The Chancellor courting China signals a craven betrayal of British interests and human rights
The list of human rights abuses perpetrated by the People's Party is both lengthy and indefensible. From the grave persecution and reprisals faced by government critics and those who fight for human rights to the stringent censorship of Chinese citizens and quashing of freedom of expression and association, repression in China is only intensifying.
State-sanctioned abuse against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang persists – as does the continued repression of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. Forced organ harvesting perpetrated against religious minorities remains one of the most barbaric and sickening examples of abuse imaginable.Moreover, there is the espionage committed by agents of the Chinese state around the world. The Chinese embassy in London recently urged the UK to 'stop creating trouble' after Yang Tengbo – a businessman accused of spying on us on their behalf was barred from the country. The controversy unsurprisingly revived demands for the UK to classify China as a national security threat. However, with Reeves apparently cosying up to them, it feels like we are moving in the opposite direction.Yes, Reeves is right to point out that China is both our fourth-largest single trading partner and the world's second-largest economy. But this neither negates nor alleviates the grave threat to national security that China presents.
Reeves has promised to challenge China, saying she raised during her recent trip 'issues around human rights, forced labour, Hong Kong and Jimmy Lai, and around the sanctioning of parliamentarians'.
But one cannot help but wonder what truly goes on behind doors in such negotiations - and whether the chancellor or the wider UK government takes China's track record of human rights violations as seriously as they should. UK leaders have long excelled at paying homage to democratic principles and human rights but this so often amounts to lip service and empty promises.Since taking office last July, Labour has made no secret of its eagerness to improve our relationship with China. But such efforts have also been marked by an apparent dearth of consternation and anger at the regime's grisly catalogue of human rights abuses.
Take the weaponisation of Interpol red notices. Red Notices are designed to be alerts to track down serious criminals but the mechanisms have been weaponised by Beijing as a tool of transnational repression. In turn, they have been wielded to target individuals who have escaped the regime's repression - with human rights defenders and political dissidents among them.Such persecution is at times deeply rooted in ideology and those Chinese who have become successful in business and subsequently 'westernised' have found themselves punished. Being targeted by a Red Notice is life-changing - your assets can be frozen, you can face travel bans, and most irrevocably of all, your reputation can be profoundly damaged. Such harm can outlive the notice being withdrawn because it is found to be unwarranted. To sum up, China's sophisticated manipulation of Interpol's system of red notices is unparalleled - and its misuse poses a far-reaching danger to international law enforcement. Its successful infiltration of a global institution like Interpol is a tell-tale sign of the authoritarian regime's swelling power and control. The UK government – which gives substantial funding to Interpol – must demand reform of the institution.There is also the issue of cyberattacks. In 2020, the US Department of Justice announced criminal charges against Chinese nationals after a campaign of attacks aimed at governments and businesses.
If the UK government remains intent on pursuing economic ties with China, it will have to keep its eyes wide open. Unsurprisingly, concerns have been raised about the security risk posed by China's plans to build a new 600,000-square-foot embassy in London – both Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper have signalled their support for the mega-embassy. But the threat which China presents does not just exist in cyberspace, with Chinese nationals even assaulted here in the UK. Take the case of Consul General Zheng Xiyuan assaulting a Hong Kong protester inside the grounds of the Chinese consulate in Manchester back in 2022.
Reeves's opening to China signals a craven betrayal of human rights and of British interests.
Ben Keith is a lawyer with extensive background in international criminal and human rights law
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
China says it wants the world to work together to govern AI. The US, not so much.
