The UK must consider carefully whether China is a trustworthy business partner
Credit: Xinhua / Alamy Stock Photo
3 min read
As UK ministers stride out into the world in pursuit of growth – navigating President Trump’s tariffs and seeking trading relationships and business partnerships wherever they can be found – it is important to consider two things: whether there ought to be ethical constraints to such activities; and how concerned we should be for our national security in dealing with potential partners.
I have been highly critical of China’s treatment of its minority communities – especially the Uyghur population, who, according to human rights groups, have suffered serious abuses at the hands of the government. These organisations have documented allegations including incarceration in detention camps, forced labour, coerced sterilisation and abortion, the placement of boys in re-education camps and the destruction of mosques and burial grounds.
I have also challenged the role of China in undermining Hong Kong’s rule of law, democracy and freedom of the press. As a result of parliamentary campaigns on these issues, I have been sanctioned by the Chinese government, along with five MPs and my colleague Lord Alton.
However, I am no hawk. I still believe the best route to good international relations is co-operation and positive discourse. Yes, we will trade, but only if we see greater alignment on issues of human rights and fair treatment in the workplace, proper remuneration of those who are employed, and respect for the religion and culture of minorities.
The recent debacle over the closing down of the last steel manufacturing company in the UK by its Chinese owner raised questions about their intentions. Was Britain to be forced into buying steel from China, the world’s major producer? What would be the implications for our own missile and armament production if supplies depended on China? Are private Chinese enterprises autonomous from the Communist Party of China (CCP) or does it have access to all the company’s data? Does it dictate corporate policy when considered necessary?
Recent research using a sample of 50 Chinese private companies in the technology sector should raise alarm bells. Only six were found to be fully autonomous from the CCP; 44 had some form of party connection. Of the 50 companies, 46 had established an internal party organisation, and in 41 cases, a party committee served as the company’s highest decision making body. Among the 33 firms that disclosed executive background information, 22 had senior executives who were CPP members. Of China’s 10 largest private technology enterprises, seven had at least one senior executive who was both a party member and active in one of the People’s Congresses.
I can already hear some wisecracking that if one examined the party affiliations of those leading most of our own major companies, one may find they too have strong links to one party. However, CCP membership involves deeper levels of commitment and there can be lethal consequences for the disloyal.
Tech companies represent a particular vulnerability, with incalculable opportunities for data gathering. The UK government should be conducting a review of tech companies with whom we currently have contracts to evaluate the risks involved. When it comes to China, there should always be a presumption that the Chinese state will have access to our data – we should evaluate just what we are prepared to share.
But we should also take a careful look at US companies like Palantir and other systems which, by making sense of vast amounts of data, have proven very seductive to the NHS and Ministry of Defence. We should be asking ourselves whether we are handing over our defence and health infrastructure to enterprises that may put their own motives ahead of our national interests.
These are challenging times globally and the duty of government is to protect all the needs of our people. Vigilance is going to be a high priority, and we have to decide who we can trust.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, Labour peer
