Britain’s lavish state reception for Chinese President Xi Jinping is a dash-for-cash that shows how desperate the crumbling former empire is for foreign investment.
British Prime Minister David Cameron is laying on the finest trappings of the state to impress his Asian visitor – even as it causes misgivings within British society and tensions in Britain’s “special relationship” with Washington. But Cameron has no choice. Britain is broke and badly needs capital investment.
Even the normally supportive rightwing British media appears to be taken aback by the Conservative government’s hypocritical fawning.
The Daily Express reported how premier David Cameron and his Tory government are “rolling out the red carpet to beg for cash” during the Chinese leader’s first state visit to Britain. Meanwhile, the Financial Times gave prominence to critics accusing Britain of “kowtowing” to China.
President Xi and his wife were this week treated to a state banquet at Buckingham Palace, where the couple stayed as special guests of Queen Elizabeth. Throughout the visit, Cameron and his Chancellor George Osborne are to accompany the Chinese guests during the four-day itinerary.
Forget the British pomp and ceremony, gun salutes and royal indulgence. The bottom line is to secure billions of dollars-worth of investment that the British government is counting on the Chinese president to deliver.
“About 150 deals are expected to be sealed this week in areas such as healthcare, aircraft manufacturing and energy… Britain hopes to advance efforts to turn London into a key trading centre for China’s currency, the renminbi, and to boost trade with the world’s second largest economy,” according to the Guardian.
The showpiece investments being chased by Britain are those in nuclear energy and high-speed rail transport.
“Investment in infrastructure tops the UK government’s list of desired outcomes from this week’s state visit by Xi Jinping,” reports the Financial Times.
Some might say that this lavish reception is just the best of British hospitality afforded to the leader of the world’s second biggest economy. There’s nothing wrong, they say, with Cameron calling for a “golden era” in relations between Britain and China.
Certainly, Beijing seems to have warmly accepted the offer of a new strategic relationship in which Britain has placed itself as “the most important Western partner”. President Xi praised the British government for its wise choice of offering Beijing a strategic partnership.
Nevertheless, the dramatic appeal to China by British leaders has the unerring whiff of unscrupulous money-grubbing. Human rights campaigners and readers of Britain’s liberal Guardian newspaper are displeased at what they say is the Conservative government’s “hypocrisy” on the issue of human rights. Critics point to an alleged crackdown by Beijing authorities on media and civic groups, as well as the repression of dissent in Hong Kong.
We don’t have to agree with these critics in order to see that the British government is being far from principled, according to its own much-vaunted “British values”.
Previously, Britain has made protests about human rights and over Hong Kong in particular. Now, however, all that is being hushed up during President Xi’s visit – to the dismay of British rights campaigners.
Ironically, while Queen Elizabeth was entertaining President Xi, her son Prince Charles stayed away from the banquet at Buckingham Palace.
It has been speculated that he was making a veiled protest over China’s relations with Tibet, where Charles is a keen supporter of the Dalai Lama.
Even more fraught is Britain’s balancing act with the United States.
Just as Washington is sending a convoy of warships towards Chinese islands in the South China Sea, London is rolling out the red carpet for the Chinese leader.
As the Financial Times quoted one former “influential” US official as saying: “What we are seeing is a case study in kowtow. It’s not just [British Chancellor] Osborne, it’s the whole Cameron government that is bending over incredibly backwards and this will definitely create problems for Great Britain in the future.”
This is the second time that Britain has defied Uncle Sam over Chinese relations. Last year, Britain signed up to the newly launched Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, defying Washington’s efforts at isolating China.
Cameron has said there is “no conflict of interests” but it is unlikely that Washington will view Britain’s coddling of China in such an insouciant way.
For its part China has its own strategic calculations. By engaging with Britain, the Chinese government is no doubt happy to avail of new investment opportunities overseas at a time when its domestic economy is slowing. It also tends to mitigate American attempts at isolating Beijing. Good luck to China.
The point is that the whole affair shows a hypocritical expedience by the British state. Cameron and his government have been foremost in criticising Russia over alleged violations in Ukraine and human rights. On that score, London has been a cheerleader for imposing Western economic sanctions against Moscow, and dragging the rest of Europe to back Washington in a counterproductive stand-off.
But when it comes to China, the same British government evidently has no such concerns or scruples. Because billions of dollars of Chinese investment are being courted by Britain to shore up its crumbling infrastructure and pump up its financial centre in the City of London.
So when David Cameron pontificates about the “best of British values”, we should know that chief among those “values” is hypocrisy. Followed by duplicity and unscrupulousness.
Cameron and his government no doubt think they are being really “smart” by playing such double-games. But in doing so, Britain exposes itself as being bereft of any principles. On the world stage, it is just a broken-down imperial has-been that now gets by with an oversized begging bowl and a posh accent.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik and The Ovsishte Herald.
By Finian Cunningham
More than 70 years ago was the start of the greatest slaughter in history.
The recent resolution of the parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE fully equalizes the role of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany at the outbreak of the Second World War, except that it had the purely pragmatic purpose of extorting money from Russia on the contents of some of the bankrupt economies, intended to demonize Russia as the successor state to the USSR, and to prepare the legal ground for the deprivation of her right to speak out against revision of results of war.
But if we approach the problem of responsibility for the war, then you first need to answer the key question: who helped the Nazis come to power? Who sent them on their way to world catastrophe? The entire pre-war history of Germany shows that the provision of the "necessary" policies were managed by the financial ...
Tony Blair and his bloodstained paws
With most of the Balkans firmly under the grip of the Atlantic Empire, the empire now seem to be placing their dirty paws on the only place in the region that is left for them to further pillage, plunder and colonize: Serbia. War criminal Tony Blair is back in town, and so are some of the criminals that were directly involved in bombing Serbia in the 1990s. Once Blair arrives in town, fellow warmongering psychopaths can't be far behind.
In 2014 former CIA Director David Petraeus, now chairman of KKR Global Institute, subsidiary of Wall Street vulture capitalist firm KKR & Co., visited Serbia and met with Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic, who welcomed him and his plans with open arms. The theme of their conversation was about 'attracting foreign investors' - neoliberal economic-speak for plundering Serbian companies, workers and resources. Petraeus emphasized that KKR Global Institute ...
State frontiers are established by human beings
and may be changed by human beings.
Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf
Diplomacy, with all the conventions of its forms,
recognizes only real facts.
Charles de Gaulle
All of Adolf Hitler’s actions, from the time he rose to power in 1933 until 1939, could be described as one triumph after another. He met each challenge he faced: he took over as head of the country, returned Germany’s lost territories without a struggle, and was given permission from England and France to rearm. But one further task lay before him, and failure now would make his previous achievements almost pointless. The new, powerful, self-confident Germany needed to attack the USSR. Her army required a launching pad where she could deploy her army for invasion. Otherwise it would be impossible to take a stab at Russia. After all, it did not matter how many tanks and airplanes Hitler possessed or whether ...
There are few more intrinsically brutal facts than slavery’s role in the building of European, and then subsequently, its various settler empires. As a system, it became the peculiar institution, as it was euphemistically termed, in the American south. It signified a demographic theft that the African continent has struggled to overcome, a shock of exponential proportion.
Slavery was always lucrative, not merely because it filled the pockets of owners and investors, but because it was literally a state-building enterprise. The development of the southern US states, be it in terms of infrastructure, would have been inconceivable without slave labour. In 1776, it was estimated that 40 members of the British parliament were deriving earnings from enslaved entities of the Caribbean.
This historical burden has been handled in an assortment of ways. Caribbean voices were particularly angered at the end of September when Prime Minister David Cameron ducked and weaved around the ...
NATO has expanded dramatically after the collapse of its primary rivals, the USSR and the Warsaw Treaty Organization, Canadian Professor Michael Jabara Carley notes, posing the question whether NATO was founded as a defensive or an offensive alliance.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military alliance aimed against the Soviet Union, was established on April 4, 1949; and only seven years after the formation of NATO the Warsaw Treaty Organization was established bringing together eight nations (versus 15 NATO member-states).
So, who was the real "aggressor"? What alliance was an offensive one?
"There has been much discussion recently of NATO in the mainstream and alternate media. Why was NATO founded in the first place and why did it expand so rapidly after the collapse and dismemberment of the USSR in 1991," Professor Michael Jabara Carley of the University of Montreal writes in his article for Strategic Culture Foundation.
© AFP 2015/ FRANCISCO LEONG
The Canadian academic points out that according to widely held views in the West, NATO originated as a ...
Unification of Europe has brought about radical new divisions within Europe. The most significant split is between the people and their political leaders.
The June 23 British majority vote to leave the European Union has made strikingly evident the division between the new ruling class that flourishes in the globalized world without borders and all the others who are on the receiving end of policies that destroy jobs, cut social benefits, lower wages and reject as obsolete national customs, not least the custom of democratic choice, all to make the world safe for international investment capital.
Actually, the lines are not quite so clear-cut. Political choices never correspond completely to economic interests, and the ideological factor intervenes to blur the class lines. Globalization is not merely a process of economic integration regulated by flows of capital, which is deepening the polarization between rich and poor in the Western countries. It is also ...
Hitler Was Financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England
‘Soft Coup’ In Belgrade? Tony Blair Becomes Advisor To Serbian Government As Wall Street Plunders State Assets
Why London Presented Hitler With Vienna And Prague (I-III)
David Cameron, The British Empire And The Issue Of Slavery
Why Didn’t Washington Dissolve NATO After Collapse of USSR?
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart