UK government policy towards China

Approximate read time: 40 minutes

This briefing has been prepared in advance of the 19 December 2024 House of Lords debate:

Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench) to move that this House takes note of government policy towards China especially in relation to human rights and security issues arising from China’s actions in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, and the South China Sea, and against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

1. Background information

1.1 Overview

This briefing focuses on recent government statements relating to China and the specific geopolitical issues raised in the debate title (such as China’s actions in Hong Kong and Taiwan). It sets out the position of the new Labour government and highlights commentary on the new government’s approach. It also details concerns about the recent Chagos Islands deal.

More general background on China-UK relations and issues can be found in the House of Lords Library briefing ‘UK: Long-term strategic challenges posed by China’ (3 October 2023). This outlines the previous Conservative government’s approach to China and some of the threats and challenges posed to the UK by China’s actions. It also details debates and committee reports on China over recent years, including a 2023 report by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee and the then government’s response to that report.

For example, along with the human rights issues and geopolitical tensions highlighted in this briefing, the October 2023 House of Lords Library briefing discusses additional concerns for UK-China relations, such as:

• Cybersecurity. The UK has expressed concerns about cybersecurity risks and potential threats posed by Chinese companies, including the role of Huawei in the development of 5G infrastructure in the UK. There have also been continuing reports of cyberattacks by China impacting the UK. In March 2024 the then UK government linked it to previous attacks on the Electoral Commission, and sanctioned two people and a company in relation to this.^[1]
• Sanctions. In 2021, China imposed sanctions on nine UK citizens. These included five Conservative MPs (Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Nusrat Ghani, Tim Loughton (who is no longer an MP), Neil O’Brien and Tom Tugendhat) and two members of the House of Lords (Lord Alton of Liverpool and Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws).^[2] The sanctions were seen as a retaliation to sanctions imposed by the UK (among other countries) on several Chinese officials for their connection to reports of human rights violations.
• Allegations of spying. Two men have been arrested and charged in the UK under the Official Secrets Act 1989 for allegedly spying for China. One of the men arrested in 2023 was a parliamentary researcher. China opposes the claims of spying as “malicious slander”.^[3]

1.2 UK-China trade

According to recent figures published by the Department for Business and Trade, China was the UK’s fifth largest trading partner in the four quarters to the end of Q2 2024, accounting for 5.1% of total UK trade.^[4] Total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) between China and the UK was £87.7bn across those four quarters, made up of £32bn of UK exports to China and £55.7bn of imports from China. The statistics also showed that most of these figures represented a fall in trade value compared to the previous period (the four quarters to the end of Q2 2023).

Foreign direct investment (FDI) figures, measured for the 2022 calendar year, were:

• outward stock of FDI from the UK in China was £11.2bn, accounting for 0.6% of the total UK outward FDI stock
• inward stock of FDI in the UK from China was £4.3bn, accounting for 0.2% of the total UK inward FDI stock

2. Government position and statements on China

2.1 General

Overall, the new Labour government has set out its position on China as that of cautious cooperation and challenge. For example, it has said it will work with China on areas of shared interest (such as trade and the green energy transition) but would highlight and press the country regularly on its human rights record.

Manifesto commitment to an audit of UK-China relations

The government’s stance was initially set out in Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto. It criticised the previous Conservative governments’ policies on China as “inconsistent” and promised a long-term strategic approach to UK-China relations. It also said a Labour government would conduct an “audit” of the two countries’ relations, would support the people of Hong Kong, and would ensure the UK’s sovereignty was protected. It said:

We will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must. We will improve the UK’s capability to understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities China poses through an audit of our bilateral relationship. We will always act in our interests and defend our sovereignty and our democratic values. We will stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK.^[5]

Responding to questions about the audit more recently, the government has said that it is being conducted as a “cross-government” exercise led by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).^[6] It expects the audit to conclude in early 2025, and said Parliament would be updated upon its conclusion.^[7]

Meeting between UK and China’s foreign ministers: October 2024

In October 2024, Foreign Secretary David Lammy met his counterpart, China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, in Beijing. An FCDO press release described the talks as “constructive across the full breadth of the bilateral relationship, from areas of pragmatic cooperation to issues of contention”.^[8] It said both parties agreed to maintain regular meetings and discussions at ministerial level, describing these as essential.

The press release outlined some of the matters discussed, including working together on shared interests and concerns over China’s relationship with Russia, human rights and its actions relating to Hong Kong:

Areas of pragmatic, mutually beneficial cooperation were clear. This included working together on achieving the global green transition; making greater efforts on development and global health; and the safe use of AI. The foreign secretary reiterated his commitment to promoting secure and resilient growth through increased trade and investment which creates jobs, drives innovation, boosts productivity and provides economic stability and certainty for the UK economy. They agreed that the UK and China can support both countries’ growth objectives […]

The foreign secretary also raised a number of foreign policy and security matters, including Russia’s war in Ukraine, where he stated how both the UK and China have a shared interest in European peace and ending the war. He reaffirmed that concerns over China’s supply of equipment to Russia’s military industrial complex risks damaging China’s relationships with Europe whilst helping to sustain Russia’s war. The foreign secretary urged Wang Yi to take all measures to investigate and to prevent Chinese companies from supplying Russia’s military. The foreign ministers agreed to continue to discuss this and other broader foreign policy issues, such as the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Human rights were discussed, including in Xinjiang, and the foreign secretary referenced this as an area which the UK and China must engage, even where viewpoints diverge. Hong Kong is a shared interest, and the foreign secretary raised serious concerns around the implementation of the national security law and the ongoing treatment of British national Jimmy Lai, again calling for his release.^[9]

Overall, the press release said that, as both the UK and China are members of the UN security council and “global players” on the world stage, ongoing bilateral engagement was essential.

Questioned about these talks in the House of Commons, David Lammy reiterated much of the above. For example, he said they had “robust” discussions about human rights and China’s actions relating to Hong Kong, and that he had said the country “must stop supplying equipment to Russia that is being used in Ukraine”.^[10] He also stated he had “warned [China] that cyber-activity or interference in our democracy is unacceptable and will always be met by a strong response”.

Outlining attempts to work together on matters of mutual interest, David Lammy stated that the commitment to ongoing talks at ministerial level brought the UK into line with other countries’ approach towards China relations:

This brings us up to speed with the United States, whose secretary of state and treasury secretary have both made two visits in the past 18 months, as well as with partners including Australia, France and Germany.^[11]

Shadow FCDO minister Alicia Kearns criticised the government’s approach. For example, she questioned why the talks had occurred before the government’s audit on relations had been completed, believing it showed they were rushed and done without a clear strategy:

The opposition understand the importance of engagement, but not at any cost. All interactions with the Chinese Communist Party must be clear-eyed and part of a meaningful strategy, as per the high-level China strategy that the foreign secretary inherited from our government. Yet, as he said, this visit occurred before this government had concluded their so-called China audit. Would it not have been better to wait until he knew what interests he is seeking to defend and further? On the Conservative benches, it looks as if the foreign secretary rushed into engagement without a plan.^[12]

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Calum Miller also expressed concern about pursuing relations with China in the absence of addressing its human rights record and its “disregard” for international law.^[13]

A number of other issues were raised during the debate, including on Taiwan, Hong Kong and other specific actions by China. Many of these are covered in section 3 of this briefing. Full comment can be found in the debate:

• House of Commons, ‘Urgent question: China: Human rights and sanctions’, 28 October 2024, cols 532–44

Meeting between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chinese President Xi Jinping: November 2024

Prime Minister Keir Starmer met Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in November 2024. A press release summarising the meeting indicated similar discussions to those in the meeting between the UK and Chinese foreign ministers.^[14] For example, it said Keir Starmer stressed the importance of the countries working together in a positive manner, particularly on areas of mutual interest (such as green energy), but also the need for “frank discussions” on China’s dealings with Russia, Hong Kong and its human rights record. Keir Starmer called for a “consistent, respectful and pragmatic [approach] in order to advance [the countries’] shared goals”, but also stressed that it would be “rooted” in the UK’s national interests.

The press release ended by stating that talks would continue, with the chancellor expected to visit Beijing in 2025 to discuss economic and financial cooperation.

In addition, according to BBC reports, President Xi indicated his willingness to work closely with the UK, stating: “China and the UK have broad space for co-operation across various domains, including trade, investment, clean energy, financial services, healthcare and improving our peoples’ well-being”.^[15]

The prime minister addressed his discussions with President Xi directly during a debate on the G20 and COP29 summits on 21 November 2024. Making similar points to those outlined in the press release, he stated:

I also held a bilateral meeting with President Xi. This was the first leader-level meeting between the United Kingdom and China for six years. We had a frank, constructive and pragmatic discussion as G20 economies and permanent members of the UN security council. At a time of huge volatility, we both recognise the importance of engagement. I was clear that we will always act in our national interest, but we need to work together on challenges such as climate change and delivering growth […] Of course, there will continue to be areas where we do not agree, and we will address them clearly and frankly. They include a number of human rights issues, the sanctioning of members of this House and, of course, Hong Kong, but here too we need to engage. The lesson of history is that we are better able to deal with problems, and the world is safer, when leaders talk, so we agreed to keep this channel of communication open.^[16]

However, Opposition Leader Kemi Badenoch highlighted that, a day after the prime minister’s meeting with Xi Jinping, 45 pro-democracy activists were jailed in Hong Kong.^[17] She called on the government to take a stronger stance on China’s actions relating to Hong Kong. Further information on this can be found in section 2.2 of this briefing.

2.2 Hong Kong

Overview

The UK’s relationship with China over Hong Kong is complex. Reports of arrests and imprisonment of pro-democracy protestors have heightened UK concerns about human rights and the preservation of autonomy for the special administrative region.

The UK and China were both parties to the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in 1984.^[18] Under this agreement, Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997. The declaration guaranteed a “high degree of autonomy”, basic freedoms and the preservation of the Hong Kong special administrative region’s capitalist system for 50 years. This arrangement, known as “one country, two systems”, aimed to protect the rights and liberties of Hong Kong residents.

However, in recent years UK governments have raised concerns about the “erosion” of these freedoms.^[19] For example, in 2020, the Chinese government introduced the national security law (NSL) in Hong Kong which granted broad powers to authorities to suppress dissent and undermine the autonomy of the region. This included what the UK government has described as the deliberate targeting of prominent pro-democracy figures, journalists and politicians.^[20] The law also allows extraterritorial arrests. However, the Hong Kong government claims that human rights are now better protected under the legislation.^[21]

Estimates from November 2024 suggest that around 304 people have been arrested for “cases involving suspected acts or activities that endanger national security” under the NSL.^[22] In addition, 45 people were recently jailed for “conspiring to commit subversion” under the NSL. There has also been the high profile case of Jimmy Lai, a pro-democracy advocate and media tycoon who owned the pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper until its closure in 2021.^[23] He is charged with two charges of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces, and one of conspiracy to publish seditious material, and could face life imprisonment. Mr Lai has British as well as Chinese citizenship. However, the UK government has said that China does not recognise dual citizenship and is treating him solely as a Chinese citizen. The FCDO has said it has requested consular access and assistance to Mr Lai, and has called for him to be released.

In 2020, the then UK government argued that the NSL was a breach of the 1984 declaration.^[24] In response to the introduction of the law, on 31 January 2021 Boris Johnson’s government launched the British National (Overseas) visa scheme to offer a pathway to British citizenship for eligible Hong Kong residents. Between the scheme’s introduction and the end of March 2024 (the latest data available), approximately 173,543 have applied and 144,400 people have arrived in the UK from Hong Kong under the visa scheme.^[25]

Further information on the situation in Hong Kong can be found in:

• House of Commons Library, ‘Future of human rights in Hong Kong’, 22 January 2024
• Council on Foreign Relations, ‘Hong Kong’s freedoms: What China promised and how it’s cracking down’, 19 March 2024

Recent government comment

Speaking on 19 November 2024 about the imprisonment of 45 pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong, Catherine West, the minister for the Indo-Pacific, stated it was against the principles of free speech and was another sign of the erosion of freedoms. She said the UK would continue to stand up for the rights of Hong Kong citizens:

China’s imposition of the NSL in Hong Kong has eroded the rights and freedoms of Hong Kongers. Today’s sentencing is a clear demonstration of the Hong Kong authorities’ use of the NSL to criminalise political dissent.

Those sentenced today were exercising their right to freedom of speech, of assembly and of political participation, as guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Basic Law. The UK will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong, and all states should uphold their international obligations to protect these fundamental rights.^[26]

In addition, in response to a question about Jimmy Lai’s detention, Catherine West issued a written response on 3 December 2024 stating:

British national Jimmy Lai’s case is a priority for the UK government, and we are closely monitoring his trial. The foreign secretary has been consistent in raising Jimmy Lai’s case with counterparts in the Chinese government, including during his meeting with China’s foreign minister in Beijing on 18 October [2024]. The minister for Indo-Pacific also raised Lai’s case with the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities when she visited Hong Kong on 14–15 November.

The UK government has consistently called for Jimmy Lai’s release and raised concerns about his case directly with the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities.^[27]

The prime minister also reportedly raised his concerns about Jimmy Lai’s detention with Chinese President Xi during their meeting.^[28]

However, Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel has been critical of the government’s response, urging a stronger stance and querying what commitments China was giving to address the issues being raised.^[29] In addition, Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative MP for Chingford and Woodford Green and one of the parliamentarians who has been sanctioned by China) has consistently raised the issue of the detention of Jimmy Lai and others, and pressed Keir Starmer on whether he actually called for their release:

I return the prime minister to his meeting with President Xi. He may recall that at the time, President Xi put four red lines, one of which was about democracy and human rights, which he said he would “allow no challenge”. I have been in contact with many Hong Kong refugees here, who fled Hong Kong, and they were worried about the prime minister’s failure to condemn the arrest of the 45 and to call for their release and that of Jimmy Lai.

I do not believe the prime minister really answered the question properly, so I will give him another opportunity. Can he now get to the dispatch box—he can forget that another minister who might have said it—and say, right now, that he as prime minister condemns the Chinese government for their arrest and incarceration of the 45 peaceful democracy campaigners and calls for them to release the campaigners and Jimmy Lai immediately, because they are in breach of the Sino-British agreement?^[30]

Keir Starmer responded:

I am happy to affirm and confirm all of that. I did raise those issues—[Interruption.] I said I condemned it a moment ago and I am happy to say so. [Interruption.] I just did and I will say it again. These are serious issues that the right hon. member has consistently raised, and I recognise that and we have discussed the matter between ourselves on previous occasions. It is important that where we have these significant differences, particularly on issues of human rights, we have frank, open discussions about them. That is why these matters have been raised repeatedly, and I myself raised them in the meeting I had earlier this week and will continue to do so. I am happy to be clear about that condemnation and to repeat that for him.^[31]

The government also published the latest edition of the six-monthly reports on Hong Kong in September 2024. It noted similar issues to those listed above, and stressed the importance of supporting Hong Kong and its people through regular dialogue:

This government will remain committed to Hong Kong’s future as an open and vibrant city. This will require mature channels of government communication to raise concerns where we believe Hong Kong’s future risks being undermined, to support the interests of Hong Kong people, their autonomy, their rights, and their freedoms; and to provide a warm welcome and continued protection to all members of the Hong Kong community who have made the UK their home.^[32]

2.3 Taiwan

Overview

Taiwan is an island in the South China Sea with a population of approximately 23.4 million people. Its official name (as set out in its constitution) is the Republic of China.

Taiwan has a complicated international and democratic status.^[33] Although it has its own constitution, armed forces and democratically elected leaders, it is not formally recognised as a state by the United Nations, or indeed the United Kingdom. This is primarily due to pressure from China, which considers it a breakaway region that should return to the mainland’s control. However, Taiwan does not recognise this viewpoint, and its constitution asserts sovereignty over mainland China.

Over the years, China has applied political and military pressure to Taiwan to attempt reunification. Indeed, Chinese President Xi Jinping has vowed reunification, saying it is inevitable. He has also refused to rule out the use of force.^[34] Recently, in October 2024, China ran military drills around the island in apparent retaliation for remarks made by Taiwanese President William Lai opposing annexation.^[35]

It is generally believed that China sees obtaining control of Taiwan as “strategically important” because of Taiwan’s relationship with the United States and its important role in global electronics manufacturing.^[36]

Further information can be found at:

• House of Commons Library, ‘International status of Taiwan’, 26 November 2024
• House of Commons Library, ‘Taiwan: History, politics and UK relations’, 28 March 2024

Recent government comment

In October 2024 the FCDO issued a statement expressing concern about China’s military operations around Taiwan, and called for restraint, peace and stability:

We are concerned by China’s military exercises around Taiwan, which increase tensions and risk dangerous escalation in the Taiwan Strait [a stretch of water in the South China Sea separating Taiwan from mainland China].

The UK reaffirms our clear interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, which is of critical importance to global prosperity. We consider the Taiwan issue one to be settled by people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait through constructive dialogue, without the threat or use of force or coercion. We do not support any unilateral attempts to change the status quo. We call for restraint and the avoidance of any further actions that may undermine peace and stability.^[37]

Catherine West repeated this stance in a House of Commons debate on Taiwan on 28 November 2024. She also spoke more generally about the relationship between the UK and Taiwan, and its place on the world stage:

As two thriving democracies, the UK and Taiwan share a unique relationship which is rooted in our shared democratic values, cultural links and deep ties. Despite not having formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we have strong unofficial links across a range of issues such as trade, education, science and cultural exchange […]

We continue to be a staunch advocate for Taiwan’s meaningful international participation, because Taiwan’s valuable expertise on a wide range of issues can only benefit the international community as we work to tackle shared global challenges. We continue to work closely with our international partners to advocate for peace and stability, and to discourage any activity that undermines the status quo.^[38]

Similar points were made by the shadow FCDO minister, Wendy Morton.^[39] However, she said her party would press the government to deepen the UK’s relationship with Taiwan. She also questioned the government on what tangible progress had been made following ministerial meetings with China about its actions. In addition, she highlighted allegations that the FCDO had intervened to block a proposed visit to Parliament by former Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen in October 2024. Although the minister did not specifically address that point, the FCDO and the foreign secretary have said they do not recognise that characterisation of events.^[40]

2.4 South China Sea

Overview

The South China Sea is an area to the south of China surrounded by other countries including Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and the Philippines. China claims sovereignty over large areas of the sea, including land masses such as the Paracels and the Spratlys. However, its territorial claims are disputed by the other countries in the area.^[41]

The area is a major shipping route and fishing area. It is estimated that more than half of the world’s fishing vessels operate in this area. In addition, it is anticipated that the area may have large reserves of natural resources, such as oil and gas.

Figure 1. Map of South China Sea

The dispute over the area dates back centuries. However, there have been escalating tensions and conflicts in the last 50 years, including China forcibly taking areas of the Spratlys and Paracels (resulting in the deaths of Vietnamese troops and sailors), an increasing Chinese military presence, “island-building” by China and Vietnam (allowing them to improve military facilities in the area) and acts of aggression or blockading by Chinese boats towards others in the area (for example, ramming Filipino fishing boats).^[42] Japan and the United States have both taken action to attempt to deter Chinese aggression in the area. For example, the United States has conducted freedom of navigation operations in the area and has also supported other countries’ rights of freedom of navigation, including by backing their claims to do so under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, China has refused to accept rulings made under the convention.

Recent government comment

In a written question response on 3 December 2024, Catherine West called for peace in the region:

In the South China Sea, we are committed to international law, the primacy of the UNCLOS, and to freedom of navigation and overflight. We oppose any action that raises tensions or the risk of miscalculation and take no sides in the sovereignty disputes. We encourage all parties to settle their disputes peacefully through the existing legal mechanisms, particularly UNCLOS.^[43]

2.5 Human rights: Tibet and treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang

Overview

The Uyghur people are an ethnic group who speak their own language, Turkic (similar to Turkish), and are mostly Muslim. It is estimated that around 11 to 12 million Uyghurs live in the Xinjiang region of China. There have been escalating reports in recent years of a Chinese government crackdown on the group, including forced labour, attacks on religious practices and mosques, forced sterilisations and family separations, and sending Uyghur people to “re-education” camps or other forms of imprisonment.^[44] Uyghur activists have said they fear that the group’s culture is under threat of erasure.^[45] The BBC has also set out concerns from the Uyghur people that China is attempting to erase their culture; for example, it stated:

[Uyghurs] make up less than half of the Xinjiang population. Recent decades have seen a mass migration of Han Chinese (China’s ethnic majority) into Xinjiang, allegedly orchestrated by the state to dilute the minority population there. China has also been accused of targeting Muslim religious figures and banning religious practices in the region, as well as destroying mosques and tombs. Uyghur activists say they fear that the group’s culture is under threat of erasure.^[46]

In addition, the FCDO’s latest human rights report (published in 2023) stated:

Systematic repression of Uyghur culture, society and religion in Xinjiang continued, including ongoing mass detention. Further credible evidence emerged of the use of forced labour, predominantly targeting those from Xinjiang’s Uyghur population, affecting a growing range of global industries. In August, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report on the human rights situation in Xinjiang, which noted that restrictions of human rights “may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity”. Evidence continued to demonstrate that Uyghur Muslims were increasingly moved from political “re-education camps” to mass detention in formal prisons, with continued high levels of detention and prosecution.^[47]

Similar concerns have been raised about the treatment of individuals in Tibet. Tibet is ruled as an autonomous region of China, having been forcibly taken by Chinese troops in the 1950s. However, China’s rule is disputed by many Tibetans, particularly those communities and rights groups living in exile. As explained by the BBC, “the allegiances of many Tibetans lie with the exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, who is seen by his followers as a living god but by Beijing as a separatist threat”.^[48]

