What's new

China-UK (Britain) Geopolitics and Economics: News & Discussions

Philip Hammond: UK and China 'on same page' over North Korea's nuclear test
  • adam-justice.jpg

    By Adam JusticeJanuary 6, 2016 15:23 GMT


British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed on 6 January that both the UK and China were on the 'same page' in condemning North Korea's nuclear test. He also said that sanctions against North Korea could be tightened.

"So I've discussed with my Chinese counterparts this morning, the emerging situation in North Korea, and I'm clear that we are on the same page on this. Both Britain and China condemn any attempt by North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons or to test nuclear weapons, and we're very satisfied with the way China is responding to this incident this morning," said Hammond.

1024x1024.jpg

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi speaks during a joint press conference with British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing, Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2016.

Hammond, who is in Beijing on a two-day trip, was speaking to reporters after meeting Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi.

"On the broader question of sanctions, look, there can always be more done to strengthen them and tighten the way sanctions are applied. But I do think they have an effect, and I would urge all of our partners to ensure that they are applied as constantly and effectively as possible," he added.

2FD53BF400000578-3388808-It_is_deeply_worrying_that_North_Korea_has_fission_based_nuclear-a-58_1452180340428.jpg

Worry: The international community is deeply worried the reclusive nation bay have tested a nuclear weapon (pictured, North Korean state TV announcing bomb test)

China's Foreign Ministry has said that China would "launch solemn representations" with North Korea over the test.

Philip Hammond: UK and China 'on same page' over North Korea's nuclear test


Welcome back @mike2000 is back !
 
Q&A: Author Martin Jacques explains UK’s pivot to China
BY GEORGE KOO on FEBRUARY 24, 2016 in AT TOP WRITERS, CHINA, GEORGE KOO

Asia Times top writer George Koo recently interviewed Martin Jacques, the author of the global bestseller, “When China Rules the World.” The British journalist and scholar was a guest speaker at a Feb. 18 forum in Palo Alto, Calif. hosted by the Committee of 100 and the Commonwealth Club. The topic was “Why the UK sees China as a friend and the US doesn’t.” Koo moderated and afterwards spoke with Jacques in an exclusive interview for Asia Times.

Koo: The UK and China both claim that their relationship has entered a golden era. Why do they say this? What does it mean?

Jacques: Hitherto the relationship between the UK and China has not been particularly positive. Until very recently, the UK has consistently emphasized the negative aspects of China, such as human rights and lack of democracy, as much as the positive. The new relationship between the two countries represents a big shift. The UK now views China as overwhelmingly positive. It sees China’s rise as crucial to its own future. It is seeking a comprehensive engagement with China and it perceives this as central to the UK’s economic future.

The Chinese welcome the UK shift; they are pragmatic and don’t allow the past to stand in the way. The fact that Britain has been America’s closest ally for over 60 years makes the new relationship with Britain an even bigger prize.

Koo: You have indicated that the UK approach to China was a recent decision made by the Cameron government. Can you tell us how this came about?

Jacques: In 2012, Cameron had a public meeting with the Dalai Lama. In response, Beijing put the relationship with Britain into the deep freeze. It would appear to have been a salutary experience. When normal relations were resumed, the British moved quickly and boldly to reassure China of their good intent and their desire to develop a different kind of relationship. The British had used their period in the deep freeze wisely: they no longer saw the world in such an overwhelmingly western-centric way, but came to the view that China was crucial to both the UK’s future and that of the world.

Koo: Recently, you gave a talk to the British government about the UK’s pivot to China and what it means for the future. Are there a lot of people in the UK that do not understand the nature and reason for the new relationship with China?

Jacques: It’s no exaggeration to suggest that the UK’s new attitude towards China represents a sea change. It goes against the grain of the bulk of previous conventional wisdom. Many in political circles and in the media are still singing from the old hymn sheet, emphasizing the negative over the positive.

Koo: The UK joined the AIIB against the wishes of the United States. Why? What does this tell us about the UK’s relationship with China and its relationship with the US?

Jacques: The US opposed the formation of the AIIB essentially because it saw the bank as a threat to the existing US global economic order and its institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. The UK has a different view. It saw the AIIB as an institution that could help meet the vast infrastructural needs in Asia. In addition, the UK government saw joining AIIB as a way of demonstrating to China, and the rest of the world, its new embrace of China. I don’t think we should anticipate any fundamental change in Britain’s relationship with the United States except that Britain has now shown a willingness to act independently of the US and even go against its wishes. That is new.

