My blog

Tag: Frances d’Souza

  • China’s Threat is Real, Warns Former Speaker of the House of Lords, Baroness D’Souza

    Baroness D’Souza on China: “The Threat is Real”

     

    There are three questions that come to mind in considering post-election Taiwan in a changing world.  These will focus on the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in relation to the Indo Pacific Region but most especially, on Taiwan itself.

    The questions are as follows:

    What does China want?
    How does it aim to achieve its goals?
    Will it succeed?

    As you will all know only too well, the West, by which I mean the UK, US and Europe, have consistently viewed the PRC through the prism of western democratic standards and an internationally accepted rules-based order. I’m not sure this is the most fruitful standard to analyse the PRC and its domestic and foreign policies if we want to understand China’s intentions.

    Looking at the various statements issued by the increasingly powerful President Xi Jinping over the last decade and more, the PRC is almost entirely focused on a Sino-centric approach – meaning that every policy, both domestic and foreign, is designed only to benefit China. Thus, Xi believes that the existing world order is biased against China and would be greatly improved if it evolved to embrace Chinese leadership – which he, and the greater majority of the population, see as an inherent force for good.

    This vision of China goes back to ancient history and aims to see China once again as the centre of civilisation, engaging with the world on its own terms, spreading knowledge and providing material benefit. Xi wishes to recreate the world order thereby righting an historic wrong and putting China’s interests and values above those of the rest of the world. The belief in the supremacy of Chinese systems and thought is in President Xi’s DNA and helps us to understand better, if not condone, some of the more aggressive actions of recent years.

    For example the ‘We Are One People’ mantra justifies the regime’s actions against the Uyghurs – with a complete disregard of the UN’s characterisation of forceful assimilation as a crime against humanity and possibly constituting genocide. This Sino-centric approach is presented to the world as altruistic, moral, and inclusive but is in fact self-centred, hierarchical, illiberal and coercive.

    So, the prevailing philosophy is the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and this ‘dream’ Xi has said will be achieved by 2050. Make China Great Again! The overriding condition for this rejuvenation is regime security, which Xi is taking to a new level, in order to formulate, implement and adjust Chinese foreign policy. Addressing new recruits to the People’s Liberation Army Xi has said their principal task is to enable China to ‘reclaim its place in the sun’, and this in turn entails recovering ‘lost territories’, establishing regional hegemony and furthering China’s global ambitions.

    His global ambitions are considerable. Xi argues that all countries must respect different political systems and assert that democracies are not superior to authoritarian regimes and therefore have no right to criticise the latter, especially on human rights and governance. He also aims to deter, or even defeat, the pre-eminent economic position of the USA, which would in Xi’s view substantially alter the global balance of power and establish China’s standing as a superpower. Finally, he wishes to extend the ‘soft power’ of Belt and Road initiatives especially in poorer countries, to gain leverage and control in loan repayments.

    Xi has spelt out and continues to refine an ideology to be accepted by the world. His pronouncements set out China’s direction of travel for the next decade and more, and is having a major impact on the world generally, but the Indo-Pacific region in particular.

    Again, you will be familiar with what China wishes to achieve in the short term: connect more closely with adversarial regimes such as Russia and North Korea and play an increasingly influential leadership roles in multilateral forums such as the UN, CPTTP and ASEAN.

    And then we come to Taiwan: in 2021 Xi said: ‘No one should underestimate the Chinese people’s powerful determination, will and ability to defend state sovereignty and territorial integrity.’ Recovery of Taiwan is vital for China’s geostrategic defence and offence but more than this, it is regarded as sacred territory, and this legitimises all the intimidation to which it is subjected by China.

    Mechanisms include legal, political, and psychological warfare; endless cyber-attacks, military harassment and brinkmanship, aggressive attacks in the South China sea, economic espionage, and regular spreading of disinformation. They also include isolation of Taiwan on the international front, including threatening those countries which have hitherto enjoyed diplomatic relations with Taiwan. The brutal National Security Law now being implemented in Hong Kong together with the astonishing offer of a bounty of $1 million for defectors, or promoters of freedom beyond Hong Kong, is a chilling reminder that the ‘one country, two systems’ promise is truly dead. In all these actions China is continuously testing the readiness of the International Community to hold it accountable to International Standards.

    Given the CCP appears intent on taking over Taiwan, how real is the threat, what is being done, what does the new administration in Taipei have to offer and what must it avoid? Furthermore what is the wider impact in the region and what can be done?

    The threat is real, and we are warned by serious China scholars that we should not take this lightly. Admiral Aquilino, head of the US Indo Pacific Command said at a Congressional hearing that in his view the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would be able to attack Taiwan in 2027, even by force if necessary.

    China not only has a far-reaching strategy but tactics to which President Xi requires conformity by every citizen. The problem is that neither the US nor the UK appear, as yet, to have a strategy but have instead what some have defined as a muddled and inconsistent approach. The US policy of strategic ambiguity virtually encourages the CPP to test the West’s resolve to strenuously oppose any armed threat aimed at Taiwan. There are very few clear red lines.

    Is the future bleak for Taiwan and indeed for many other countries in the Indo-Pacific region? Would it be a good idea to wait until, as one expert has said, the Chinese Communist Party falls under the weight of its own internal contradictions? Another commentator writes that China faces a near-existential dilemma over its macroeconomic strategy due in large part to its over-reliance on property and infrastructure development.

    The accumulated debt by property developers and local government infrastructure expenditure has reached $2.5 trillion. It could take many decades to eliminate this debt. It is difficult to predict how the economy can improve dramatically in the next decade due to the possible over-production of manufactured electronic items flooding international markets. And, of course, China also faces the looming problem of an ageing population dependent on pensions, with an ever decreasing work-force.

    Let me summarise, China is intent upon usurping the supremacy of the USA and will restructure its economic policies and military strategies to control the international shipping lanes to control, and therefore influence, trade, to their own advantage. It aims to subdue neighbouring states or, as in case of the Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka, secure long leasehold on geostrategic territory.

    The economic about-turn as articulated by Premier Li Qiang focuses on economic growth underpinned by advanced manufacturing. In steering rapidly away from infrastructure development, the President has forbidden any public building in at least ten provinces. This will have consequences – particularly for employment. Let us not forget that the legitimacy and stability of the Chinese Communist Party is almost entirely dependent on a successful and growing economy.

    Given the future dangers the country faces, I have to say that I would not relish being the new President of Taiwan. Nor am I in any position to suggest a way forward. However, I note that President Lai will have greater difficulty in getting innovative laws through the legislative Yuan – given the DPP’s loss of a majority. This will be especially the case for divisive issues such as defence spending and strategy, and likely to be exploited by the PRC.

    I am perhaps better placed to suggest what a new government in the UK could do; in the wake of the Russian attack on Ukraine, we have woken up to the real danger China poses in this region. The task is to make it abundantly clear that we will take action including public and frequent condemnation of ‘grey zone’ attacks, the imposition of Magnitsky sanctions against selected Chinese officials; reducing the number of Chinese students accepted for further study in the UK; strict prohibitions on the importation of any technology capable of surveillance including electronic cars and all cellular IOT modules; establish full diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

    This would undoubtedly provoke retaliatory action from China, but would also signal to the world that the de facto independence of Taiwan must progress toward a de jure state.

    Impose strict criminal sentences on any attempts to kidnap or harm in any way – Chinese citizens, whether from Hong Kong, or defectors. Finally, as we all know that co-ordinated action is more effective and thus the UK, in its international relations, must help to build a body of consensus among nations to resist Chinese encroachment on freedoms. There will be an economic cost to all trading partners but the cost of not taking multilateral action now will be far, far greater.

    The overall message to the PRC must be first, that the world will not allow the Chinese destiny of territorial acquisition, the bullying and flouting of the existing rules-based order to prevail and that the consequences of gross intransigence will be severe. Second, a war between the West and China would be an unmitigated catastrophe affecting China as much as it would affect the entire world. This is the reason why China’s territorial ambitions must be confronted.

     

    This is an edited version of a talk given at the Graduate Institute of Journalism, Taiwan, Taiwan Foreign Correspondents Club in April 2024

     

    Go here for more from Baroness D’Souza

     

    Baroness D’Souza on the encroaching power of the executive

    The Baroness and the Mujahideen: the remarkable tale of Marefat school in Afghanistan

    The Baroness: Frances D’Souza on Sir Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak and the current deluge of legislation in the House of Lords

  • Baroness D’Souza on the encroaching power of the executive

    Frances D’Souza

     

    My really big concern is the increasing power of the executive; this has been going on for years and years. It’s becoming extreme at the moment whereby we are getting bills which have been passed by the Commons which are essentially what we would call skeleton bills. These are really just broad outlines – and all the detail is being inserted by means of statutory instruments and secondary legislation which is unammendable.

    In the Lords our options are limited if the government decides to do that. We can either put down what’s called a fatal motion and vote on it and win. That’s extremely rare and has happened only a handful of times since World War II. The last time we did it was in relation to Universal Credit. This motion was overwhelmingly supported by peers on all sides of the House, include Tories. But it was so frowned upon by the powers-that-be that they commissioned a special enquiry into the power of the House of Lords.

    Of course this whole question goes all the way back over a hundred years to Lloyd George and to the Asquith administration, and the passage of the legislation which curbed the power of the Lords. The Parliament Act means that the Lords can create a delay of a year but it also ultimately means that the government gets its way. That’s right when you consider that the Commons is elected and the Lords isn’t.

    Even so, we’re now at a point where the government is getting all sorts of things past Parliament because of unchallengeable executive orders. I find this truly worrying. The person who did the most on this was Igor Judge, who sadly died in November 2023. He was a convenor in the House of Lords and an absolutely masterly speechmaker. He will be sorely missed.

    The only really effective check on government action are the Select Committees. These at least have the effect of making Ministers wary about what they do because they are going to have to answer to them. That fact alone makes the Public Accounts Committee, the Constitutional Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and so on quite powerful. But in the end these encounters occur after the event and that of course places severe limits on their power.

    You might recall also that Dominic Cummings refused once to attend the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I had thought up until recently that to refuse to appear before a Select Committee was a sort of hanging offence and that the Committees had the power to command Ministers to attend. That turns out not to be the case.

    That particular episode makes one wonder also whether there should be parliamentary oversight of the appointment of special advisors – or SPADs as they’ve become known. Look, for instance, at the appointment of Richard Sharp as Chairman of the BBC. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of that, the perception was always very dicey: he was somehow involved in brokering a loan for a very needy and irresponsible Prime Minister and then, hey presto, he became the chair!

    This isn’t an isolated instance. The government puts in people who it knows will be safe on their terms: it shows the way in which democracy can be undermined. We cannot escape the fact that the institutions of democracy are increasingly in the gift of the government.

    In a curious way, the Conservatives had the antithesis of all this in the shape of Lady May. Whatever one might think of her premiership, she is extraordinarily respected today as a backbencher: she embodies that sense of public duty which has all but left government. I had a drink with her shortly after she stepped down and I said: “I don’t know how you get out of bed in the morning when they’re treating you like that.” She replied: “You can do it if you think it is right.” It is impossible not to respect that.

    I got a different answer with another former prime minister in a similar encounter. I once asked Sir John Major why he didn’t come to the Lords and he said: “I have been so bruised by politics, I just can’t go near it.” Well, who can blame him?

     

    Frances D’Souza is a former Speaker of the House of Lords

     

  • The Baroness: Frances D’Souza on Sir Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak and the current deluge of legislation in the House of Lords

    The former Speaker of the House of Lords explains the current deluge of legislation facing a somewhat recalcitrant House of Lords

     

    I don’t think the next election will be a slam dunk for Sir Keir Starmer. The main reason for that is that I don’t think Starmer is a leader. Of course, Rishi isn’t either, but the Tories won’t do anything about that until the next election, after which they’ll likely get rid of him.

    Having said that, I met Sunak recently, and I found him very nice: he comes across as someone who listens, and he is very smart. He said something which I thought was wonderful: “I believe in doing less but doing it well.” This led onto another conversation about the sheer volume of legislation tumbling down on us. He said: “It was on the books when I came into position.” He was basically saying, “Not my fault, mate.” But it does mean that if Sunak continues – which I doubt he will – he’ll bring in less legislation, which would be a very good thing.

    All in all, it’s been this cataract of legislation. There have been three bills. The Online Safety Legislation Bill has been in the making for about six years, and deals with the uncontroversial idea that there should be some online protection regarding content harmful for children. Molly Russell’s father has been campaigning on this; and Beeban Kidron, a fantastic cross-bencher, has been leading on that, and done a fantastic job.

    I’m always in principle opposed to any legislation which interferes with free speech, because once it’s on the statute books it’s a hostage for fortune. You never know, we might have a fascist government one day; it’s not impossible. It’s a very technical bill, which only a very few people understand. Ultimately, the large companies are going to have to abide by advertising standards, but to get them to do that may require legislation.

    The second bill is the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill whereby the government is seeking to wipe off the statute books around 6000 executive orders which have come from the EU. The minister dealing with that happens to be dealing with that Martin Callanan is quite abrupt and there have been some testy exchanges. That makes life quite interesting – people at least wake up!

    But I’m particularly concerned about the third bill, the Illegal Immigration Bill. This goes against our treaty obligations – as was pointed out in the second reading in the House of Lords.

    As the Bill stands, we have the government-sanctioned entry points, which have special status – essentially if you’re an Afghan or Ukrainian refugee, or if you’re from Hong Kong. But let’s say, for example, that you come from Eritrea: if an asylum application is refused, then you can never return in your lifetime. Furthermore, if you’re an unaccompanied child, you can stay until you’re 18, then you’re sent to Rwanda. It rides roughshod over 1951 Refugee Convention.

    The point the government makes – and it’s clever of them to make it – is that nobody is coming up with an alternate system. What we argue is that if the UK is serious about immigrants and asylum seekers in genuine fear of persecution, then they’ve got to create more safe routes into this country.

    In actual fact, the numbers that comes here are quite low pro rata as compared with Germany, France, Italy, Greece and other European countries. Of course, there is undoubtedly a problem with economic migrants who come here, but there is a mechanism in place to determine people’s claims.

    The question is why does the government not go after the criminal gangs? They’ll never succeed in starving them of revenue with the current proposed legislation. Really they need to infiltrate the criminal gangs. Intelligence ought to know who they are – and if they don’t, they should. It’s certainly worthy of a question in the House. Are the intelligence services on this?

    Incidentally, the current processing of the special programmes is a shambles. The Ukrainian situation has more or less obliterated the work on Afghanistan, due to the melancholy fact that the Foreign Office can’t do two things at the same time. To be registered as a genuine asylum seeker, the offices which issue refugee passes are few and far between, and hugely overburdened with around 350,000 people currently awaiting recognition that their application is bona fide.

    All of which, as Sunak knows, is a lot for the Houe to process. The trouble is we only have about 50 or 60 hard-working peers; they do a fantastic job, but that number is very small – but the question of House of Lords reform is a topic for another article altogether.