Dimsum masthead
Home arrow Viewpoints arrow Must try harder: Cameron gets C- for his trip to China
Must try harder: Cameron gets C- for his trip to China PDF Print E-mail
Viewpoints
Sunday, 21 November 2010

Cameron’s recent trip to China, using diplomacy to promote business is hardly new. British Embassies and High Commissions throughout the world have always promoted trade and her diplomats speak with abundant pride in assisting British companies do business in new markets. Their market intelligence, local knowledge of customs and culture is far superior to any private organisations.
 
Among the 50 strong delegation who accompanied David Cameron to China is a distinct absence of Chinese names. British Chinese businesses in the UK is flourishing and doing big business in China - property development, food technology, health care and travel and tourism, some with multimillion pound turnover, which could have opened more doors culturally and in terms of political and economic strategy. This was a lost opportunity.
 
The list is dominated by the CEOs of blue chip companies, where many of these already have regional offices in China and hardly needed this extra trade boost - would the £750 million Rolls-Royce and the £45m deal to export breeding pigs really not have happened anyway?
 
Britain does not make many of the goods China or any developing countries are interested in. If they want machine tools or engineering expertise, they will look to Germany or Japan, if they want wines, perfume or agricultural knowhow they will look to France. In fact, Britain sells less to China than Italy!
 
Chinese policymakers raised concerns during the visit about the government’s plans to introduce a cap on immigration. They fear it could limit visas for business executives and the 85,000 Chinese students in Britain. This is in stark contrast to Cameron offering India a say on plans for Britain’s new immigration policy when he visited India in July. We wait to see whether the Prime Minister will relax immigration rules to Chinese investors, employees and students.
 
So, what does China want from us? We are good in services – legal, financial, education, creative industries and of course, our world class retail shops.
 
A single trip coupled with all the noise and column inches in the media will not win the trade billions the Prime Minister is after. This is a long haul - trust and respect - two essential ingredients needed in any business relationships in the Middle Kingdom.
 
We also need to educate our people in the way China does business – language, culture, respect and customs. Mandarin classes should be encouraged and taught in schools. We expect overseas CEO’s or their representatives speak to us in English why shouldn’t the Chinese expect the same in Mandarin. Understanding Chinese companies’ corporate management structure is a challenge in itself – the most senior person or general secretary is not necessarily the most senior executive!
 
It is often said that the Chinese never forget, especially when criticised in public – “face saving” or “losing face” is in every Chinese genes - so be prepared to be cold shouldered if you offend the Chinese.
 
When Cameron said "we don't know what is going to happen with Iran [and] we can't be certain of the future in China", this will be noticed by the Chinese. To talk about China - a permanent member of the Security Council - in the same breath as a rogue state like Iran - is an insult to the people of China.
 
The 2010 Queen’s Speech referred to an “enhanced partnership with India”, it made no specific reference to China – this must have agitated Beijing.
Therefore, has Cameron been ‘cold shouldered’ by Premier Wen Jiabao when he called Cameron's major business delegation trip to China "fruitful”. This is hardly a ringing endorsement.
 
In coded language, Cameron told his audience at Peking University that, democracy and civil rights were the best guarantor of prosperity and stability. Every country tries to lecture China on human rights but these won't suddenly materialise while half the Chinese population and members of its civil institutions still don't know what human rights mean.
 
These countries forget that they had many centuries developing those values and norms. China is still a relatively ‘young’ country. First they have to develop their basic institutional structures, lift the social economic standards of its people, and have the resources in place before they can adopt these values. China will do things their way and no amount of lecturing will change the status quo. We need to be patient and not expect immediate social transformations.
 
Cancelling bilateral DFID aid to China which seems a perverse attitude to a country we are seeking so hard to influence, and when we are talking about modest amounts of money sent to underdeveloped regions where some very good work has done.
Germany, Japan followed by France are the largest donor countries, is it any wonder that these countries are the biggest beneficiaries of China’s economic boom.
 
Like any good salesman, Cameron must totalled the volume of business generated from this trip. Other than those announced earlier, a paltry sum of £2 million of new business is hardly much to shout about. This must hurt compared to when Hu Jintao, the Chinese President signed agreements on deals worth $20 billion when he visited Paris earlier this year.
 
All he gets for this China trip is a C-, must try harder.
 
Sonny Leong, Publisher and Chair, Chinese for Labour
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
Comments
Add NewSearchRSS
Zhao - enemies more than friends Posted 12:23 on 22 November 2010
When I was younger, I thought there could be a day when the Cold War would end. But today, the press loves China-bashing.

To the West, China is perhaps more of an enemy than a friend. In China, many view the West as an enemy. The mindful of China would never forget the Opium War and the handover of Hong Kong to the UK, marking the start of the most shameful chapter in Chinese history. And the real rulers of Britain (not your ordinary workers who have the perfect liberty to go and shout stop the war, but the war still went ahead in Iraq anyway, but your Upper Strata) would never forget that it was only the New Territory that was meant for negotiations, not Hong Kong island.

Geo-political rivalry lasts for centuries - the fall of the Soviet Union has not led to a meek Russia.

A real future for the UK-China brotherhood? Forget it. The Chinese are simply too indepedent for the UK's liking - who wouldn't rather deal with meek puppet states or semi-dependencies, supporting one's values and following one's calls?

Perhaps only when the UK falls some time in the future, then it would learn that it's not the sole bearer of progress, not the sole definer of righteousness, not the epicentre of civilisation - just as China learnt in the mid-19th century. Let's hope that learning process, if it takes place, this time for the UK, would not be as bloody and tormenting as that of China's.
Keiko - Friends than enemies Posted 21:31 on 23 November 2010
Ah independence you mean like China bullying Norway over the Nobel Peace prize to Liu Xiaobo?

The slightest afront is always seen as China Bashing. It isn't, it is just mild disagreement. We have to learn to cope with that if we are going to be truely a World Power. Otherwise we might as well just close our borders and wallow in the misery of the past.
Zhao - bullying and bashing Posted 10:56 on 24 November 2010
Whether it is "bullying" or "boycotting" depending on your interpretation of Beijing's effort in this Peace Prize saga.

There may be some fundamental differences which at a civilisational level where it can't be argued one way or another (see Huntingdon's <<Clash of Civilisations>>), and therefore it leads to little positive outcomes to assert one's values onto someone else.

And the West "sometimes" knows this and that depends on who the West's friends are. The crimes of puppet states are fine (recalling the Cold War, when much of Latin America was propped up by the US, and the direct interference of the US on Italian elections so that Italy would not turn Red, the support lent to various regimes in Africa and South East Asia, not to mention the support for the Mujahidin in Afghanistan - the list is endless - despite appalling human rights records there, and often in direct support in the crushing of human rights). So, to me, the West does not hold any moral guardianship and is very two-faced (the only time the real rulers of Hong Kong talked about democracy for Hong Kong was when it was certain that it'd be handed over to the People's Republic).

In the reverse, I should not think it'd be helpful for China to try to export Confucianism or its version of Communism in any exerted fashion. And the same logic applies to West-China relationships. Of course, this point about "civilisations" depends on whether you think what the truly "universal" values are. To me, there aren't that many, and sometimes it is important to recognise this in order to build a constructive relationship.

As for World Power, I don't think China should become one. The only image of World Power, to me, is that of domination of smaller countries, interfering their affairs (e.g. how the US, epsecially, had propped up appalling regimes, and helped certain groups like those in Afghanistan who are fighting them now). I don't wish there to be World Powers; instead, countries and civilisations could be just a bit more modest and respectful of each other, including each others' differences.
Only registered users can write comments!