The British government recently rejected the proposal of the country's parliament to define the human rights situation in Xinjiang as "genocide", nor did it agree to ban the import of Xinjiang cotton, and also rejected the proposal to boycott the Beijing Winter Olympics, which caused many concerns.
The reason for the incident was that in July this year, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the lower house of the British Parliament released a report on the so-called "human rights situation in Xinjiang", putting forward 36 proposals around britain's import and export trade and international coordination, trying to pressure the government to attack the Chinese side. On November 14, local time, the committee announced the government's earlier reply.
The lower house of the British parliament passed a motion in April this year to determine the existence of so-called "genocide" in Xinjiang, which was solemnly retaliated by the Chinese side. In recommendation 1 of the report, the External Committee encouraged the Government to accept this characterization and take relevant action. However, this first suggestion was rejected by Johnson. The British government replied that "genocide" is a crime, and whether it is so defined on Xinjiang-related issues should be handed over to the international authority for judicial handling.
The British government's opposed proposal also includes a ban on the import of all Xinjiang cotton products that use Xinjiang that are alleged to involve "forced labor." The British government said it currently has no plans to ban the import of relevant Chinese products, but will work with international partners to ensure that the supply chain does not involve "forced labor".
However, the British government also agreed to some of these elements. For example, "The government should take the lead in building a democratic coalition to coordinate action in Xinjiang through the United Nations and other agencies" and "Urge the International Labour Organization to conduct a comprehensive review of Xinjiang."
In the view of Cui Hongjian, director of the European Institute of the China Institute of International Studies, this confrontation between the British government and parliament reflects the reality that the two institutions have serious differences in China policy, which "shows the complexity of the British foreign decision-making environment and is by no means monolithic."
However, the Johnson administration's reserved reply has also attracted attention. Cui Hongjian pointed out that the British government, as the ruling authority, hopes to maintain a central position in china policy decision-making and rejects the radical proposals of parliament, which is an attempt to maintain a diplomatic balance. However, judging from its selective agreement with some of the contents of the report, the current British government has not given up manipulating Xinjiang-related issues.
The British government's response made Tugenhart, the chairman of the House of Commons Foreign Committee, who led the concoction of the "36 recommendations", feel "disappointed" and "unfortunate". He claimed to continue to push the above issues to be accepted by the British government.
It is worth noting that Tugenhat joined the Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Commons in 2017, when the Foreign Affairs Committee launched an investigation into Sino-British relations, and then submitted a report advocating the end of the "golden age" created by former Prime Minister David Cameron with China.
In April 2020, Tugenhart and others founded the "China Research Group" to concoct an "anti-China" report in the name of "research" and actively "dance with the United States", which was highly recognized by former US Secretary of State Pompeo. The group's hostile attitude towards the Belt and Road Initiative, Huawei's 5G, and Xinjiang-related and Hong Kong-related issues has also deeply affected the British government's China policy.
In March, China included Entities such as Tougenhardt and the China Research Group on the sanctions list for "maliciously spreading lies and disinformation," prohibiting the entry of relevant persons and their immediate family members (including Hong Kong and Macao), freezing their assets in China, and prohibiting Chinese citizens and institutions from trading with them.
In Cui Hongjian's view, the "China hawks" of the British parliament represented by Tugenhardt have repeatedly launched blatant provocations against China, most of them because of their personal political ambitions. He further pointed out that the political manipulation of these anti-China parliamentarians has been amplified by the developed British media, which has further affected British-Chinese relations and also put the Johnson administration under political pressure on its China policy.
In fact, the United States is also influencing the Johnson administration's China policy. The Uk-based Institute for International Strategic Studies (IISS) pointed out in An article in September this year that in recent years, the United States' pressure on Britain through the traditional Anglo-American relationship and the Five Eyes Alliance mechanism has profoundly affected Britain's China policy stance and British Indo-Pacific policy.
In March this year, the Johnson administration launched the "Global Britain" foreign strategy, actively promoted the "Indo-Pacific tilt", and the diplomatic and defense layout gradually intersected with the US Indo-Pacific strategy.
For example, the British military has frequently intervened in the Asia-Pacific region this year, not only visiting Asia for the first time by the "Queen Elizabeth" aircraft carrier strike group, holding joint military exercises with the United States and Japan, and sending two warships to be permanently deployed in Asian waters. In September, the United Kingdom announced a tripartite security and defense partnership with Australia and the United States, AUKUS, to match Australia to help Australia obtain US nuclear submarines.
Some analysts have pointed out that britain has essentially chosen a side between China and the United States, "one-sidedly" cooperating with the United States to encircle China in the Indo-Pacific region.
Cui Hongjian did not agree with this. In his view, the Johnson administration is still trying to "strike a balance" between China and the United States, so the British government's China policy will inevitably show "two sides" and vacillation.
On October 18, Bloomberg reported on the first global investment summit aimed at attracting foreign investment in the UK after Brexit, with the headline directly quoting Johnson's response: "The UK does not want to refuse Chinese investment". At that time, public opinion generally regarded it as a gesture of goodwill toward China.
However, in Cui Hongjian's view, Johnson welcomes China's continued investment, but limits the scope to the "non-strategic" areas of the United Kingdom, which fully reflects its ambivalence - on the one hand, in the so-called "strategic areas" are full of vigilance against China, on the other hand, the United Kingdom also clearly realizes that after the cultivation of the "golden age" of Sino-British relations, China's investment in the United Kingdom, despite several adjustments, is still considerable, which can bring considerable benefits to the British economy after "Brexit".
Therefore, Cui Hongjian pointed out that when handling Sino-British relations, we must not only see the differences between the parliament and the government of the other side, but also make an accurate and effective response to the British government's "two-handed strategy", which is very important.
(Look at the news Knows reporter Li Yao)