On Tuesday, Boris Johnson announced his election as the new British Prime Minister. This incident will have an important impact on China, including Hongkong and Huawei. Johnson’s goal is to turn Britain into the 51st state of the United States-but without the right to vote!
Some China media mistakenly believe that Brexit is an internal issue of Britain, which will not have a significant impact on China, or mistake Johnson for "the foolish son of the landlord". Here, I need to correct this, and talk about the influence of Johnson’s election as the new British Prime Minister and Brexit on China. In particular, the intervention of external forces in the recent riots in Hong Kong explains why Britain played such a provocative role in it.
约翰逊正在将英国全面变成美国附庸
脱欧派如何将英国从中国的“欧洲桥头堡”变成美国的“反华马前卒”
目前尚未平息的香港骚乱有一个显著特点，那就是是英国在其中所扮演的角色——频频干涉香港事务，尤其是近来的事件中更是对香港事务指手画脚。中国驻英国大使馆和中国外交部，均对此作出了强烈回应。
很明显，在攻击中国时，美国和英国是各有分工——美国挑起对华贸易战，英国则是对香港事务指手画脚。但正如下文所示，表面现象掩盖了事实。英国对香港的挑衅性政策，是配合美国动作来进行的——这不是性质上的区别，而是技术性分工。
部分香港示威者在游行队伍中打起了美国国旗
英国目前所扮演的挑衅性角色尤其引人注目，因为这与几年前卡梅伦担任英国首相时的中英关系“黄金时代”的情况形成了鲜明对比。当时，英国不顾美国的反对，成为首个加入亚洲基础设施投资银行(亚投行)的G7国家。中国国家习近平对英国进行国事访问时，获高规格接待。当时，英国遵照1997年的交接，基本上避免了对香港的挑衅干预。但是，近年来英国却改变了这种姿态，我们该如何解释这种变化？这种变化与鲍里斯·约翰逊成为英国新首相后又有着什么样的关联？
The answer to this question lies in the international situation behind Britain’s Brexit-this is not a purely British domestic issue at all, but will have a great impact on China. Cameron’s promotion of the "golden age" of Sino-British relations is directly related to the British business people he represents who strongly support Britain to stay in the EU. He is a strong opponent of Brexit-Cameron completely opposed the referendum on Brexit in 2016 and was forced to resign after it was passed. Under his policy framework, Cameron formulated a highly rational strategy from the perspective of British people and capitalists, and made Britain a bridgehead for China to enter Europe.
Britain has great advantages in implementing Cameron’s strategy. London is the most important financial center in Europe, ahead of new york to become the world’s largest foreign exchange trading center and the world’s largest offshore RMB trading market. English is also the first foreign language that most China citizens learn. Therefore, for many China enterprises, it is much easier to invest and set up businesses in Britain than in German or French. Britain is a very important telecommunications center, and when Cameron is in office, he can ensure Huawei’s participation in this important market in Britain.
Cameron played table tennis with primary school students in Chengdu when he visited China.
During the eight years from 2000 to 2008, I was responsible for formulating London’s economic policies and held many meetings with financial companies in London, so I personally realized how much they attached to the relationship with China. An anecdote shows this point-this is a joke in the London business circle: the Spring Festival in China is so close to Christmas in Europe that the employees of financial companies in London have to attend more big meals to celebrate the Spring Festival after attending many big meals to celebrate Christmas. And this is very unfortunate for them, because at that time of the year, it is impossible to control weight!
Therefore, from an economic perspective, Cameron’s strategy is extremely beneficial to British capitalists and economic development. With the acceleration of overseas expansion of China enterprises, they think that Britain can be used as a springboard to enter the European Union. In addition to its strong position as the financial center of the European Union, Britain can also benefit from China’s investment-this is a real win-win result for both Britain and China.
But to pursue such a strategy, Cameron obviously needs to maintain a good relationship with China. This can explain why Cameron tried to avoid getting involved in Hong Kong affairs in the "golden age". However, Cameron’s economic policy is totally unacceptable to those Americans who want to stop the development of China.
Although the former glory of the British Empire is long gone, Britain is still the world’s major economy-the ——GDP ranks sixth in the world, the technical level of British enterprises is high, and London is the most important international financial center in the world outside the United States. Therefore, although it is beneficial for Britain to establish a win-win relationship with China, it is unacceptable to anti-China people in the United States, which is why the United States strongly opposes Britain’s entry into the AIIB. Brexit gave the United States a good opportunity to completely destroy the good relationship between Britain and China-Boris Johnson’s key role in this point eventually made him prime minister.
New Prime Minister Boris Johnson: Trump’s "Most Beautiful Spokesperson"
In the past, the United States fully supported Britain to remain a member of the European Union because Britain was regarded by the United States as a reliable ally that could influence EU policies. However, after Trump took office, he changed this policy and turned to support the split of the EU. Therefore, he supported Britain to leave the European Union and established a close relationship with the Brexit forces.
This change in US policy towards the EU is in line with Trump’s overall international strategy. Obama’s China strategy is to try to form a broad anti-China alliance-to achieve this goal, the United States must make compromises and concessions to its allies, including maintaining good relations with the European Union.
However, Trump believes that instead of making such concessions, the United States should ask its allies for more resources in order to increase the strength of the United States in dealing with China. Because Germany is unwilling to transfer its resources to the United States by increasing defense spending and accepting tariffs imposed by the United States, and Germany dominates the EU, Trump concludes that to weaken the EU, it is necessary to seek support for Brexit. This is in line with Trump’s strategy to deal with China. In order to realize this strategy, Trump has established a close relationship with the Brexit forces. As shown in the figure below, the first British politician Trump met after he was elected president was not from the ruling Conservative Party, but Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit Party.
Trump and farage
The new Prime Minister Boris Johnson is the perfect candidate for Trump’s strategy. Born in the United States, he is both an American citizen and a British citizen. Although his political career was in Britain, he did not give up his American citizenship until 2016. Johnson’s policy is to follow the lead of the United States, for example, he supported the American invasion of Iraq.
Johnson extremely belittled Chinese civilization. He once wrote:
A man who firmly supports the United States and greatly belittles China is certainly an ideal candidate for Trump, so he spared no effort to praise Johnson publicly.
After Johnson was elected, Trump used Twitter to "send a congratulatory message" for the first time
How deep is Britain’s "water" behind the tug-of-war of "Brexit"
After the referendum on Brexit was passed in 2016, fierce conflicts broke out in parts of the pro-EU and pro-American British capital-I believe that such an important issue was decided by democratic voting, and I believe that the power and capital power that lost the referendum can easily accept the result, but it is just a naive fantasy.
Cameron resigned as prime minister, but his successor was Theresa May, who supported Britain to stay in the EU in the 2016 Brexit referendum. Her strategic vision is to separate Britain from the political system of the EU, but remain in the more important economic system of the EU-the EU Customs Union. Her claim was supported by British Finance Minister Hammond and other government officials. To achieve this strategic vision, theresa may must reach an agreement with the European Union, but technically speaking, there is a loophole in theresa may’s vision, that is, Britain must ensure that there will be no economic border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. In order to avoid this situation, either the entity customs will be reset in Northern Ireland and other parts of Britain, and the British government will not agree to this; Either Britain stays in the EU Customs Union as a whole-this is the real purpose of the Brexit agreement envisaged by theresa may.
Trump can’t accept this policy at all, because for him, the most important thing is that Britain leaves the EU’s economic system (EU Customs Union) and signs a trade agreement led by the United States. As long as Britain remains in the EU Customs Union, it will remain in the economic system controlled by Germany, and it has no right to sign a separate trade agreement with the United States, which is dependent on the American economy.
Therefore, Trump supported the pro-American forces within the Conservative Party and the leader of the Brexit Party, and refused to support theresa may to reach an agreement with the EU. In response to this strategy, Johnson resigned as foreign secretary from the theresa may administration. Due to opposition from most people in the Conservative Party, Theresa May’s Brexit proposal was not passed in Parliament. At the same time, in close contact with Trump, farage began to form a Brexit party to support Trump, so as to threaten the Conservative Party in the election-the latter was badly hit in the European Parliament election in May 2019. Faced with three years of internal troubles and foreign invasion-the forced palace within the Conservative Party and election threats from non-party people such as farage, Theresa May was forced to resign.
On May 24th, theresa may, who announced his resignation, once choked.
Rejecting Huawei and interfering in Hong Kong-Johnson also pursues "American priority"
However, the fierce conflict between pro-British and pro-American capital in Britain will inevitably have a major impact on Sino-British relations-this will not only affect Hong Kong affairs, but also Huawei.
As part of the golden age strategy of Sino-British relations, the pro-EU Cameron allowed Huawei to participate in British infrastructure construction in order to benefit from Huawei’s technical expertise and competitive price advantage. At that time, Cameron also met Ren Zhengfei, founder of Huawei, at the Prime Minister’s residence at No.10 Downing Street. Of course, Cameron’s policy not only benefits Huawei, but also benefits the British economy, because Huawei’s solutions for its telecom infrastructure construction include the most advanced technology and the most competitive price advantage.
Cameron meets Ren Zhengfei
Under the attack of pro-Trump forces, Theresa May abandoned the strategy of building a golden age of Sino-British relations with China during Cameron’s administration, but still allowed Huawei to participate in the construction of British telecommunications infrastructure. Therefore, in May, the British government reduced Huawei’s participation in the construction of British telecom infrastructure-it was forbidden for Huawei to participate in the "core part" of the 5G mobile facilities, while the "non-core part" could use Huawei products. But for Trump/America, this is not enough, because Trump/America wants Huawei to be completely excluded from the UK’s 5G system construction, just as the United States completely prohibits Huawei from participating in the US telecommunications infrastructure construction.
In order to achieve the Trump/US goal, the pro-American forces in the Theresa May administration designed to prevent Huawei from participating in the UK’s 5G construction. One of the most notorious incidents was that the National Security Council allowed Huawei’s "limited participation" in the UK’s 5G construction meeting to be leaked–this extremely confidential organization’s information was leaked for the first time in history. The British Defence Minister was fired for this unprecedented leak.
After the partial victory of excluding Huawei from participating in the "core part" of the UK’s 5G construction, the United States began to increase pressure and demanded that Huawei completely withdraw from the UK’s 5G construction. The key step to achieve this goal is for Britain to withdraw from the EU Customs Union, so that it can sign a trade agreement with the United States. As the British Sunday Telegraph pointed out on the details of the trade negotiations between Britain and the United States: "The negotiators of Donald Trump said that the next prime minister wants to reach a post-Brexit trade agreement with the United States, but it depends on whether he is willing to accept the tough policy of the United States against China telecom giant Huawei.
The Sunday Telegraph reported from Whitehall that British officials close to transatlantic trade negotiations believed that if Britain allowed Huawei to provide equipment for the new 5G mobile network, the negotiations would probably break down.
The result of Brexit will determine whether Britain will continue to provoke China on the Hong Kong issue.
With the increasing anti-China forces in the British government who are pro-American and leave the European Union, the British government ignored the fact of Hong Kong’s return to China, frequently pointing fingers at Hong Kong affairs and provoking the China government. The reason why the British government is going further and further on the road of anti-China is that the anti-China forces in the British government who hold pro-American and Brexit positions are increasing day by day. They completely overthrew the policy of establishing a golden age of Sino-British relations with China during Cameron’s administration and turned to support the policy of Boris John, the new British Prime Minister who replaced Theresa May.
Therefore, it can be seen that some China media think that Brexit is only an internal issue of Britain and has nothing to do with Sino-British relations and Hong Kong affairs. On the contrary, Britain provoked China in Hong Kong affairs and intensified its attack on Huawei, which is inextricably linked with the struggle behind Brexit.
Considering the strength that Johnson relies on, his policy is to follow the lead of the United States. To sum up, his policy is to make Britain obey the instructions of the United States like a pug, or to turn Britain into the 51st state of the United States, even if it has no voting rights! Just as the Daily Telegraph, a mainstream British newspaper, pointed out in an article entitled "Johnson intends to visit the United States as soon as he enters Downing Street to ensure a post-Brexit agreement with the United States and rebuild relations with Trump":
The British ambassador to the United States, Kim Daroc, was forced to resign recently because of the leaked memorandum, which confirmed Johnson’s attitude. This incident has once again confirmed the destructive power of pro-Trump and pro-American forces in Britain to the Theresa May administration. The British ambassador to the United States, in accordance with his duties, submitted a functional assessment report on the Trump administration to the British government-the Trump administration was "incompetent" and "abnormal". Because such letters are very sensitive, they are regarded as state secrets and only distributed to senior officials. But they were leaked to the British media, apparently by senior British people who were pro-Trump.
Johnson’s style is to follow Trump’s lead.
Almost all British politicians have responded to this question, emphasizing the harm to the British government by leaking such top secret information. Boris Johnson, on the other hand, focused on Trump’s defense, thus forcing the British ambassador to the United States to resign. As a British journalist wrote on Twitter: "In fact, the ambassador was fired by Johnson on Trump’s instructions." As the Daily Telegraph pointed out in a report entitled "Kim Daroc’s forced resignation sent a signal to theresa may’s successor-either leave the European Union or face Trump’s anger":
As he praised Johnson in the past, Trump tweeted on July 19: "I like him. I talked to him yesterday. I think we will establish a good relationship. " In addition, Trump said that Theresa May has done a very bad job on the Brexit issue, and Johnson can solve the Brexit problem. He also revealed that he had communicated with Johnson before he ran for the British Prime Minister.
In view of this, after Johnson is elected as prime minister, it is possible that Beatrice May will follow the lead of the United States on issues such as Hong Kong.
From the above, it can be seen that pro-Trump and pro-American Boris Johnson have close ties with Brexit supporters, and his actions are contrary to China’s interests. It is expected that he will be more anti-China than his predecessors on Hongkong, Huawei and other issues.
However, it is necessary to point out that this struggle is still inconclusive, because the issue of Brexit has not been resolved. In this struggle, neither side has really paid anything-it is just empty talk about the referendum and their position in the referendum. Theresa May’s policy contributed to the emergence of the new word "BRINO", which meant that Britain left the European Union in name, but in fact it did not formally leave the European Union. As a supporter of the United States, Brexit supporter Johnson suggested that Britain leave the EU without reaching an agreement with the EU, that is, "no agreement to leave the EU", although during the referendum in 2016, he claimed that they hoped to reach an agreement with the EU to leave the EU, and thought it was easy to achieve this goal.
Although both sides hold high the banner of "democracy" and "referendum", they are actually fighting fiercely for more fundamental economic and geopolitical issues. This vividly shows that those who think that such an important issue can be solved through elections are really "stupid and naive". In this struggle, Boris Johnson and other forces who supported Trump won a great victory in forcing Theresa May to step down. But so far, they have not been able to solve Trump’s key problem-how will Britain’s economic relations with the European Union and the United States go?
An anti-Brexit rally outside the Capitol.
Johnson’s problem is that although he succeeded in forcing Theresa May to step down, his policy of supporting Trump and the United States violated the interests of the British economy and the British people. Prohibiting Huawei from participating in the UK’s 5G telecommunications infrastructure construction will cause the UK to pay extra costs and delay the launch of the UK’s 5G network, which is only part of the unreasonable economic cost paid by the UK.
Britain’s exports to the EU account for 42% of Britain’s total exports, while those to the United States only account for 18% of Britain’s total exports. Therefore, from an economic point of view, it is not cost-effective for Britain to withdraw from the European Customs Union and sign a free trade agreement with the United States. In fact, some British capitals, hedge funds and similar financial institutions will not suffer losses due to Britain’s separation from the European economic system, but almost all manufacturing, automobile, pharmaceutical and most financial services will suffer heavy losses. In addition, the British people will lose a lot of jobs and their living standards will decline.
Because of this, the struggle against Boris Johnson began before he took office. One of Boris Johnson’s plans is to suppress opponents of Brexit. The specific measure is that after taking office, he will suspend parliament before October 31, the date when Britain should have left the EU. Essentially, this is a "soft" coup. However, Congress rejected this proposal by a majority vote as illegal-more than 40 members of Johnson’s Conservative Party opposed supporting this proposal.
Therefore, in order to echo the interests of the United States, Johnson plans to separate Britain from the European political and economic system (European Customs Union) on October 31, that is, "no agreement to leave the European Union". However, since the proposal to suspend parliament was rejected, it is not clear whether Johnson’s supporters are in the majority in parliament. Therefore, this issue will trigger a fierce political crisis in autumn-the most serious political crisis in Britain since World War II. In view of this, the outcome of this struggle will not only determine whether Britain will leave the European Union, but also affect Britain’s position on other issues in China, such as Hongkong and Huawei.
China’s foreign policy does not allow it to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, which is consistent with international norms-and Britain has officially and rudely violated this rule and interfered in the Hong Kong issue. But this does not mean that China will not be influenced by what happens in other countries. Sometimes this connection may not be obvious on the surface, but it will be closely related to the basic development of social forces. China media have clearly noticed the aggressive attitude of Britain in the recent Hong Kong provocation. In addition, the China media have also noticed the growing crisis surrounding Brexit, but few media have noticed the internal relationship between the two.
Obviously, for the above reasons, in the next few months, Britain will face a huge impact from its internal pro-Trump and pro-American forces, and they hope that Britain will follow the United States more firmly. If these forces win, it will be a blow to Britain and China (including the Hongkong issue). Perhaps China will not directly intervene, but it is necessary for China to pay close attention to and clearly understand the problems revealed by these events.
Attachment: English original text of this article
Brexit explains why Britain has played such a provocative role in Hong Kong
On Tuesday Britain announced that Boris Johnson became its new Prime Minister. This event has significant implications for China – including for Hong K ong and for Huawei. Johnson’s project is to turn Britain into the equivalent of the 51st state of the US – but without the right to vote! Because some Chinese media wrongly believe that Brexit is a domestic British issue, without major implications for China, or wrongly treated Boris Johnson as some sort of amiable fool, it is necessary to correct this and see clearly what is taking place and its consequences for China. In particular the international forces involved ma ke clear why Britain has played such a provocative role in recent events in Hong Kong.
Britain’s role in Hong Kong
A specific feature of the present provocations in Hong Kong is clearly the role played by Britain – which has made a series of statements attempting to interfere in Hong Kong affairs, in contradiction to the 1997 ending of Britain’s colonial rule and return of Hong Kong to China. The Chinese Ambassador in London, and the Chinese foreign ministry in Beijing, have strongly replied to these. It is clear a certain division of labour has been created in attacks on China with the US concentrating on the trade wa r and Britain playing a particularly provocative role in relation to Hong Kong. But, as will be seen, this fa?ade conceals the reality. Britain’s provocative policy is carried out by forces increasingly aligned with the US – it is not a difference in s ubstance but merely a technical division of labour.
This present provocative role by Britain is particularly striking because it forms a sharp contrast to the situation only a few years ago of the ‘golden period’ of China-UK relations when Cameron was British prime minister. Britain at that time became the first G7 country to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) despite US opposition. Xi Jinping made a highly successful visit to Britain. At that time Britain, in line with the 1997 settlement, largely refrained from provocative intervention in Hong Kong. What therefore explains the change, and how is this related to Boris Johnson becoming British Prime Minister?
The answer to this question lies in the international and social dynamic behind Brexit – which is not at all a purely domestic British issue and has si gnificant implications for China. Cameron’s development of the ‘golden period’ of British-China relations was directly tied to the fact that he represe nted that wing of British business which strongly supported Britain’s membership of the EU and he was a fierce opponent of Brexit – Cameron campaigned entirely against Brexit in the 2016 referendum and resigned because of his defeat in the referendum. Within that framework Cameron developed what was a highly rational strategy from the viewpoint of both Britain’s population and British capitalism of positioning Britain as the key gateway for China into the EU.
Cameron’s strategy for attracting China’s investment to Britain
Britain had great advantages in pursuing Cameron’s strategy. The City of London is Europe’s most important financial centre. It is the world’s largest centre for foreign exchange dealing, ahead of New York, and has already established a position as the largest market for RMB trading outside China. English is also the first foreign language most Chinese cit izens learn and therefore Britain is much easier for many Chinese firms to operate in than Germany or France. Britain is a very important telecommunica tions centre and Cameron could ensure Huawei was able to participate in this important British market.
During the eight years I was in charge of London’s economic policy, from 2000-2008, I had numerous meetings with the financial companies of London and therefore knew personally how centrally they saw relations with China. A single ane cdote sums this up – it was a joke among business circles of the City of London that it was very unfortunate that the Chinese Spring Festival was so close in time to the European Xmas, as after attending many dinners to mark Xmas they then had to attend many more to celebrate the Spring Festival and therefore it was impossible to control weight at that time of the year!
Cameron’s strategy was, therefore, extremely economically rational for British capitalism and Britain’s economic development. With many Chinese companies expanding abroad they saw Brita in as a very suitable point of entry into the EU. Britain could gain from Chinese investment in addition to its already strong position as the financia l centre of the EU – a real ‘win-win’ outcome for both Britain and China.
But to pursue such a strategy Cameron evidently needed calm and objective relations with China. This is the explanation of why during the ‘golden perio d’ Cameron therefore clearly tried to avoid becoming involved in provocations in Hong Kong.
The US against Cameron
But Cameron’s economic policy was totally unacceptable to those in the US who wanted to block China’s development. The days when Britain ruled the grea test Empire in the history of the world were, of course, long gone. But nevertheless, Britain remains a significant global economy – the sixth largest GDP in the world, with a high technological level and, in London, the most important international financial centre in the world outside the US. For Britain to be pursuing a ‘win-win’ relation with China, which although it benefitted Britain also benefitted China, was therefore unacceptable for anti-China circles in the US – which is why the US so strongly opposed Britain joining the AIIB. The US opportunity to c omprehensively disrupt Britain’s good relations with China came with Brexit – and the key role of Boris Johnson within this which has culminated in him becoming Prime Minister.
The historical position of the US in regard to Britain’s membership of the EU had been to support this – as Britain was seen as a reliable US ally to influence EU policy. But Trump reversed this policy to instead favour disrupting the EU, therefore arguing for Britain to withdraw from the EU, and he forged close personal links with anti-EU forces in Britain.
This change in US policy to the EU necessarily followed from Trump overall international strategy. The policy of Obama and Hilary Clinton had been to s eek to form a broad ‘anti-China alliance’ – to achieve which the US had to make concessions to its allies, which included good relations with the EU. Trump, however, considered the US could not afford such concessions and that instead allies should be forced to increase the resources they supplied to the US – so tha t the US would be strengthened in its confrontation with China. Because Germany was unwilling to transfer its resources to the US, through increased defence spending and acceptance of US tariffs, and Germany dominated the EU, therefore Trump concluded that Brexit must be pursued to weaken the EU. Support for Brexit was therefore integrally linked to Trump’s strategy to attac k on China. To pursue this strategy Trump created close relations with Brexit supporters in Britain – the first British politician to meet Trump after his election as President was not from the governing Conservative Party but Nigel Farage who is now leader of the Brexit Party (see photo)
Boris Johnson links to the US
Boris Johnson fitted perfectly into Trump’s strategy. Johnson was born in the US and was a US citizen, as well as British citizen, until 2016 – although Johnson pursued his political career in Britain. Johnson’s policy was of strong subordination to the US – being, for example, a firm supporter of the invasion of Iraq.