The FCDO’s human rights report set out the following human rights and access issues in Tibet:

Reports continued to document the suppression of Tibetan language and culture, including through the mass collection of DNA and other biometric data in Tibetan regions. There were further reports of politically motivated detentions and arrests of Tibetans as well as mistreatment in detention. Access to Tibet for foreign nationals—including accredited diplomats and journalists—remained highly restricted.^[49]

In addition, the UK has highlighted UN concerns about a wide range of human rights issues in Tibet, including:

[The] detention of Tibetans for the peaceful expression of political views; restrictions on travel; coercive labour arrangements; separation of children from families in boarding schools; and erosion of linguistic, cultural, educational and religious rights and freedoms in Tibet.^[50]

In October 2024, a range of countries, including the UK, issued a statement condemning these reported human rights violations. The statement urged China to comply with international human rights obligations and to release any individuals arbitrarily detained.^[51]

Countries including the US, Canada and the Netherlands have also previously referred to China’s actions against the Uyghurs as an attempted genocide. Although UK governments have never publicly endorsed this view, stating that it should instead be determined by an international court, the House of Commons did vote in 2021 in favour of declaring the actions as a genocide.^[52]

China has ignored or denied the allegations. For example, it claimed the reports of its actions in Xinjiang were a fabrication by the West to destabilise Xinjiang and Chinese industry.^[53]

The FCDO report also highlighted other human rights concerns in or involving China, including:^[54]

• tight restrictions on freedom of religion or belief
• censorship and the continued restriction of freedom of expression and access to information (for example, crackdowns on journalism)
• a lack of respect for the rule of law, including excessive use of detention and reports of deaths and torture while in detention
• restrictions on LGBT+ and gender rights, including police targeting of rights organisations

The report also outlined actions the FCDO was taking in response to human rights issues, including supporting NGOs in exposing violations in Xinjiang, Tibet and elsewhere, and using “multilateral fora” (such as the United Nations) to raise concerns and coordinate an international response.

Recent government comment

The House of Commons held a debate on the treatment of the Uyghur people and the issue of forced labour on 6 November 2024.

The minister for trade policy and economic security, Douglas Alexander, set out the government’s ongoing concerns about the reports. He said that human rights issues were raised with China by both the prime minister and foreign secretary at their recent meetings with Chinese officials. He also stated that consideration of these issues would form part of the government’s audit. In addition, he stressed specific work the government was doing to address the issue:

Last month, the UK signed an Australian-led joint statement at the UN third committee that called on China to uphold its international human rights obligations; implement United Nations recommendations; release individuals arbitrarily detained in Xinjiang; and allow access to Xinjiang for independent observers to evaluate the human rights situation [… We] want those independent advisers and observers to evaluate the human rights situation.

The United Kingdom has also undertaken direct action against those who have aided or abetted these activities. In 2021, under the previous government, the United Kingdom announced sanctions against four Chinese officials and one entity based on compelling and widespread evidence of serious and systemic human rights violations in Xinjiang. The government also conduct independent visits to areas of major concern where possible, and continue the delicate but vital work of supporting non-governmental organisations in exposing and reacting to human rights violations.^[55]

Addressing whether the UK government would declare the actions in Xinjiang as a genocide, Mr Alexander stated:

[It] is the long-standing policy of the British government that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for the competent national and international court, rather than for government or non-judicial bodies. Regardless of any court’s decision, this government will stand firm on human rights, including China’s repression of Uyghurs and others in Xinjiang. That includes raising our concerns, as I have suggested, at the highest levels of the Chinese government, and co-ordinating efforts with our international partners to hold China accountable for the actions it takes, and to account for human rights violations.^[56]

The minister also set out how UK legislation and regulations address forced labour issues in supply chains, for example, under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023.

Mike Wood, then shadow minister for business and trade, agreed with the need to tackle these issues and the importance of aligning trade policies with the protection of human rights.^[57] He stressed the work and stance taken by the Conservative government on the issue (for example, bringing forward the sanctions and legislation highlighted in Douglas Alexander’s speech) and stated:

As we move forward, all UK businesses must conduct thorough due diligence to ensure that their supply chains are free from forced labour. It is imperative that we renounce any friendly or commercial ties with entities engaged in or linked to forced labour. We must remain steadfast in our commitment to human rights, standing alongside those being persecuted in Xinjiang and ensuring that we do not profit at their expense.^[58]

However, he also questioned the government on its stance not to declare China’s actions as a genocide, noting that Labour had indicated before the election that it may do so.^[59] Labour has been criticised by some commentators for this perceived “U-turn”.^[60]

Answering a written question about Tibet, and China’s human rights record more generally, Catherine West stated on 21 October 2024:

This government will stand firm on human rights, including China’s repression of the people of Tibet. We will champion freedom of religion or belief for all abroad, and work to uphold the right to freedom of religion or belief through our position at the UN, G7 and other multilateral fora, and through bilateral engagement.

