Although the century of humiliation is long since gone, the heirs of those who harmed China in the 19th century with their aggrandizement, gunboats, and opium are hyperactive. While their methods may differ, their objectives are the same. They envy the rise of modern China, and are wedded to US hegemony.
However, as the West’s standing diminishes, China is stepping up to the plate. The Global South is increasingly embracing Beijing’s vision, and its example is inspiring people everywhere. Although this appalls the United States and its allies, they cannot expect to resist the march of history.
However, like King Canute, the West is trying to hold back the tide, and its pushback takes various forms.
Apart from trying to harm China’s economy and besmirch its reputation, it is using its spear carrier, NATO, to probe the Far East, hoping to intimidate Beijing. For example, when the United Kingdom’s flagship aircraft carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, visited Australia in July, the defense secretary, John Healey, sounding for all the world like an imperial throwback, said Britain was ready to fight in the Pacific if conflict broke out over Taiwan, which was risible (as the UK is currently about 2.9 trillion pounds ($3.9 trillion) in debt, or about 96 percent of its GDP, he was unsurprisingly silent about how he proposed to finance his war).
On June 4, 2020, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) was established in the UK. An offshoot of Hong Kong Watch, the anti-China hate machine founded by the serial fantasist, Benedict Rogers, its purpose is to enlist global parliamentarians to its cause. It now claims to have established a foothold in 43 parliaments and to have recruited 290 lawmakers. However, its background is illuminating.
READ MORE: Mainland slams Lai for being US arms dealer's ATM by increasing defense budget
After Rogers appointed his henchman, Luke de Pulford, as Hong Kong Watch’s policy director, he was tasked with founding IPAC, of which he is currently the executive director (Rogers serves as an adviser). Finance was not a problem, and it was well resourced from the outset by Beijing-hostile forces. Its funds are derived from the US National Endowment for Democracy (known as the “second CIA”), the “Taiwan Foundation for Democracy” (established in 2003 with support from the Taipei government), and the Open Society Foundations (founded by George Soros). In other words, IPAC is in the pocket of China’s antagonists and dances to their tune.
In 2019-20, de Pulford was closely linked to the subversive “Fight for Freedom, Stand With Hong Kong” (SWHK), founded by Andy Li Yu-hin, whom he idolizes (even displaying Li’s likeness on his office wall). In 2021, Li, having acknowledged his mistakes, pleaded guilty in the Court of First Instance to conspiring to collude with foreign forces to endanger national security and awaits sentencing. Unfortunately, de Pulford has yet to repent, although, as Li demonstrated, a Damascene conversion is always possible, even for hardened fanatics.
In any event, de Pulford could not have been surprised that prosecutors, at the national security trial of the former media magnate Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, put him squarely in the frame, accusing him of being a co-conspirator. They alleged he was up to his neck in the activities of SWHK and that he was introduced to Lai by Rogers. He was accused of collaborating with Lai in relation to Hong Kong, and testimony followed to that effect.
Using his IPAC directorship, de Pulford has repeatedly called for the sanctioning of Chinese officials, urged overseas nonpermanent judges to resign from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, and even staged protests when Hong Kong officials visited London. He has sought to bring private prosecutions in the UK against British officers serving in the Hong Kong Police Force. He has also worked closely with the national security suspect and convicted felon, Nathan Law Kwun-chung (whom he accompanied when the then US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, summoned him to the US embassy in London for a briefing in July 2020).
Nobody should be surprised that the US is heavily involved in IPAC, which it sees as a useful anti-China front. When, for example, on Aug 26, nine lawmakers declared their membership of IPAC in a ceremony at Panama’s National Assembly, the US Ambassador, Kevin Cabrera, was present. He warmly welcomed Panama’s participation and warned everyone of the growing Chinese influence worldwide. It was a squalid attempt to poison Sino-Panamanian relations, even though the only menace Panama currently faces comes from the US, which threatened earlier this year to seize the Panama Canal by force.
