By Craig Murray
March 26, 2023:
Information Clearing House
-- I am completely at a
loss as to why the UK should seek to join in
with the US in considering China an enemy, and
in looking to build up military forces in the
Pacific to oppose China.
In what sense are Chinese interests opposed
to British interests? I am not sure when I last
bought something which wasn’t maufactured in
China. To my astonishment that even applies to
our second hand Volvo, and it also applies to
this laptop.
I have stated this before but it is worth
restating:
I cannot readily think of any example in
history, of a state which achieved the level of
economic dominance China has now achieved, that
did not seek to use its economic muscle to
finance military acquisition of territory to
increase its economic resources.
In that respect China is vastly more pacific
than the United States, United Kingdom, France,
Spain or any other formerly prominent power.
Ask yourself this simple question. How many
overseas military bases does the USA have? And
how many overseas military bases does China
have?
Depending on what you count, the United
States has between 750 and 1100 overseas
military bases. China has between 6 and 9.
Click Here To Support Information Clearing
House
The last military aggression by China was its
takeover of Tibet in 1951 and 1959. Since that
date, we have seen the United States invade with
massive destruction Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea,
Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
The United States has also been involved in
sponsoring numerous military coups, including
military support to the overthrow of literally
dozens of governments, many of them
democratically elected. It has destroyed
numerous countries by proxy, Libya being the
most recent example.
China has simply no record, for over 60
years, of attacking and invading other
countries.
The anti-Chinese military posture adopted by
the leaders of US, UK and Australia as they pour
astonishing amounts of public money into the
corrupt military industrial complex to build
pointless nuclear submarines, appears a
deliberate attempt to create military tension
with China.
Sunak recited the tired neoliberal roll call
of enemies,
condemning: “Russia’s illegal invasion of
Ukraine, China’s growing assertiveness, and
destabilising behaviour of Iran and North
Korea”.
What precisely are Iran and China doing, that
makes them our enemy?
This article is not about Iran, but plainly
western sanctions have held back the economic
and societal development of that highly talented
nation and have simply entrenched its
theological regime.
Their purpose is not to improve Iran but to
maintain a situation where Israel has nuclear
weapons and Iran does not. If accompanied by an
effort to disarm the rogue state of Israel, they
might make more sense.
On China, in what does its “assertiveness”
consist that makes it necessary to view it as a
military enemy? China has constructed some
military bases by artificially extending small
islands. That is perfectly legal behaviour. The
territory is Chinese.
As the United States has numerous bases in
the region on other people’s territory, I truly
struggle to see where the objection lies to
Chinese bases on Chinese territory.
China has made claims which are controversial
for maritime jurisdiction around these
artificial islands – and I would argue wrong
under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
But they are no more controversial than a great
many other UNCLOS claims, for example the UK’s
behaviour over Rockall.
China has made, for example, no attempt to
militarily enforce a 200 mile exclusive economic
zone arising from its artificial islands,
whatever it has said. Its claim to a 12 mile
territorial sea is I think valid.
Similarly, the United States has objected to
pronouncements from China that appear contrary
to UNCLOS on passage through straits, but again
this is no different from a variety of such
disputes worldwide. The United States and others
have repeatedly asserted, and practised, their
right of free passage, and met no military
resistance from China.
So is that it? Is that what Chinese
“aggression” amounts to, some UNCLOS disputes?
Aah, we are told, but what about Taiwan?
To which the only reply is, what about
Taiwan? Taiwan is a part of China which
separated off under the nationalist government
after the Civil War. Taiwan does not claim not
to be Chinese territory.
In fact – and this is far too little
understood in the West because our media does
not tell you – the government of Taiwan still
claims to be the legitimate government of all of
China.
The government of Taiwan supports
reunification just as much as the government of
China, the only difference being who would be in
charge.
The dispute with Taiwan is therefore an
unresolved Chinese civil war, not an independent
state menaced by China. As a civil war the
entire world away from us, it is very hard to
understand why we have an interest in supporting
one side rather than the other.
Peaceful resolution is of course preferable.
But it is not our conflict.
There is no evidence whatsoever that China
has any intention of invading anywhere else in
the China Seas or the Pacific. Not Singapore,
not Japan and least of all Australia. That is
almost as fantastic as the ludicrous idea that
the UK must be defended from Russian invasion.
If China wanted, it could simply buy 100% of
every public listed company in Australia,
without even noticing a dent in China’s dollar
reserves.
Which of course brings us to the real
dispute, which is economic and about soft power.
China has massively increased its influence
abroad, by trade, investment, loans and
manufacture. China is now the dominant economic
power, and it can only be a matter of time
before the dollar ceases to be the world’s
reserve currency.
China has chosen this method of economic
expansion and prosperity over territorial
acquisition or military control of resources.
That may be to do with Confucian versus
Western thought. Or it may just be the
government in Beijing is smarter than Western
governments. But growing Chinese economic
dominance does not appear to me a reversible
process in the coming century.
To react to China’s growing economic power by
increasing western military power is hopeless.
It is harder to think of a more stupid example
of lashing out in blind anger. It is a it like
peeing on your carpet because the neighbours are
too noisy.
Aah, but you ask. What about human rights?
What about the Uighurs?
I have a large amount of sympathy. China was
an Imperial power in the great age of formal
imperialism, and the Uighurs were colonised by
China. Unfortunately the Chinese have followed
the West’s “War on Terror” playbook in
exploiting Islamophobia to clamp down on Uighur
culture and autonomy.
I very much hope that this reduces, and that
freedom of speech improves in general across
China.
But let nobody claim that human rights
genuinely has any part to play in who the
Western military industrial complex treats as an
enemy and who it treats as an ally. I know it
does not, because that is the precise issue on
which I was sacked as an Ambassador.
The abominable suffering of the children of
Yemen and Palestine also cries out against any
pretence that Western policy, and above all
choice of ally, is human rights based.
China is treated as an enemy because the
United States has been forced to contemplate the
mortality of its economic dominance.
China is treated as an enemy because that is
a chance for the political and capitalist
classes to make yet more super profits from the
military industrial complex.
But China is not our enemy. Only atavism and
xenophobia make it so.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and
human rights activist. He was British Ambassador
to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004
and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007
to 2010. His coverage is entirely dependent on
reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog
going are gratefully received.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk
Views expressed in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
Reader financed- No
Advertising - No Government Grants -
No Algorithm - This
Is Independent