The foreign secretary raised human rights in his first meeting with China’s director of Foreign Affairs Commission Office and foreign minister, Wang Yi, on 26 July.^[61]

As noted above, the prime minister has indicated the UK will seek ongoing and open conversations on China’s human rights record.

2.6 Chagos Islands deal

In addition, concerns have been raised about the UK government’s recent Chagos Islands deal, which was announced on 3 October 2024.^[62] The Chagos Islands (or the British Indian Ocean Territory), situated in the Indian Ocean, are a British overseas territory and home to Diego Garcia, the site of a joint US-UK military base. The deal would see the islands ceded back to Mauritius (which had control until 1965), but with the UK maintaining rights to ensure the continued operation of the Diego Garcia military base for at least the next 99 years. The agreement would be subject to the introduction and ratification of a treaty and related legislation. The UK’s ownership of the island has been a source of dispute for years.

Concerns have been raised about the deal as Mauritius is seen as an ally of China and the base is considered “strategically crucial”, especially by the United States. For example, Reform leader Nigel Farage has warned it would damage the UK’s relationship with the US and particularly incoming President Donald Trump.^[63] In addition, representatives of the incoming president have indicated that addressing the deal will be a “high priority” day one issue for Trump.^[64]

Government statements on the deal

Speaking about the Chagos Islands deal in a House of Commons debate on 2 December 2024, Luke Pollard, minister for the armed forces, stated that it was supported by allies, including the United States, and was the result of thorough negotiations. He also said the deal secured the UK’s undisputed position regarding the Diego Garcia base. He stated:

On 3 October, the UK and Mauritius reached an historic agreement to secure the important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, which plays a crucial role in regional and international security […] The agreement is strongly supported by our closest friends and allies, including the United States. It has been supported by all relevant US departments and agencies, following a rigorous scrutiny process.

This base is a key part of UK-US defence relationships, as it enables the United Kingdom and the United States to support operations that demonstrate our shared commitments to regional stability, provide a rapid response to crises and counter some of the most challenging security threats we face. The president of the United States applauded the agreement. To quote him directly: “It is a clear demonstration that through diplomacy and partnership, countries can overcome long-standing historical challenges to reach peaceful and mutually beneficial outcomes.”

Several other countries and organisations, including India, the African Union, the UN secretary-general and others, have welcomed and applauded this historic political agreement.

Our primary goal throughout these negotiations, which started over two years ago under the previous government, was to protect the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. There will be clear commitments in the treaty to robust security arrangements, including arrangements preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, so that the base can continue to operate securely and effectively. The operation of the base will continue unchanged, with strong protections from malign influence.

For the first time in 50 years, the base will be undisputed and legally secure. Continued uncertainty would be a gift to our adversaries. That is why the agreement has been welcomed by all parts of the US system, and other critical regional security partners. Agreeing the deal now, on our terms, meant that we were able to secure strong protections that will allow the base to operate as it has done. We look forward to engaging with the upcoming US administration on this and many other aspects of the UK-US special relationship […]

We would not have signed off on an agreement that compromised any of our security interests, or those of the US and our allies and partners.^[65]

However, shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge highlighted the concerns of the incoming US administration, and questioned whether the deal was being rushed through before President Trump’s inauguration. For example, he stated:

We know that the new US administration are concerned about the government’s deal because presumptive nominee US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the deal “poses a serious threat to our national security interests”. He has also suggested that “it would provide an opportunity for communist China to gain valuable intelligence on our naval support facility”.^[66]

Luke Pollard responded that the government would continue dialogue with both the US and Mauritius on the deal. He emphasised:

He will be aware, of course, that it is illegal under US law for us to engage directly with the new administration until they come into place, but we will continue to have dialogue with our US and Mauritian friends.^[67]

He also stressed that the treaty would follow the normal process for ratification, including the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.^[68]

Further information on the Chagos Islands deal can be found in the House of Commons Library briefing ‘British Indian Ocean Territory: 2024 UK and Mauritius agreement’ (31 October 2024).

3. Commentary on UK-China relations

In September 2024, the Council on Geostrategy think tank published a paper setting out its suggestions on how the government should manage UK-China relations.^[69]

The paper stressed the position put forward by the 2023 Intelligence and Security Committee report that “the greatest risk to the UK is China’s ambition to become a technological and economic superpower, on which other countries are reliant”.^[70] Among other things, the author said that this requires the UK to:^[71]

• establish a clear definition of national security across Whitehall
• update its priorities for defending critical national infrastructure
• coordinate closely with international partners and allies

The paper then set out 10 priorities on China for the early days of the new Labour government. These included:^[72]

• Stopping the “high turnover” of ministers and civil servants, particularly those close to the China brief. It claimed that this had been a major cause of the “inconsistency” of the Conservative government’s approach.
• Establish a cabinet-level China committee, which would meet regularly and involve a range of relevant ministers (including, where possible, the prime minister).
• Make more use of external experts on China (such as the Great Britain China Centre), including providing tailored training courses for the civil service and Parliament. This training and expertise should also be extended to the devolved administrations.
• Protecting against the threat to UK science and technology. For example, it called for the government to set up a “Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) type committee, populated by experts in science and technology, able to give academia and businesses a quick decision on areas where cooperation is acceptable and areas where it is not”. It also said that China’s advance into the UK’s electric vehicles market was a significant national security risk, and urged the government to look at this policy area urgently.
• Supporting Taiwan and countries impacted by events in the South China Sea. The author said that the UK should be prepared to provide defence equipment or military assistance where required.
• Reviews of existing legislation. For example, the author called for “speedy reviews” of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and the National Security Act 2023.

Concluding his views, the author backed the principle of regular meetings and visits between ministers of the UK and China. He said that “while contacts may not always resolve misunderstanding and problems, they can help to avoid or minimise them”.^[73]

In June 2024, Yu Jie, senior research fellow at Chatham House, also wrote of a “muddled” approach to China under the previous UK government.^[74] She saw the July 2024 general election as a chance to recalibrate relations and urged any prospective new prime minister to visit China at the earliest opportunity. She acknowledged it was a difficult challenge to balance economic ties with China with geopolitical tensions and concerns, but called for the government to meet it with “robust and practical policy”.

On China’s part, Yu Jie suggested it was “perplexed” by recent political developments in the UK, such as Brexit and the “succession of short-lived prime ministers”. Therefore, she believed China would seek to reevaluate its relationship with the UK. However, she also believed China would be more willing to build relations due to its current economic circumstances:

[With] weaker than expected prospects for growth, China has a renewed impetus for engaging with European nations economically—despite the various ongoing trade disputes and Beijing’s position on the war in Ukraine.^[75]

Considering the possible China-UK relationship, Yu Jie highlighted how other European countries dealt with China in a more “sustainable manner” despite their concerns about relying on China and the potential national security risks. In contrast, she asserted that the UK sticks to “tough rhetoric” in its dealings with the country. She believed some of this may be down to the UK’s relationship with the US and its insistence on Western values. Although she believed that the UK should not abandon its values, she did see the need for more flexibility:

For Beijing (and many countries from the global south with which the UK has attempted to engage) diplomacy is mostly based on a confluence of interests rather than a relentless pursuit of likeminded-ness—something the UK and other NATO countries may struggle to understand.

The incoming UK government must better acknowledge this cognitive dissonance in diplomacy. It must decide policies based on a realistic appraisal of Beijing’s perspective, not on what is seen as accepted among the UK’s allies. This is not to say that the UK should give up long-cherished values when conducting diplomacy with non-Western countries. But its approach needs to be considerably more sophisticated to be effective in engaging with non-Western states.^[76]

However, writing in advance of David Lammy’s visit to China, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, Sacha Deshmukh, cautioned against the pursuit of trade goals at the expense of the human rights agenda. He stated:

This visit is a crucial opportunity for the foreign secretary to demonstrate the government’s true commitment to challenging publicly and privately Beijing’s brutal suppression of human rights in China and Hong Kong.

Behind closed doors but also in public, David Lammy needs to tackle the Chinese government over its systematic, industrial-scale repression of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and Tibet, its widespread imprisonment of peaceful activists and its completely unacceptable intimidation of students and campaigners here in the UK.^[77]

---

Cover image by Christian Lue on Unsplash.