What happened to the Rishi Sunak I knew at school?
This column does not usually call for trade boycotts, but when it comes to selling arms to China it is prepared to make an exception. The United States is right and France and Britain are wrong. This is not a case of selling the odd secondhand and — to us — obsolete tank to a democratic African republic hemmed in by malignant regimes. This is a case of sharing our military technology with an aggressive regional power which has made threatening noises towards one of its neighbours, Taiwan, and continues to oppress its own people by keeping surviving protesters from Tiananmen Square in jail.
There are very clear strategic reasons why we should not aid the growth in China’s military capacity. Equally, there is every reason why we should seek to promote trade with China in all other respects. It is bizarre that France may soon be sending missiles to Beijing, and yet still refuse to allow China’s farmers to compete on an equal basis with French farmers. The decision which faces an ambitious dictatorship, between economic expansion and military expansion, has been summed up as ‘guns versus butter’. By lifting the arms embargo yet dragging our heels over the liberalisation of agricultural trade, France would send a very powerful message to China: choose the guns. So much for France’s high-minded opposition to war in Iraq.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in