To enhance IPAC’s influence, de Pulford draws in “big names” whom he appoints as co-chairs. One such is Sir Iain Duncan Smith, best remembered for his inglorious 26-month stint as leader of the Conservative Party (2001-03). As dissatisfaction with his leadership escalated, he announced, “Do not underestimate the determination of a quiet man.” Famous last words. He lost a parliamentary vote of confidence by 90 votes to 75, becoming the first Conservative leader since WWII not to lead his party in a general election campaign.
He may have been a “quiet man” once, but no longer. He rants and raves whenever China is mentioned (or whenever de Pulford pushes his button) and seeks to harm its interests at every turn (which was undoubtedly why Beijing sanctioned him in 2021). He has, for example, vilified Hong Kong’s Judiciary (impugning its independence), led calls for China’s proposed London embassy to be blocked, and done his best to prevent Li Ka-shing’s CK Infrastructure Holdings Ltd from acquiring Thames Water, a British water utility. If Andy Li has a rival for de Pulford’s affections, it must be Duncan Smith, whom he has also weaponized over the Taiwan question.
In late August, de Pulford turned up in Taipei, using Duncan Smith as his frontman. When they met the Taiwan leader, Lai Ching-te, he thanked “our dear friends from IPAC” for their support, adding that Taiwan was committed to enhancing its defense capabilities (5 percent of gross domestic product would, he disclosed, be spent on defense by 2030). He recalled that IPAC had held its annual conference in Taipei last July, and noted that several European parliaments had since adopted measures backing Taiwan (singling out the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and the UK).
In response, Duncan Smith said that IPAC was urging governments worldwide to address the “growing alignment of authoritarian regimes”. In words that must have delighted the assembled separatists, he urged all countries to work together to defend Taiwan.
A highlight of the visit was the gala dinner IPAC hosted in Taipei, entitled “United for Taiwan: A Night to Defend Freedom”. With Lai’s deputy, Hsiao Bi-khim, present, Duncan Smith was in his element. He declared, “Only a short distance away, the authoritarian regime of the Chinese Communist Party plots and plans the demise of Taiwan”, and condemned “too many Western governments” for pursuing trade with the Chinese mainland (calling it “a modern form of appeasement”). Whereas Beijing’s “one objective (was) to take back Taiwan”, he declared, “We should have one objective: To stop them doing it whenever.”
The “quiet man” had clearly found his voice, albeit as a demagogue, determined to disrupt harmonious cross-Strait relations and frustrate national reunification.
For her part, Hsiao — who held US nationality until 2002, has been dubbed the island’s “US whisperer”, and called on July 2 for strengthened cooperation with the US — was ecstatic over IPAC’s “steadfast support”. She praised the alliance for providing long-term support for Taiwan’s international participation, and for “consistently speaking out with clarity and determination on the challenges posed by authoritarian regimes”. In other words, Taiwan’s future did not lie with its motherland, and it would remain a US vassal.
That Lai allowed demented individuals like Duncan Smith and de Pulford to set foot in Taipei beggars belief, but speaks volumes about his mindset. Instead of seeking improved relations with the mainland, he would rather play footsie with unscrupulous bigots with sinister agendas of their own. His judgment is deeply flawed, as also demonstrated by his failed attempts this summer to gain control of the legislature by recalling 31 opposition lawmakers from office.
ALSO READ: Lai's insinuations betray secessionists' anxiety their agenda is doomed to fail
It was little wonder that a poll of 1,079 people conducted from Aug 4 to 6 by the Taiwan Public Opinion Foundation found that 54.4 percent of respondents disapproved of Lai’s governance.
The electorate is undoubtedly sick of his anti-Beijing posturing, and, barely a year into office, he is effectively a lame duck. Instead of grandstanding with political provocateurs, people expect him to focus on easing tensions and addressing the island’s economic and livelihood issues.
By any yardstick, the IPAC visit was a waste of time and money for Taiwan. It stoked cross-Strait tensions and achieved nothing positive. Although it would have irked Beijing, the long-term interests of Taipei were not advanced, quite the contrary. At best, it was an exercise in futility, and, at worst, a hate fest. By allowing notorious Sinophobes to peddle their wares on Chinese soil, Lai and Hsiao have not only demeaned themselves but also belittled the Taiwan people, who deserve far better. Their day of reckoning will hopefully not be long delayed.
The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
