By Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Sir Malcolm Rifkind is the Conservative Member of Parliament for Kensington. He is a Defense and Foreign Secretary and currently serves as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The views expressed are his own.
News last week that Britain’s government plans to speed up visas for Chinese nationals is a reminder of the growing importance of the world’s second largest economy to Britain.
“The message will go out in China that we want people to come and do business here,” The Telegraph reported a cabinet source saying, before noting that the red tape associated with processing Chinese visas costs the U.K. economy $1.8 billion a year.
Yet though the economic opportunities are ripe, a telling anecdote from a few years back underscores some of the challenges Britain and others face in coping with China’s rapid ascent.
In November 2010, a British government delegation to China was faced with a classic diplomatic dilemma. It was a few days before Remembrance Day, the anniversary of the armistice that brought World War I to an end. During this period, Britons wear paper poppies as symbols of recognition of those who laid down their lives in service of their country in the poppy fields of Northern Europe, and by extension of all those who have since served in the armed forces.
But for China, the poppy is a symbol of the Opium Wars of the 19th century, and thus its national humiliation at the hands of Britain and other European powers. The prime minister and other senior members of the government were therefore asked by Chinese officials to remove the poppies from their lapels. The British delegation politely refused.
More from GPS: China's leaders should worry about climate change
A little further back, in the 1990s, I was faced as foreign secretary with an even more awkward diplomatic issue – how to handle ties with the Dalai Lama. I chose, as did Prime Minister David Cameron last year, to resist pressure from Chinese officials (and from some on my own side) not to meet the Dalai Lama. Like Cameron, we offered a compromise in light of Chinese concerns, specifically that we would not meet him on government property. The Chinese protested, but there were no immediate consequences for our bilateral relations.
These episodes illustrate the sensitive nature of the decisions that other countries must sometimes make when balancing efforts to boost relations with China with ensuring that they still also stand up for the values they believe in. But in Britain’s case in particular, the poppy episode is a reminder of just how different the relative strength of the two countries is from when those two wars I mentioned were fought.
China is of course much stronger now than it was when I was foreign secretary, but British leaders and officials must still bear in mind that the trade-off between economic and trade considerations on the one hand, and human rights concerns on the other, is not as straightforward as some would like to portray it.
Any government’s primary responsibility is the pursuit of the prosperity, security and freedom of its own citizens. Boycotting all countries who have questionable rights records is not only not in our interest, but ensures that we have no relationship, and therefore few channels through which to influence and encourage countries such as China to enact reforms that are in everyone’s best interests.
The most fundamental reform that must take place in China today is meaningful changes that respect the rule of law. I remember discussing this very issue with my Chinese counterpart as secretary of state for foreign affairs, and I was assured that China did indeed believe in the rule of law. In China, I was told, all people must obey the law.
But this was missing the point – it is not just citizens, but governments who must be subject to the laws of the land, as interpreted by an independent judiciary, if justice is to be served. The Chinese model has brought great progress, but it is questionable how sustainable this progress will be. Note, for example, that China already spends more on internal security than it does on national defense. A Chinese commitment to the rule of law at both the national and international levels would ensure the rights of Chinese citizens, would give confidence to foreign investors, and ultimately boost global stability.
We cannot compel China to do so. Britain in the 19th century was able to impose its will on much of the world by force. It spoke the language of free trade (and sometimes even believed it), but the gunboats were always available to convince those who did not share such a commitment, as China found out to its cost.
Britain in the 21st century is a very different place. It is by no means as puny as some delight in suggesting: it still has the world’s 4th largest military budget, the 7th largest economy, and is a member of the U.N. Security Council and G-8. But its influence now depends more on leveraging its membership of numerous multilateral military, political and economic institutions to convince others to commit to a global rules-based order that is in everyone’s interest, not just our own.
As China rises, it must confront a similar choice to that which the United States confronted upon its rise to super power status after World War II. Back then, America chose to lead the construction of international institutions that have outlived the Cold War, and indeed will survive any foreign policy mistakes it may have made along the way.
China’s relationship with the United States is, rightly, considered to be the most important bilateral relationship in the world. However the United States is still far richer than China, has a vastly superior military, and a wholehearted commitment to its role as a key security actor in East Asia. In addition, the two countries are bound tightly together by a structural economic interdependence. It is therefore how China treats its neighbors, rather than the U.S. or indeed Britain, over the next few years that will likely tell us far more about the path down which China’s leaders wish to take their country.
Very informative. Glad to see that there are at least a few knowledgeable unbiased articles on CNN. But I doubt any country would want to follow the US's path, America can keep the war boats and debts, China should keep on doing business and focus on green energy and environment!
Exchange interests relation.
human rights? lol how humane is Britain colonizing and killing anyone who opposes ? look at what it did to china, india, and Ireland. usa for human rights? lol at what the usa did to the native American Indians and the African americans brought and used as slaves? human rights my ass its jus to bully china into accepting everything the westerns wants it to do . truly media manipulation.
Brits and Americans never executed and slaughtered 100 million of its own people unlike Mao Zedong. Mao's crimes are far greater than Hitler, Stalin and Musollini combined together.
The death toll from famines in India alone, under British colonial rule is some 60 million.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the answer to your question is a No. There are signs that China wants to break the monopoly of Western values.
On his first trip abroad as president three weeks ago, Russia featured the first stop of Xi Jinping's maiden overseas tour. He demonstrated China's move to counter the US pivot to Asia and its efforts to forge a good neighbourly relationship with Russia. Apart from strengthening the bond the two might try to create a new world-order, inspired by the "Russian Soul" and the "Confucian Spirit".
China wants to fight poverty everywhere and they are willing to learn, teach and cooperate to be as efficient and as effective as humanly possible. Lets not make it about anymore than that, right now. On a separate note, when we see bipartisan agreements flow out of DC, Fareed, we must throw them a "thank you" party, because it will be time to become friends. A celebration, at that juncture, will be newsworthy.
Politics is meant to be observed by all. This way we, on a personal level, set ourselves on a continuously improving path through seeing how fragile, painful and imperfect life can be on this planet. At the same time, celebrating responsibly when there is a grace breakthrough. The people of this planet deserve a major grace breakthrough. That is all China is saying.
Why would China the old one on the block want to follow the path of the new punk in America for..China as a country around thousands of years and we just over a couple hundred as a nation since the 1700s ..They laugh at our policies,economy,government and with billions in population they laugh also at our culture so why follow someone they'd rather ignore..The only thing in common is international trading and if it weren't for that we'd probibly be at each others throats by now and that's just for starters,no respect from either side either so why start now!!
The Global Public Square is where you can make sense of the world every day with insights and explanations from CNN's Fareed Zakaria, leading journalists at CNN, and other international thinkers. Join GPS editor Jason Miks and get informed about global issues, exposed to unique stories, and engaged with diverse and original perspectives.
Every week we bring you in-depth interviews with world leaders, newsmakers and analysts who break down the world's toughest problems.
CNN U.S.: Sundays 10 a.m. & 1 p.m ET | CNN International: Find local times
Buy the GPS mug | Books| Transcripts | Audio
Connect on Facebook | Twitter | GPS@cnn.com
Buy past episodes on iTunes! | Download the audio podcast
Check out all of Fareed's Washington Post columns here:
Obama as a foreign policy president?
Why Snowden should stand trial in U.S.
Hillary Clinton's truly hard choice
China's trapped transition
Obama should rethink Syria strategy
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
RSS - Posts
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 4,864 other followers