At this weekend's World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, boxing robots thrilled the crowd. But the real heavyweight bout is between the US and China over the future of AI. The theme of the Shanghai conference, which was organized in part by the Chinese government and lasts until Monday, is "global solidarity in the AI era." In his keynote address, Chinese Premier Li Qiang called for a new global organization to coordinate responses to AI advancements. "Overall, global AI governance is still fragmented. Countries have great differences, particularly in terms of areas such as regulatory concepts, institutional rules," he said, speaking in Chinese. "We should strengthen coordination to form a global AI governance framework that has broad consensus as soon as possible." Li's pitch contrasted with comments made by US President Donald Trump earlier in the week. On Wednesday, the US president released his " AI Action Plan" and signed three executive orders. All of them, Trump said, were designed to free AI companies from regulatory burdens. "From this day forward, it'll be a policy of the United States to do whatever it takes to lead the world in artificial intelligence," he said before signing his executive orders. Trump's doctrine will likely benefit American AI companies. Many of them, like OpenAI, Meta, and Google DeepMind, submitted recommendations to the president and praised the new policies. However, it's an open question whether forgoing stricter regulations in the United States will benefit humanity. AI industry leaders have long warned about the threats AI could pose — everything from disinformation and economic inequality to total loss of all human control. In 2023, a group of prominent AI scientists, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, signed a one-sentence statement calling for AI regulation. "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war," it said. Altman said last year that AI could have a "negative impact way beyond the realm of one country." He said the tech should be regulated by an "international agency looking at the most powerful systems and ensuring reasonable safety testing." One way to do that is through an agreed-upon global framework similar to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which is enforced by the United Nations and which all but four countries have signed. The UN tech chief, Doreen Bogdan-Martin, told the AFP on Saturday that the world urgently needed a global deal to regulate AI. "We have the EU approach. We have the Chinese approach. Now we're seeing the US approach. I think what's needed is for those approaches to dialogue," she said. The Trump administration, however, is likely to hinder any such international agreement. Beyond its own effort to loosen restrictions at home, it has largely dismissed other global collaborations in favor of its America First policy. At the Shanghai conference, Geoffrey Hinton, a computer scientist known as the Godfather of AI, said international cooperation on AI would be difficult. He said few countries agree on basics like how misinformation should be policed. He said there was one subject, however, on which the whole world seems aligned: Humans should not let AI supersede their control. "So on that particular issue, it should be easy to get international collaboration," he said at the conference, adding, however, that it "may be difficult with the current US administration." "But rational countries will collaborate on that," he said.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Mapped: US Coast Guard Intercepts Chinese Ship Off Alaska
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new Newsweek map tracks a Chinese research vessel that was operating deep in the Arctic, north of Alaska, when it was intercepted by a United States Coast Guard aircraft last week. The Chinese ship Xue Long 2—an icebreaker designed for operations in polar regions—was previously monitored by the Canadian military as it entered Arctic waters from East Asia. Newsweek has contacted the Chinese defense and foreign ministries for comment via email. Why It Matters China asserts itself as a "near-Arctic state" and an important stakeholder in Arctic affairs. It has steadily expanded its presence in the region—which is surrounded by NATO members and Russia—by deploying ships and conducting research, some of which may have military applications. The U.S. has been alarmed by China's presence in the Arctic—including its cooperation with Russia—and the Pentagon, in an updated Arctic strategy, calls for an increased military presence, enhanced intelligence capabilities and greater cooperation with America's allies to address Chinese activity. What To Know A U.S. Coast Guard C-130J aircraft "detected and responded" to the Xue Long 2's presence on the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) in the Arctic—approximately 333 miles north of Utqiagvik, Alaska, the U.S.' northernmost community—on Friday, the Coast Guard revealed. The ECS—which the Coast Guard stated in a Saturday press release the U.S. has exclusive rights to "conserve and manage the living and non-living resources" within—refers to the portion of the continental shelf extending beyond 230 miles from the country's coastline. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines the continental shelf as the submarine areas extending beyond the territorial sea of a coastal state, following "the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin." In comparison, U.S. territorial waters and exclusive economic zones extend up to 13.8 miles and 230 miles from the country's coastline, respectively, according to UNCLOS. The Xue Long 2 was detected operating 149 miles inside the ECS boundary, the Coast Guard said. The Coast Guard aircraft was deployed as part of Operation Frontier Sentinel, a mission aimed at meeting presence with presence in response to adversary activity in or near Alaskan waters. A Coast Guard vessel also recently patrolled the Bering Sea off the coast of Alaska. The Chinese research ship Xue Long 2 is seen from a U.S. Coast Guard C-130J aircraft on the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf in the Arctic on July 25, 2025. The Chinese research ship Xue Long 2 is seen from a U.S. Coast Guard C-130J aircraft on the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf in the Arctic on July 25, 2025. U.S. Coast Guard According to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. has ECS claims in the Arctic, Atlantic waters off the East Coast, the Bering Sea, Pacific waters off the West Coast, the Mariana Islands, and two areas in the Gulf of America—also known as the Gulf of Mexico. What People Are Saying Rear Admiral Bob Little, commander of the U.S. Coast Guard Arctic District, said in a press release on Saturday: "The U.S. Coast Guard, alongside partners and other agencies, vigilantly monitors and responds to foreign government vessel activity in and near U.S. waters to secure territorial integrity and defend sovereign interests against malign state activity." The U.S. State Department said of the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Project: "All coastal States with an ECS have an inherent interest in knowing, and declaring to others, the outer limits of their ECS and thus where they are entitled to exercise sovereign rights. Defining the U.S. ECS outer limits in geographical terms provides the specificity and certainty necessary to manage the resources of the ECS." What Happens Next Details of the Xue Long 2's mission in the Arctic remain unclear. The U.S. and Canada are expected to continue monitoring the Chinese ship as it operates in waters off their coastlines.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Voices: There won't be a wealth tax – but Rachel Reeves can't afford to rule it out just yet
Normally, when politicians decline to rule something out, a sceptical media and public believe they are about to do it. But there should be one exception to this rule. Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and other ministers are refusing to rule out introducing a wealth tax in this autumn's Budget, when the chancellor is likely to raise taxes by at least £20bn to stick within her fiscal rules. I'm told Starmer and Reeves will not bring in a new wealth tax, such as the 2 per cent levy on assets of more than £10m advocated by a growing number of Labour MPs and Neil Kinnock, the party's former leader, to raise £10bn. A wealth tax is an easy slogan and fits on to a banner. It would do nicely for the Starmer allies hoping to nudge him in a more progressive direction as he seeks a long overdue 'story' for his government. But Reeves and Starmer are not convinced. The chancellor thinks wealth taxes don't work. Twelve developed nations had them in 1990s but only three remain; only one, in Switzerland, brings in lots of money. Reeves burnt her own fingers by targeting non-doms – a process begun by Jeremy Hunt, the outgoing Tory chancellor. I'm told Reeves privately dismissed fears the rich would respond by leaving the UK, saying: "They always say that, but it never happens." It is happening, and she is now considering changing her plan to make worldwide assets, including those in foreign trusts, liable to inheritance tax. One government insider told me: 'People can choose where to pay their taxes. It's very easy to move countries and they are doing it.' A new wealth tax would be complex, take years to introduce and probably not be worth the candle. Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, said its study found such a tax would 'lower long-run growth and employment, thanks to a decline in foreign and domestic investment. It would make UK businesses more fragile and less competitive, and create strong incentives for capital reallocation and migration.' Why not just say no to a wealth tax now? Reeves offered one explanation to her Tory predecessor Norman Lamont at a Lords committee hearing this week. He told her he found it 'a bit strange' the government has not ruled out the move. Reeves replied that if she ruled out one tax rise, the media would move on to the next option, and assume that one was going to happen if she failed to rule it out. A fair point – but not her only reason. Reeves and Starmer need to build bridges with the parliamentary Labour Party after it filleted their welfare legislation, so rejecting a wealth tax now would inflame tensions. I suspect that when the Budget comes, Reeves and her allies will whisper to Labour MPs they are introducing a form of wealth tax through other measures, while avoiding headlines about implementing a specific one. Another reason not to rule out a wealth tax is to help message discipline. Labour certainly needs more of that: ministers unwittingly fuelled speculation about tax rises in media interviews by giving different definitions of "working people'. Far easier to say taxes are a matter for the Budget and we don't comment in advance. Some senior Labour figures think Reeves's reticence is because she is considering proposals that are close to being a wealth tax – for example, increasing property-based taxes. I think she should bring in higher council tax bands for the most expensive properties. It's ludicrous that this tax is based on 1991 property values, and that in England, people in homes valued at more than £320,000 pay the same amount in their local authority. Reform could be sold as a genuine levelling up measure the Tories flunked as it would cut bills in the north and Midlands while raising them in the south. Alternatively, Reeves could increase capital gains tax for the second Budget running, perhaps by bringing it into line with income tax rates, which are higher. Some in government favour a rise in income tax with the money earmarked for defence, as I have suggested. Another option is to raise the top rate of income tax from 45 per cent to 50 per cent. But both ideas would leave Labour open to the charge of breaching its manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. Reeves could argue that circumstances had changed in a more dangerous world. But breaking its promise might be a step too far for an already deeply unpopular PM and party. I don't think there will be a wealth tax. However, the rich shouldn't celebrate. The Budget will increase existing taxes on the wealthy, in line with the government's mantra of protecting "working people", while ensuring 'those with the broadest shoulders carry the greatest burden'. Health warning: creating losers is not pain-free for them or the government, as Reeves discovered when she brought in the 'family farms tax'. But reforming some taxes under a better banner – 'fair tax' – is her best shot.