Johnson was also ultra-derogatory about Chinese civilization writing: ‘high Chinese culture and art are almost all imitative of western forms: Chinese concert pianists are technically brilliant, but brilliant at Schubert and Rachmaninov. Chinese ballerinas dance to the scores of Diaghilev. The number of Chinese Nobel prizes won on home turf is zero, though there are of course legions of bright Chinese trying to escape to Stanford and Caltech.
‘There are Chinatowns and takeaways all over the world, but in Britain the culinary impact of China is dwarfed by the [Indian] subcontinent…. It is hard to think of a single Chinese sport at the Olympics, compared with the umpteen invented by Britain, including ping-pong [table tennis], I’ll have you know, which originated at [British] upper-class dinner tables…
‘The Chinese have a script so fiendishly complicated that they cannot produce a proper keyboard for it…
‘As for military might – hard power – our fears are again overdone. The Chinese may have 2.5 million men in uniform, but of the long-range missiles you need to be a global power Beijing can wield only 20, which would make for a pretty brief fireworks display.’
Someone who was firm supporter of the US, and was derogatory about China, was, of course, an ideal candidate for Trump – who therefore duly went out of his way to publicly praise Johnson.
The fight over Brexit
Immediately after the referendum vote for Brexit in 2016 an intense fight broke out between the pro-EU and pro-US sections of British capital – it is m erely a na?ve illusion to believe that such an important issue was to be decided by a ‘democratic vote’ and that the powerful economic forces which lost the referendum would simply accept the result.
Cameron himself resigned as Prime Minister but his successor Theresa May had campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum. Her str ategy was to take Britain out of the political structures of the EU but to open up the way for the more important issue of it remaining within the EUs economic structures – the EU custom’s union. She was supported in this by key figures in the government such as finance minister Hammond. May therefore successfully negotiated an agreement with the EU to embody this strategy. Technically this was embodied in a ‘backstop’ in which Britain guaranteed there would not be an economic border between the British part of Ireland in the North, and the independent part of Ireland in the South. But to avoid this necessarily either there would have to be a customs border within the UK itself be tween the north of Ireland and the rest of Britain, which no British government would ever agree to, or Britain as a whole would have to remain within the EU customs union – which was the real aim of May’s agreement.
This policy was entirely unacceptable to Trump for whom the most important thing was precisely that Britain should leave the economic structures of the EU, that is its customs union, and enter into a trade agreement dictated by the US. As long as Britain was within the EU customs union it would remain within an economic structure c ontrolled by Germany and had no right to sign a separate trade agreement with the US – which would subordinate Britain to the US economy.
Trump therefore supported pro-US forces within the Conservative Party, and Brexit Party leader Farage outside it, in refusing to support May’s deal with the EU. In line with that strategy Johnson also resigned from the May government, where he had held the position of foreign minister. Because of this pro-Trump Tory opposition, and its support with the Conservative Party, May was unable to pass her deal with the EU through Parliament despite the government majority within it. Simultaneously, in close contact with Trump, Farage began to build the pro-Trump Brexit Party to electorally threaten the Conservatives – imposing severe defeat on them in the May 2019 elections to the European parliament. Faced with simultaneous revolt inside the Tory Party, and the electoral threat from Farage outside it, after a three-year fight inside the Conservative Party May was forced to resign.
But because what was in fact taking place was a fierce struggle between pro-EU and pro-US sections of British capitalism this process necessarily had s ignificant implications for Britain’s relations with China – which could be seen very clearly not only in relation to Hong Kong but also in relation to Huawei.
Developments with Huawei
As part of his strategy for the ‘golden age’ of relations with the China the pro-EU Cameron allowed Huawei to strongly participate in the building of B ritain’s telecommunications system – thereby getting the advantage of Huawei’s technical expertise and competitive prices. Ren Zhenfei, Huawei’s CEO, was invited as a guest to the Prime Minister’s office and residence at 10 Downing Street – shown in the photo. This policy, of course, aided not only Huawei but also strengthened the British economy as it gave access to the most technologically advanced and price competitive solutions for its telecommunications infrastructure.
With the offensive by pro-Trump forces May abandoned the approach of Cameron’s ‘golden period’ of relations with China but nevertheless still sought to maintain some of the advantages for the British economy of Huawei’s involvement in the British telecommunications system. Therefore May’s government c ut back on Huawei’s participation in British telecommunications, by saying that Huawei could not participate in ‘core’ parts of the new 5G system, but nevertheless it decided Huawei could participate in ‘non-core’ aspects. This, however, did not go nearly far enough for Trump/the US, which wanted Huawei excluded from the British 5G system altogether – in line with the total ban on Huawei participation in telecommunications infrastructure in the US.
In line with this US demand pro-US forces within May’s government therefore set about sabotaging Huawei’s participation in Britain’s 5G system. In a pa rticularly notorious episode information was leaked from a meeting of Britain’s National Security Council to attempt to discredit Huawei – the first ti me in history a leak had occurred from what is necessarily an ultra-secret body. Britain’s defence minister was dismissed over this unprecedented leak.
Having secured a partial victory, in excluding Huawei from the core parts of Britain’s 5G system, the US therefore began to step up pressure to cut Huawei out the British 5G telecommunications system altogether. A key weapon to achieve this is that if Britain withdraws from the EU customs union it can then enter into a trade agreement with the US – securing a key goal of the Trump administration. As the British Sunday Telegraph noted, to which details on the trade negotiations with the US had been leaked: ‘Donald Trump’s negotiators have signalled that the next prime minister’s hopes of a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States rest on his willingness to fall in line with tough American policies against the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei.
‘Whitehall correspondence seen by The Sunday Telegraph reveals that British officials close to transatlantic trade talks believe allowing Huawei to -pr ovide equipment for new 5G mobile networks could be a deal-breaker.’
This increasingly anti-Huawei position, with the advance of pro-US pro-Brexit forces, precisely paralleled in time the transition from Britain respecting the terms of the agreement on 1997 with China about Hong Kong to its new provocati ve attempts to interfere in Hong Kong. The reason for this parallel development on the two issues in an anti-China direction was, of course, because they embodied the same social forces – the growing weight of anti-China pro-US pro-Brexit forces, all of which entirely rejected Cameron’s ‘golden period’ of relations with China and supported the replacement of Theresa May by Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.
Therefore it may be seen it was a major misunderstanding in the Chinese media to see Brexit as a purely British domestic issue unconnected with its rel ations with China and issues such as Hong Kong. On the contrary, Britain’s provocative attitude in Hong Kong, and the growth of attacks on Huawei, was integrally related to the fight taking place around Brexit.
Johnson’s strategy is to subordinate Britain to the US
Given the forces which Johnson rests on his policy is of even greater subordination of Britain to the US. His policy might be summarised as that Britai n should be reduced from that of pet poodle to the US to that of pure lap dog, or that Britain should act like the equivalent of the 51st state of the US except that it would not have the right to vote in US elections! As the Daily Telegraph, the key British newspaper campaigning for Johnson as Prime Minister, noted under the self-explanatory headline ‘Boris Johnson to seek Trump trade deal in first move as leader’: ‘Boris Johnson wants to make resetting rela tions with President Trump one of his first acts in Downing Street by travelling to the United States to negotiate a post-Brexit trade deal.
‘The former foreign secretary is ready to fly there as soon as possible if he wins the leadership contest to try to secure a limited agreement in time for his “do or die” deadline of October 31.
“The key to the whole thing is the US…”an ally of Mr Johnson said.’
Johnson’s orientation was illustrated graphically during the recent enforced resignation of the British Ambassador to the US Kim Darroch. This event il lustrated once more the sabotage carried out of May’s government by pro-Trump pro-US forces. The British Ambassador in Washington, in line with his official duties, had sent to the British government his evaluation of the functioning of the Trump administration. These concluded that the administration was ‘dysfunct ional’ and ‘inept’. Because of their ultra-sensitive nature such Ambassador’s reports are regarded as a state secret and are circulated only to a high- level officials. However, they were leaked to the British press – clearly by a pro-Trump high level British source.
Almost all British politicians reacted regarding this issue by emphasising the danger to British state functioning of leaks of such top-secret informat ion. But Boris Johnson, on the contrary, concentrated on public defence of Trump – thereby forcing the resignation of the Ambassador. As one British journalist aptly put it on Twitter, the Ambassador was: ‘In effect, sacked by Johnson on the orders of Trump.’ As the Daily Telegraph accurately put it in an article headline, ‘The Kim Darroch row is a message to Theresa May’s successor – Get Brexit right or face Donald Trump’s wrath.’ The analysis, which the paper thoroughly supported, was entirely clear and accurate:
‘Donald Trump’s evisceration of Sir Kim Darroch was more than a political execution by Twitter.
‘It was a warning to the next prime minister to deliver Brexit, and quickly, or themselves face the considerable wrath of the US president…
‘His message was clear. The next prime minister, and their next "man or woman in Washington," must be a true Brexiteer.’
In line with his previous praise of Johnson Trump on 19 July Trump declared: ‘I like him. I spoke to him yesterday. I think we’re going to have a great relationship.’ Leaving no doubt as to his intentions Trump declared May had ‘done a very bad job with Brexit’ and that ‘I think Boris will straighten it out.’ Trump thereby also revealed that he was already coordinating with Johnson during the Tory leadership campaign before Johnson became Prime Minister.
Given this orientation Johnson as Prime Minister may be expected to follow an even more pro-US orientation than May on issues such as Hong Kong.
The clash of British political forces and China
It is clear from the above that the advance of the pro-Trump pro-US Boris Johnson forces are linked to Brexit and are against the interests of China – and would be expected to lead to even more anti-China positions on Hong Kong, Huawei and other issues. But it is important to understand that the final outcome of this fight is not at all yet decided because the issue of Brexit i s not yet settled. Neither side in that fight has paid anything that purely lip service to the referendum and the positions they put forward in it. May ’s policy was characterised as BRINO (Brexit in Name Only) because it would have ended in Britain remaining within the economic structures of the EU. Johnson’s pro-US supporters of Brexit now propose that Brita in should leave the EU without any economic agreement at all with the EU, a ‘No Deal Brexit’, despite having claimed during the referendum that they wanted an agreement with the EU and that it would be extremely easy to achieve this. While both sides held up the banner of ‘democracy’ and the ‘referendum’ they were in fact fighting viciously over much more fundamental economic and geopolitical issues. This illustrates graphically that any idea that such an important issue is simply settled because there has been a vote on it is merely na?ve. Within that fight the pro-Trump Boris Johnson forces have won an important victory in forcing May out of office, but they have been unable so far to settle what is for Trump the key question – what will be the economic relation of Britain with the EU and US?
The problem for Johnson, despite his success in removing May, is that his pro-Trump pro-US policy is against the interests of the British economy and against the interests of the British population. Refusal to al low Huawei to operate in Britain’s 5G telecommunications infrastructure, with the extra cost and delay this involves for Britain, is only one part of a wider economic irrationality. The proportion of Britain’s exports going to the EU is 42% compared to only 18% to the US – it ther efore makes no economic sense to withdraw from the customs union with the EU to join a free trade deal with the US. It is true that some parts of Briti sh capitalism, hedge funds and similar financial operators, would not lose from leaving the EU’s economic structures but almost all of manufacturing, the car industry, pharmaceuticals and large part of financial services would lose greatly. Furthermore, the British population would suffer significant loses of jobs and in living standards as a result.
The result of this is that the fight against Boris Johnson started even before he came to office. One of the plans being actively explored by Johnson w as that to overcome opposition to Brexit he would, after taking office, suspend Parliament until after the 31st of October, the date on which Britain is supposed to leave the EU. This would, in essence, be a ‘soft’ coup d’etat. This, however, was then blocked by Parliament voting by as majority to make this illegal – with more than 40 MPs from Johnson’s own Conservative Party rebelling to support this position.
Johnson is therefore determined, in line with the interests of the US, to attempt to take Britain out not only of the political structures of the EU on 31st October but also out of the customs union with the EU – know tec hnically as a ‘No Deal Brexit’. But, now that a proposal to suspend Parliament has been blocked, it is completely unclear if Johnson has a majority in Parliament to achieve this. In the autumn there will therefore be an intense political crisis ove r this issue – the most serious in Britain since World War II. For the reasons already given the outcome of this fight will determine not only Brexit b ut will significantly affect Britain’s position on Hong Kong, Huawei and other issue affecting China.
China’s foreign policy, in line with international rules, does not allow it to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries – a rule Britain is blatantly violating over Hong Kong. But this does not me an that China is not affected by what happens in other countries, sometimes by links that are not at all obvious on the surface, but which are connected by the fundamental development of social forces. China’s media has clearly noted the aggressive attitude taken by Britain in th e recent provocations in Hong Kong. It has also noted the long development of the crisis around Brexit in Britain. But quite insufficient attention has been given to the connection between the two.
It is clear for the reasons given above that in the coming months Britain faces a fundamental attack from pro-Trump US forces that wish to subordinate Britain even more firmly to the US. The victory of these forces would be a setback for Britain, but it would also be a setback for China – including in relation to the provocations in Hong Kong. China will not intervene but it is worth noting car efully and clearly understanding the unfolding of events.
This article is an exclusive manuscript of Observer. It cannot be reproduced without authorization.