View from abroad: Kowtowing to dictators

NOBODY lays out the red carpet like the Brits, and for the Chinese president, they pulled out all the stops. From a ride with the Queen in her carriage escorted by the Household Cavalry to a 41-gun salute to a pint with David Cameron in his local pub near Chequers, the prime minister’s country residence, Xi Jinping was showered with the full range of protocol.

The poor Queen not only had to host a banquet for Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, but was also given a speech to read that included the hope that relations between the two countries would reach “ambitious new heights”. In his turn, Xi spoke of the “deep mutual affection” between Britain and China. All this hyperbole carefully skirted around troublesome issues like the tons of opium from India forced upon the Chinese by British traders backed by the Royal Navy in the late 19th century.

Cameron spoke of a “golden era” in relations, and this proved to be literally true with the signing of deals worth some 40 billion pounds during the Chinese president’s visit. The bulk of this was for a major nuclear plant at Hinkley Point that has raised many concerns due to the unproven technology involved, as well as the high price of the electricity it will generate once it is completed a decade from now. But the Chinese have insisted that their investment and their return be guaranteed by the British government. In another major infrastructure project, the Chinese will invest in a high-speed train link.

Another recent visiting head of state has been Egypt’s General Sisi, even though he has not received the same level of pomp and glitter. In truth, the timing of Sisi’s trip could not have been worse, coinciding as it did with the downing of a Russian jetliner over the Sinai desert soon after it took off from the resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh.

The Egyptians were desperate to show that the incident was an accident, and not an Islamic State-inspired act of terrorism. Egypt receives close to ten million tourists a year, with many of them — in particular Russians and Brits — going to the beaches around Sharm el-Sheikh. A terrorist attack will scare off many visitors, badly affecting an economy heavily reliant on tourism. Already, political turmoil and violence triggered by the Tahrir Square revolution and the subsequent coup that brought another military dictator to power has put tourists off Cairo and other popular destinations. So when the British government announced it was cancelling flights from and to Sharm el-Sheikh during Sisi’s visit, the Egyptians were both embarrassed and angered.As it was, many pro-democracy protesters dogged Sisi’s steps during his visit, holding placards and chanting noisy slogans.

The third strongman to visit the UK in recent weeks was Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev, a man who has long been criticised for human rights abuses. Leader of this Muslim Central Asian state for over 25 years, Nazarbayev has maintained a tight leash on his population, jailing opposition and media figures at will. So why was the red carpet rolled out for him in London? Unsurprisingly, Kazakhstan is Central Asia’s biggest exporter of gas and oil.

Just before Xi’s plane landed at Heathrow, two large British steel mills were forced to shut down because of cheap steel imported from China. Union leaders accused the Chinese of dumping, i.e., selling below the cost of production. As this is against World Trade Organization rules, they demanded that Cameron take up this issue with Xi. But as far as we know, the matter was not on the agenda.

The British Foreign Office has been uncharacteristically frank about why these leaders with questionable human rights records were invited to Britain in the first place. And once they had arrived, why were they not subjected to a grilling about their treatment of their subjects. According to a senior Foreign Office official, the higher priority of the government is now trade, not human rights. So no beating about the bush here.

And yet when Cameron was in Sri Lanka a couple of years ago to attend the Commonwealth summit there, he publicly berated ex-president Rajapakse for his government’s appalling treatment of the Tamils. But then Sri Lanka is a small country without oil reserves, and the Tamils in Britain form a significant voting bloc.

So what does this new approach in British foreign policy say about the country? Actually, not so new: witness the decades of sucking up to the Saudis for the sake of huge weapons deals as well as Saudi investment in Britain. Indeed, all countries tend to put perceived national interests ahead of principles. And while human rights might be a stick to beat selected states with, they don’t count for much where investments and jobs are concerned.

The reality is that all states are highly selective when it comes to choosing between human rights and domestic economic and political concerns. And it is one thing to wave the banner of freedom and democracy when in the opposition, but entirely another when a politician is in power.

When the Conservatives shared power with the Liberal Democrats in the last parliament, they were forced by their coalition partners to pay a degree of attention to human rights issues. Freed of this constraint by their recent election victory, they have reverted to type and brought their foreign policy in line with their true materialist agenda.

Whether kowtowing to Xi or welcoming Sisi, it is business as usual to Cameron and his cabinet.

Twitter: