Landeur 🏴 on X - "Story in a nutshell: China sent spies to Britain; they got arrested. Labour covered for them and collapsed the trial. Labour denied it. Mi6, Ex-Civil Service Chief, are calling Starmer a liar publicly."
Labour secretly sabotaged China spy trial - "Labour secretly sabotaged the trial of two alleged spies by refusing to brand China an “enemy”, The Telegraph can disclose. Prosecutors dropped charges last month against Christopher Cash, 30, and Christopher Berry, 33, who were accused of passing information about the Government’s foreign policy to a high-ranking member of the Chinese government. At the time, Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said that it was “extremely disappointing” that the two men would not face trial, adding that the charges were “gravely concerning”. But The Telegraph can now reveal that the case collapsed because ministers withdrew a star witness who had been tasked with testifying that China was an “enemy” of the UK... MPs said the case showed the Government did not have the “mettle to defend the British people”. Chinese groups have been accused by ministers and UK intelligence agencies of hundreds of cyber attacks. Sir Richard Moore, the outgoing head of MI6, has described China as “the single greatest priority” of his agency, while the Intelligence and Security Committee has warned of Beijing’s “prolific and aggressive” attempts to gain access to Britain’s spy agencies. However, Labour has tried to build closer diplomatic links with China in the hope of securing investment to grow the economy. In July, Sir Keir quietly sent Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, to Beijing to hold talks with his Chinese counterpart that were only announced by Chinese state media. Mr Cash, who worked for Tory MPs, and Mr Berry, a teacher, were accused last year of passing “politically sensitive information” about the China Research Group in Parliament and government policy to a “senior member of the Chinese Communist Party and a politburo member” through a Chinese intermediary. The official who commissioned the research has since been named in media reports as Cai Qi, a senior aide to Xi Jinping, the Chinese president... Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, hinted in a letter to Chris Philp, the Tory MP, that failing to designate China as an enemy had caused problems for the prosecution. He described that legal test as a “limitation” and said there had been an “evidential failure” this year, even though there was “sufficient evidence to prosecute” at the time the men were charged under the Conservative government in April 2024... Ministers have previously used the deputy national security adviser, a Downing Street civil servant, to testify in cases involving the Official Secrets Act. Matt Collins, the current official in that role, gave a written statement for the trial of a Bulgarian spy ring working for the Kremlin earlier this year. Labour ministers have sometimes described China as a “sophisticated and persistent threat” but prefer to label the country as a “competitor” that also offers investment opportunities for the UK. David Lammy and Yvette Cooper, then the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary respectively, intervened in January to support China’s application to construct a “mega embassy” in London, despite security concerns about spying. Alicia Kearns, a Conservative MP who worked with Mr Cash on the China Research Group, said the decision to withdraw a witness raised “serious questions about constitutional impropriety”. “In the public interest, the Government must disclose ministerial involvement, and come clean on whether any government witnesses were withdrawn,” she said. “Starmer must answer: was it no longer in the public’s interest to prosecute, or more likely he and his Labour Government don’t have the mettle to defend the British people and our great democracy?”... Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, said he was “very angry about the decision not to prosecute” and warned that MPs and staff would be “worried about how they work in Parliament” because of threats of foreign espionage."
Lee Harris on X - "The more information that comes out about Keir Starmer and the China spy case, the worse it gets. He lied. He's compromised. He's a genuine threat to national security. To say this is incredibly serious is a HUGE understatement. This really could be the end of Keir Starmer."
Melissa Chen on X - "Why is this not the biggest story in the UK? Your government sabotaged prosecuting a spy case and then covered it up, hoping that you don't notice. This is complete and total elite capture. Each person involved is denying and punting responsibility. Huge opportunity for @reformparty_uk and @Nigel_Farage to articulate how they will weed out CCP political interference and insulate the UK from China's brazen attempts at economic coercion and subversion"
Keir Starmer under pressure to release China spy evidence - "Dan Jarvis, the security minister, said that Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser, had been given “full freedom” to provide evidence to the CPS ... Labour provoked a backlash from the Civil Service by naming Mr Collins, an unelected civil servant, as the person responsible for the evidence in the case... Lord Butler, a former Cabinet secretary under three prime ministers, accused the Government of being “economical with the truth” regarding the collapsed spying trial."
When will we learn that China is not our friend? - "The disappearance of several key defence suppliers overseas has undermined this country’s ability to defend its shores at a time when Russia poses a constant threat to our national security. There are scores of other foreign deals that have left the economy weaker – but the sale of British Steel to China’s Jingye five years ago must beat the lot. That takeover – done in a hurry by naive Tory ministers desperate to prevent another important part of the industrial supply chain from vanishing – always looked rotten, as this column warned at the time and in the years that followed. Yet the news that Jingye executives have proposed forgoing a giant legal claim against the British state in exchange for the approval of Beijing’s central London mega-embassy is confirmation that they should never have been allowed near a critical strategic asset in the first place. Jingye officials believe they are owed £1bn in compensation after the Government took control of the Scunthorpe steelworks in April amid accusations that Jingye was attempting to sabotage the UK’s last remaining blast furnaces. So not only is the British taxpayer potentially on the hook for this hurried bailout but the same people that drove an important British company to the brink are now shamelessly attempting to bribe the Government. If that doesn’t make Labour wary of taking Chinese money then nothing will. It is an outrageous affront to decency and a stark reminder that China Inc is not our friend – despite what Sir Keir Starmer might have us believe as the Labour Government embarks on a terribly naive campaign to warm up relations with Beijing. This is the vulnerability of Labour’s Britain. Stuck in a precarious financial state, we find ourselves increasingly at the behest of unreliable and dangerous partners... Beijing insists the embassy is a strategic and diplomatic outpost that will help further good relations with the UK – but allowing it to be built in the heart of the capital, close to fibre optic cables that carry sensitive data to the City and Canary Wharf, would be akin to handing the Chinese a Trojan horse from which to launch attacks on British interests. It would be an unthinkable act of self-harm. China’s redaction of the embassy blueprints – in which key details about a basement that critics say could be used for eavesdropping and interrogations were removed – is about as incriminating as it gets. Still, we shouldn’t hold our breath for any epiphany on China from Labour. The disastrous collapse of the Chinese spy case merely heightens suspicions that the Government is terrified of upsetting Beijing in case it turns off the investment taps at a time when this country needs all the outside money it can get. We can debate whether the Government or the Crown Prosecution Service is to blame for the collapse of the case against two Britons accused of spying for Beijing until the cows come home. Yet, the Government’s failure to provide evidence to the trial that China was a threat to national security is hugely damning. Even more so that the Prime Minister of all people stands accused of failing to pass on an MI5 dossier said to expose the full extent of hostile Chinese activity against this country including secret police stations targeting dissidents in Britain. As Kemi Badenoch has pointed out, it now looks as though the Government deliberately torpedoed the China spy case and then tried to cover it up as part of a desperate bid to appease Beijing."
Ross Kempsell on X - "Starmer surrendered the UK’s most important territory to an ally of China, for no reason. His aides prevented the key trial into alleged Chinese espionage. He is waving through a new Chinese embassy without seeing the plans. Let’s say it clearly: Is Starmer an agent of influence?"
Laila Cunningham on X - "They’ll arrest you for a tweet, but they won’t prosecute Chinese spies. The case was dropped because Starmer lied that China wasn’t designated a threat at the time, yet MI5 and MI6 confirm it was. Why lie? To protect his national security adviser, who is part of 48 Group Club, China’s most successful influence operation in the West, a front built to court UK elites, shape policy, and blur the line between diplomacy and infiltration. Ministers, advisors. They’re all on it. The establishment captured, in plain sight. The British government is clearly compromised. More in the @thetimes"
China Tries To Censor Data About Nearly 1 Billion People in Poverty - Newsweek - "Internet censors in China worked around the clock this week to suppress online discussions about poverty in the country after an economist revealed nearly 1 billion people were living off less than $300 a month. A hashtag on Weibo, China's X-like microblogging app, pointed to the ongoing income inequality by stating that "964 million people" were surviving on monthly incomings of 2,000 Chinese yuan, or about $280. On Tuesday, the hashtag about China's economic woes briefly reached the No. 1 spot on Weibo's trending page before it was taken down. A day earlier, Li Xunlei, chief economist at Zhongtai Securities, had published an article that highlighted the data. Despite signs of stress appearing across various sectors, Beijing has not come up with a stimulus package as part of its post-pandemic economic recovery. The country's major property giants, Evergrande and Country Garden, defaulted on their debt this year as help from the government failed to materialize. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has instead made calls for improving income distribution through a campaign of "common prosperity," with the censorship once again revealing just how sensitive Beijing is to any debate about China's economic performance—a metric tied directly to Xi's legitimacy and right to govern. On Weibo, searches for the now disabled hashtag returned a notice reading: "In accordance with relevant laws, regulations and policies, the content of this topic cannot be displayed." It is a common censorship tactic that stops popular topics from gaining traction among the website's 600 million monthly active users, who have recently been sent automated messages advising them not to badmouth the economy, a message that has been driven home by China's spy agency, the Ministry of State Security. In his article for the business outlet Yicai, Li cited data from a 2021 research paper by the China Institute of Income Distribution at Beijing Normal University, which placed the number of people living on less than 2,000 yuan a month at 964 million, or nearly 70 percent of the population... His article, which was later taken down, said China was at an "inflection point" because of its population structure, which was once declining and aging. Li nonetheless concluded that competent government leadership could enable further economic growth, possibly doubling China's GDP by 2035. In June 2020, Wang Haiyuan and Meng Fanqiang, the authors behind the income study cited by Li this week, published an article in China's leading financial news magazine Caixin, in which they quoted late Premier Li Keqiang's comments about the estimated 600 million Chinese people who were living on less than 1,000 yuan, or $140, a month. "Although 40 years of reform and opening up have greatly improved the country's comprehensive strength and level of national income, as of today, the fact that we have a large population, few resources and very uneven development is still obvious, and a considerable number of residents are still close to the poverty line," Wang and Meng wrote. Their old article was also deleted from Caixin's website in the aftermath of efforts to suppress Li's more recent analysis. At the end of 2020, China's President Xi declared a "complete victory" over absolute poverty in the country, which Beijing defines as living off 2,300 yuan a year. He said the last remaining 99 million people were lifted out of the category, but the message arrived to little fanfare at the time."
From 2023
Weird. We're told that the Chinese all love Xi because he made them rich
I am told that anyone who has visited China will know that this is not true. Looks like the China Institute of Income Distribution is controlled by the CIA
Joel Kotkin: We must not take our eyes off the true threat — China - "Although Prime Minister Mark Carney is European in his manners and predilections, he is a charter member of the cadre of useful idiots who seem intent on imposing Chinese vassalage on Canada. The Euro-centric economist has proposed that Canada strengthen ties with the European Union, but Europe is, for now, a spent force. Canada is more delectable for China. It has many of the raw materials that Beijing craves, with rising oil imports at the fore. Canada also has a large Chinese diaspora community, roughly 1.7-million people of Chinese descent, that Beijing seeks, with some success, to manipulate to its ends. One would expect some Canadians to resist these trends but Carney epitomizes an establishment, including American corporations and Wall Street, that remain remarkably untroubled with Beijing’s stated aim of becoming a global economic superpower by 2049. So, while assaulting Trump for his trade policy, Canadian political leaders seem to be missing that the West’s greatest long-term challenge is the relentless Sinic mercantilism . British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s attempt to appease China in order to “ Trump-proof ” and revive the country’s moribund economy seems more like the road to ever great irrelevancy, as is the case for much of Europe. China is trying to build a mega-embassy in London that will help it surveil and harass those who fled Communist rule for the assumed safety of Great Britain. Trump may be a posturing maniac, but the China challenge is of a more considerable magnitude. China already dominates the industrial world; it now boasts roughly as many factory exports as the U.S., Japan and Germany combined. It is the world’s the world’s largest automobile market and the biggest steel producer. It is also investing heavily to take over the aerospace industry from leading companies like Bombardier, Boeing and Airbus. Carney and other members of the elite cannot address these threats as long as they adhere to notions like “net zero,” an obsession of Carney and his fellow poobahs. For all his talk about building energy infrastructure, Carney’s green obsessions could instead lead Canada into a dependent relationship with solar and electric vehicle manufacturers based in China, a country that emits more greenhouse gasses than the U.S. and the EU combined. In embracing this double standard, Carney and much of the Canadian elite qualify as classic “useful idiots,” as defined by Vladimir Lenin . Essentially the same people who seek to block oil drilling and place burdens on Canadian mining, agriculture and industry for environmental reasons seem to have little trouble sourcing from a country that’s on a coal-plant building spree . A greener Canada will have to kowtow to China to procure the requisite rare earth minerals and the technology for processing them. This represents what Muhammad Ali called the “rope a dope,” essentially using the West’s green obsessions to supplant its own industries with those of the world’s biggest GHG emitter. This occurs in part because the global corporate elite and their allies in the green movement, itself partially funded by China , seem fine with disarming western industry and lowering the middle class’s quality of life. If you think Trump threatens Ontario’s auto industry, the threat from China is even greater. Slapping tariffs on China is one of the few things winning Trump support from even leftist trade unions . But that’s not the worst of it. Under such circumstances, China can build support both from its former citizens who are anxious to cash in on Beijing’s largess, along with left-wing activists to business interests that are lining up to make their fortunes selling resources to China. Canada is an ideal place for Chinese political interference... China takes advantage of our liberal institutions — and our comparatively open economies — to undermine them. The Chinese government has become skilled at siphoning off the technological edge of the West while trying to silence any objections to Beijing’s awful human rights record . Before jumping into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s lap, Carney and his cronies might want to consider the long-term economic and political costs. Today, particularly with the imbecilic Trump at the helm, America may seem like the biggest ogre. But MAGA will not rule forever, nor will Trump escape mortality. His unnatural coalition of wealthy oligarchs and rabid populists is intrinsically weak and is already showing signs of splintering. More critically, the U.S. shares not just a border but many of the same values as Canada — certainly far more so than the Chinese Communist Party. But to deal as equals with the U.S., or other countries, Canada’s identity needs to be more than just not being American . Canada’s own internal divisions are not insignificant, as evidenced by the recent comments by Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet that Canada is “an artificial country with little meaning.” And it’s also likely that Carney’s recent nationalistic appeal will not be able to forestall a growing estrangement between Ottawa and many provinces, notably Alberta. In the short run, Carney will likely use the American bogeyman to paper over the serious divisions within the Canadian polity. This message will appeal to his potential partners in the NDP. Yet despite what the blathering media and political classes say, America and Canada have more in common than either does with the true quasi-fascist state emerging in China. It will take wiser heads than those who now rule in Washington and Ottawa to rebuild an alliance that’s advantageous to both countries."
The Unseen Realm of China’s Public Sleepers - "Situated on the southeastern outskirts of Beijing, Majuqiao serves as a gathering spot for day laborers who work in the nearby Yizhuang industrial zone, where the headquarters of e-commerce giant JD.com and others are located. These laborers form the backbone of a complex factory system, taking on temporary jobs in large factories such as sorting, unloading, carrying, and cleaning. They work long shifts of up to 12 hours and, come nightfall, many remain in the area, searching for a public place to sleep and recharge—some out of necessity, some by choice... It’s difficult to find reliable numbers on the scale of homelessness in China—the definition is complicated by the country’s hukou (household registration) system, which might list a person as a resident of their hometown even when they’ve moved elsewhere decades ago and don’t intend to go back. A 2020 paper in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, which counted all migrant workers without a hukou in their city of residence (known in China as the “floating population”) as homeless, listed the figure at 300 million. While it’s not known how many of these individuals are literally sleeping outdoors, or spending nights in places of business like internet cafes or fast food joints, even migrant workers who have a regular place to sleep face challenges like squalid living conditions and sudden evictions, or inability to afford the deposit and down payment to rent better apartments... Rules on staying in hotels and inns have also been getting stricter. Since 2010, hotels have required the reception to ask for guests’ real names and ID numbers upon checking in, and a platform was set up in 2012 to transmit this information directly to the local public security bureau. Regulations were further tightened around 2017 (reinforcing the bans on staying under someone else’s name or registering only one guest in a shared room) and during the pandemic. This leaves migrants who had their ID cards lost, stolen, or confiscated by employers (or creditors in Yu’s case) out in the cold. According to lawyer Feng Lulu from Beijing Zhongwen Law Firm, while there are no explicit laws prohibiting or permitting sleeping in public places, local authorities and management of parks, malls, and other spaces may enforce their own rules. Train stations and airports, for example, often provide massage chairs where passengers may catch a short nap, but these are typically only available if there are departures at night, making squares and underground passages around the stations an alternative sleeping spot for migrant workers wanting to save on rent or hotel costs before catching their ride home. In 2021, the Longhua Bus Station in Shenzhen installed a sprinkler system in an underground passage, as well as partitions on its benches, to discourage people from sleeping there, making netizens question how this would affect migrant workers, the homeless, and other vulnerable people."
Terry Glavin: Resist striking a 'devil's bargain' with Beijing - "It is no secret, as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has candidly assessed , that Beijing and the Chinese Communist Party pose “an enduring threat to Canada.” By espionage, hacking, strong-arm tactics, transnational repression of diaspora communities, influence-peddling, coercion, “elite capture” strategies, election interference, intellectual-property theft and other clandestine means, Beijing poses far and away “the greatest counter-intelligence threat to Canada,” CSIS has determined. None of this appears to bother Julian Karaguesian, a visiting lecturer at McGill University, or Robin Shaban, a former adviser to the department of finance and a fellow of the Beijing-friendly Public Policy Forum. This week, in a Globe and Mail opinion piece titled “Let’s free ourselves of the U.S. and forge closer ties with China,” Karaguesian and Shaban claim that the understanding of China as an unreliable trading partner bent on world domination is a “made-in-Washington narrative” from which Canada must break free, and only Canada’s “long-standing subordination to the U.S.” prevents us from doing so. Because Canadians are “clinging to an Atlanticist-G7 worldview,” we are trapped in paralysis, and instead — citing Columbia University’s Jeffrey Sachs — we should willingly embrace the reality of “the new multipolar world.” Not coincidentally, Sachs, a once-respected economist, is best known nowadays as an apologist for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Karaguesian and Shaban propose a standpoint that is indistinguishable from the pleadings of Beijing’s propaganda platforms and Chinese diplomats in Canada. Michael Kovrig, on the other hand, takes a different view. Kovrig is the former foreign service officer and China analyst who was imprisoned and held hostage in China along with fellow Canadian Michael Spavor for more than 1,000 days, in retaliation for the detention in Vancouver of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. Meng was released from house arrest in 2021 in a plea deal with the U.S. Justice Department related to charges of violating sanctions on Iran. The “two Michaels” were released simultaneously. In a lengthy analysis published by the Canadian International Council last week, Kovrig sets out the case for an approach to China centred squarely on Canadian values. He dismisses Beijing’s diplomatic entreaties this way: “The implicit deal: kowtow to the Chinese Communist Party in return for economic benefits, sacrifice Canadian manufacturing for agricultural exports.” That’s a reference to Canada’s tariffs on Chinese electrical vehicles and China’s tariffs on canola, pork, peas and some fisheries products. To cave to China would amount to striking a “devil’s bargain,” and its long-term costs would outweigh any benefit to Canada. Canada’s recent reluctance to kowtow has a lot less to do with what Washington wants and a lot more to do with what Canadians want, Kovrig argues. What the Chinese Communist Party and its Canadian friends don’t appreciate is that Canada’s national interests are expected to align with Canadian values. It’s the way democracies work. “Internationally, those values are actualized through liberal norms, laws and institutions that help protect smaller countries like Canada from aggression and coercion by larger powers such as China” Kovrig writes. If Canada’s approach to China has hardened in recent years, it’s because policy has been “driven primarily by public opinion and government assessments that the CCP’s agenda and actions are harmful to Canada’s interests, rather than by ideology or American pressure.”"counter-intelligence threat to Canada,” CSIS has determined. None of this appears to bother Julian Karaguesian, a visiting lecturer at McGill University, or Robin Shaban, a former adviser to the department of finance and a fellow of the Beijing-friendly Public Policy Forum. This week, in a Globe and Mail opinion piece titled “Let’s free ourselves of the U.S. and forge closer ties with China,” Karaguesian and Shaban claim that the understanding of China as an unreliable trading partner bent on world domination is a “made-in-Washington narrative” from which Canada must break free, and only Canada’s “long-standing subordination to the U.S.” prevents us from doing so. Because Canadians are “clinging to an Atlanticist-G7 worldview,” we are trapped in paralysis, and instead — citing Columbia University’s Jeffrey Sachs — we should willingly embrace the reality of “the new multipolar world.” Not coincidentally, Sachs, a once-respected economist, is best known nowadays as an apologist for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Karaguesian and Shaban propose a standpoint that is indistinguishable from the pleadings of Beijing’s propaganda platforms and Chinese diplomats in Canada. Michael Kovrig, on the other hand, takes a different view. Kovrig is the former foreign service officer and China analyst who was imprisoned and held hostage in China along with fellow Canadian Michael Spavor for more than 1,000 days, in retaliation for the detention in Vancouver of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. Meng was released from house arrest in 2021 in a plea deal with the U.S. Justice Department related to charges of violating sanctions on Iran. The “two Michaels” were released simultaneously. In a lengthy analysis published by the Canadian International Council last week, Kovrig sets out the case for an approach to China centred squarely on Canadian values. He dismisses Beijing’s diplomatic entreaties this way: “The implicit deal: kowtow to the Chinese Communist Party in return for economic benefits, sacrifice Canadian manufacturing for agricultural exports.” That’s a reference to Canada’s tariffs on Chinese electrical vehicles and China’s tariffs on canola, pork, peas and some fisheries products. To cave to China would amount to striking a “devil’s bargain,” and its long-term costs would outweigh any benefit to Canada. Canada’s recent reluctance to kowtow has a lot less to do with what Washington wants and a lot more to do with what Canadians want, Kovrig argues. What the Chinese Communist Party and its Canadian friends don’t appreciate is that Canada’s national interests are expected to align with Canadian values. It’s the way democracies work. “Internationally, those values are actualized through liberal norms, laws and institutions that help protect smaller countries like Canada from aggression and coercion by larger powers such as China” Kovrig writes. If Canada’s approach to China has hardened in recent years, it’s because policy has been “driven primarily by public opinion and government assessments that the CCP’s agenda and actions are harmful to Canada’s interests, rather than by ideology or American pressure.”"
‘Obedience and fear’: the brutal working conditions behind China’s tech boom
Chinese venture capitalists force failed founders on to debtor blacklist - "Chinese venture capitalists are hounding failed founders, pursuing personal assets and adding the individuals to a national debtor blacklist when they fail to pay up, in moves that are throwing the country’s start-up funding ecosystem into crisis. The hard-nosed tactics by risk capital providers have been facilitated by clauses known as redemption rights, included in nearly all the financing deals struck during China’s boom times. “My investors verbally promised they wouldn’t enforce them, that they had never enforced them before — and in ’17 and ’18 that was true — no one was enforcing them,” said Neuroo Education founder Wang Ronghui, who now owes investors millions of dollars after her childcare chain stumbled during the pandemic. While they are relatively rare in US venture investing, more than 80 per cent of venture and private equity deals in China contain redemption provisions, according to Shanghai-based law firm Lifeng Partners estimates. They typically require companies, and often their founders as well, to buy back investors’ shares plus interest if certain targets such as an initial public offering timeline, valuation goals or revenue metrics are not met. “It’s causing huge harm to the venture ecosystem because if a start-up fails, the founder is essentially facing asset seizures and spending restrictions,” said a Hangzhou-based lawyer who has represented several indebted entrepreneurs and asked not to be named. “They can never recover.”... Once blacklisted, it is nearly impossible for individuals to start another business. They are also blocked from a range of economic activities, such as taking planes or high-speed trains, staying in hotels or leaving China. The country lacks a personal bankruptcy law, making it extremely difficult for most to escape the debts. With Chinese funds and VC firms now struggling to return capital to their outside investors, a growing number have turned to redemption clauses to recoup as much money as possible... A start-up adviser who did not wish to be named said the situation was perversely incentivising VCs to pursue portfolio companies that were doing well but lacked an immediate path to a sale or an IPO."
Britain must stand against Xi Jinping’s disturbing vision of the future - "When Mr Xi promises to build a “community of common security”, what he means is that no country should have any allies, leaving all but the strongest at China’s mercy. When he stresses the “sovereign equality” of states, he means that no one should interfere with the sovereign right of tyrants to murder, torture and oppress their own peoples. And when Mr Xi declares that international law should be “applied equally and uniformly” with “no double standards”, he obviously excludes Russia, which he believes should be free to invade Ukraine and pound its cities with killer drones and ballistic missiles made from Chinese components. No one should doubt that a world re-ordered by Mr Xi would be a bleak and pitiless place."