Koo: Did the US make a serious error in not joining the AIIB? Why didn’t it? Should it have done so?

Jacques: Without doubt the US made a serious error. The British decision to join demonstrated this mistake very clearly. After the British made the announcement, 24 other countries, including important European countries like Germany and France, applied to join the AIIB making a total of 57 rather than the previous 22 members. Presently, 30 other nations have applied and are on the wait list to join. That would make almost 90. The US succeeded in isolating itself with only Japan as its friend.

Koo: How do you explain the two different points of view?

Jacques: The US is the global hegemon. The present global order was designed by America and is essentially run by America. It is extremely anxious to preserve its global dominance. It regards China to be a threat to this. The UK is in a very different position; it long ago ceased to be a global hegemon. It therefore has no interest of this kind to defend. Its preoccupation is how to enhance and promote the economic fortunes of the UK. And it sees China as crucial to this.

Koo: According to the US, China has stolen hundreds of billions of dollars of intellectual property, costing the US millions of jobs. To what extent is Britain concerned about the theft of IP by China?

Jacques: Personally, I think these claims are greatly exaggerated. They belong more to the sphere of propaganda than reality. In comparison, the UK has so far been relatively unconcerned about this issue. Certainly it has made nothing like the same kind of fuss.

In this context it should be noted that while the US has been hostile to Huawei, the British attitude has been to encourage Huawei to invest on a large scale in UK, which is exactly what Huawei is doing.


Author Martin Jacques with his book “When China Rules the World”

Koo: The Cameron government faces the conundrum of whether or not to remain in the EU, promising to hold a national referendum on June 23. To what extent is this knotty issue influencing the UK’s policy towards China?

Jacques: The present British government believes the UK should remain in the EU. Bear in mind that two key players in the EU, Germany and France, share Britain’s new attitude towards China. China, like the US, strongly supports the UK remaining a member of the EU.

Koo: The US has always believed that other countries should adopt its democratic principles and values. But China comes from a profoundly different history and culture. Will it always be very different? Can the US accept that China will always be different?

Jacques: It will be very difficult for the US to accept that China is, and always will be, profoundly different from the US. The US believes that every country in the world should be like the US. This kind of missionary mentality is part of America’s DNA. But China isn’t and never will. It is impossible. If the US fails to accept this reality, then the future of China-US relations and world peace will be very bleak. But the US can come to a new attitude. Henry Kissinger, for example, has long accepted and argued that, for historical and cultural reasons, China will always be very different.

Koo: Is it inevitable, with the rise of China, that US-China relations will progressively deteriorate and acquire ‘cold war’ characteristics? What does history tell us about rising and declining powers?

Jacques: In my view, the main reason for the recent deterioration in the bilateral relationship is that with China’s continuing rise, the US has come to regard China as a growing threat to its own global preeminence. This does not mean it is inevitable that this process of deterioration will continue, leading to a new cold war and even open conflict. But the US will increasingly need to accept that its relationship with China must be one of parity rather than primacy. It is historically not true that a rising and a declining power inevitably leads to war; a classic exception to Thucydides Trap was the relationship between a rising US and a declining UK after 1945. The UK came to accept that it could not compete with the US and instead chose what we have come to know as the “special relationship.”

Koo: How serious are the present difficulties afflicting the Chinese economy? What are the chances of them getting much worse? What are the prospects for the Chinese economy, short and long term?

Jacques: China is facing a great economic challenge. Since 1978, its economy has been based on the Deng model of rapid economic growth, exports, high levels of investment, and cheap labor. Now this model is no longer sustainable. China is trying to shift to a new kind of economic model based on domestic consumption, a much larger service sector, and much higher productivity of both capital and labor. There are no guarantees that this transition will succeed. There are likely to be many mistakes along the way. It will be bumpy ride. But I have confidence that in the long term China will succeed.

Koo: Does the pivot to China reflect a break in the alliance with the US?

Jacques: The UK’s pivot towards China shows that its attitude regarding China is different from that of the US. This is the most important public disagreement between the two countries since 1956 (the Suez crisis). This does not mean that the intimate relationship between the US and UK is coming to an end. This is extremely unlikely. But it does suggest that the UK is willing to consider its future in a rather more independent way with regard to the US than it has hitherto since 1945.

Dr. George Koo recently retired from a global advisory services firm where he advised clients on their China strategies and business operations. Educated at MIT, Stevens Institute and Santa Clara University, he is the founder and former managing director of International Strategic Alliances. He is a member of the Committee of 100, the Pacific Council for International Policy and a director of New America Media.

(Copyright 2016 Asia Times Holdings Limited, a duly registered Hong Kong company. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Share this:
Q&A: Author Martin Jacques explains UK’s pivot to China – Asia Times
 
China, India eye ‘Asian Century’ as Brexit rattles old order
Some see a drift back towards sovereign nation states
NEW DELHI: Britain's vote to leave the European Union and simmering discontent in other Western countries is seen as hastening the arrival of an "Asian Century", analysts say, led by the rise of China and India.

By 2050, Asia will account for over half the world's GDP, almost double that of 2011, according to the Asian Development Bank, with three billion newly affluent citizens.

The EU and other powerful collectives such as the United Nations, NATO, IMF and World Bank hark back to the post-World War II era, with a vision of cooperation leading to peace, prosperity and security.

But the churning currents of globalisation and institutions' reluctance to reform have left Asian nations feeling that they are not well-represented and looking to form new alliances.

"The old system which kept the West rich and safe is under threat," said Neelam Deo, a former ambassador and director at Gateway House think-tank in Mumbai.

"The British voting to leave the EU in the way they did will impact the old institutions which were set up after World War II and intended to entrench Western power," she said.

Brexit has summoned the spectre of a domino-like departure of other members of the EU, pounded by the migrant and euro crises, as well as a fragmenting United Kingdom, should Scotland vote for independence.

A resurgent Russia, which is angered by EU and US-imposed sanctions and has friendly ties with China and India, has hailed the Brexit vote as it looks for cracks to exploit.

'Decline of Europe'

As the "American Century" got underway after WWII, following imperial Britain before it, China was writhing in the chaos of civil war and colonial India was just gaining independence.

Now China is the world's second-largest economy, set to overtake the US in around a decade, while India will be the world's most populous nation by 2022.

The International Monetary Fund named the Chinese renminbi a reserve currency - a main world currency - last November, joining the pound, dollar, euro and yen.

Rising economic stars Indonesia and the Philippines are growing at around five per cent a year, while Europe remains sluggish.

Yet emerging markets argue that IMF voting reforms still don't give them a big enough voice, while India laments its lack of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Three centuries ago, before the industrial revolution, Asia was the dominant power, far away from the twin Atlantic centres.

With a name that harks back to those days, Beijing's flagship "One Belt, One Road" policy seeks to revive the ancient Silk Road trade route with huge investment from central Asia to Europe.

In January China opened the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, seen as rivalling the World Bank or the Japan-led Asian Development Bank, seeking to expand its financial clout.

Describing itself as "a bank conceived for the 21st century", AIIB has attracted 57 members including Britain and Australia - with the notable exclusions of the United States and Japan.

'Romantic vision'

Asia's growing clout rests on various assumptions, including that nations continue on the same economic trajectory and aren't derailed by unforeseen financial crises.

Other threats include rising inequality, the middle-income trap - where an economy gets stuck at a certain stage of development - and competition for natural resources.

Tensions between rivals China and India were highlighted in June when Beijing blocked New Delhi's entry to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a trade group of 48 nations.

"India and China have a fair amount of discontent. Until this is resolved, the Asian Century is going to be very elusive," C Uday Bhaskar, a leading Indian security analyst, told AFP.

And the West will vigorously defend itself after Brexit, with US President Obama insisting at a NATO summit Friday that the earthquake will not harm transatlantic unity.

World Bank chief Jim Yong Kim used a visit to New Delhi in the aftermath to warn against nations "looking inward".

But the US is feeling similar pulls, with presidential candidate Donald Trump playing to a desire to retrench from globalisation and immigration by pledging to bring back manufacturing and build a wall with Mexico.

Some see a drift back towards sovereign nation states hostile to outside forces - seen in the mantra of "take back control from Brussels" that won the Brexit vote.

"We had this romantic vision to be one world - it is clearly over, nation member states have come back with a vengeance," said Samir Saran, a senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi. "It is something we are witnessing around the world."
http://dailytimes.com.pk/world/10-Jul-16/china-india-eye-asian-century-as-brexit-rattles-old-order
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36744736

UK starts post-Brexit trade talks with India

Business Secretary Sajid Javid is visiting India for the first trade talks since Britain voted to leave the European Union.

Mr Javid has met Indian government officials in Delhi to discuss how the trading relationship with India might work after Brexit.

After the talks he said he was confident the relationship would get "stronger and stronger".

While in India, Mr Javid has also discussed the future of Tata Steel UK.

He will also visit the US, China, Japan and South Korea in the coming months.

India is the third biggest foreign investor in the UK, according to UK Trade and Investment.

Total trade between the two countries was £16.55bn last year, the government body said.

Does Britain have to leave the EU before it makes a trade deal?

More negotiators
To help redraw those trade relationships, the UK government this week announced plans for a new team of up to 300 specialist staff, including trade negotiators, by the end of the year.

However, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond admitted on Thursday the UK would rely on "friendly governments" to help bolster its staff.


Indian businesses in the UK
110,000

people employed by Indian companies operating in the UK

  • 12 Indian companies each employ more than 1,000 people in the UK
  • 69,000 work for Tata Group, which owns 5 of those 12 firms
  • 33,000 of those work for Tata Motors, which owns Jaguar Land Rover
Grant Thornton India Tracker 2016
"The government will have to acquire additional trade negotiation resources," Mr Hammond told a committee of MPs.

"We will look to friendly governments to assist us, as well as seeking to hire the best resources available on the open market."

Brexit supporters argue the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals with fast-growing economies such as India than it currently has as an EU member.

Trading partners
The EU has trade agreements with 52 countries and it is expected the UK will need to re-negotiate these as part of Brexit.

Commonwealth countries accounted for about 10%, or £47.8bn, of UK exports in 2014, whereas about 44%, or £228.9bn, were with the EU.

Indian-owned companies employ about 110,000 people in the UK and grew revenue by £4bn to £26bn last year, according to a report by Grant Thornton.

Tata Motors, which owns Jaguar Land Rover, added an extra 4,000 jobs to employ nearly 33,000 people, the report said.

Meanwhile, sister business, Tata Global Beverages, which owns Tetley Tea, employs more than 1,000 UK workers.
 
It must hurt the Chinese ego immensely that they are being paired with India more and more often with each passing year.

Now of all their taller than deeper than friends in Pakistan is also doing the same.

CCP will be wise to wake up and smell the coffee.

No part of this text was comparative in nature. Speaking in terms of geopolitics and economics, it is kind of difficult not to mention two massive, developing countries in similar contexts.
 
No part of this text was comparative in nature. Speaking in terms of geopolitics and economics, it is kind of difficult not to mention two massive, developing countries in similar contexts.
Of course. But no way CCP or chinese in general is liking the comparison. Just pointing that out.
 
Nobody worth their weight in salt gets their panties in a bunch over a comparison.

Then what was he hullabaloo and insecurity over the NSG? Stop pretending to be ignorant. And please spare us the India Pak equal equal card.
 
Then what was he hullabaloo and insecurity over the NSG? Stop pretending to be ignorant. And please spare us the India Pak equal equal card.

What insecurity over NSG? As far as the media is concerned, the lion's share of the squabble over that issue is coming from Indian commentators.
 
What insecurity over NSG? As far as the media is concerned, the lion's share of the squabble over that issue is coming from Indian commentators.
Oh is it? Was it not CCP mouthpiece global times that published an article a day for a week straight?

Insecurity is what led CCP to block India's membership. Don't worry the entire world noticed what gets China scared. The NSG opposition works in India's favour and exposes the biggest proliferators duplicity
 
Oh is it? Was it not CCP mouthpiece global times that published an article a day for a week straight?

Insecurity is what led CCP to block India's membership. Don't worry the entire world noticed what gets China scared. The NSG opposition works in India's favour and exposes the biggest proliferators duplicity

And thus, by your logic, it was also "insecurity" that led to the rejection of China's bid for the MTCR?

These cards are played not at the whim of personal or even collective emotions, but rather a careful cost-benefit analysis of the choices at hand.
 
And thus, by your logic, it was also "insecurity" that led to the rejection of China's bid for the MTCR?

These cards are played not at the whim of personal or even collective emotions, but rather a careful cost-benefit analysis of the choices at hand.

It was not India that rejected China's entry into MTCR.

Please don't use flawed chibot logic. Even if India were a member of MTCR we would not have opposed China's entry because we are not insecure about being the sole supapawa. Especially by supporting failed states to needle peaceful countries.

Careful cost benefit analysis my foot. China was isolated at the NSG. You have to be living in perpetual denial to not notice that.

China opposed India's membership for obvious reasons. NSG membership means defacto nuclear power status. The group of 5 becomes group of 6. Something that's hurts chinese false pride immensely.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom