will also surely not have escaped notice this was the first ‘public’ appearance by The Queen since the coronavirus lockdown measures and another example of her dedication and commitment to duty – at the age of 94 - even in such troubled times. It was certainly a busy day for her.