Beijing’s sanctions counter-offensive puts UK individuals and businesses on the front line of global politics

Article thumbnail of UK and Chinese Flags, 16/06/2014, courtesy of Wikipedia Commons

In the unfolding political and media battle over China’s treatment of its Uighur population and democracy in Hong Kong, Beijing has imposed targeted sanctions on some of its most vocal critics in the UK, in response to the UK’s backing of international sanctions against it. Nine British citizens, including 5 MP’s were singled out, their assets in China frozen, Chinese citizens and institutions were forbidden from doing business with them and they are banned from entering China, Hong Kong or Macau. The five MP’s were Conservatives who either led the influential Conservative-based “China Research Group” (CRG), or were from the cross-party “Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China”. The former group has been responsible for influencing a toughening of UK government policy towards China, while the latter aims to defend the liberal international order against Beijing’s perceived attempts to disrupt it.

Others effected was a lawyer who chaired the Uighur Tribunal, which aims to establish whether Beijing’s treatment of the Uighurs constitutes genocide, and an academic whose research focuses on the Uighurs.

Alongside these personal sanctions, the organizations which many of those targeted belong to have also been sanctioned. The CRG, The Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, the Uighur Tribunal and Essex Court Chambers, the latter for four of its members writing a legal opinion stating a genocide was being committed on the Uighurs.

These particular sanctions may seem tokenistic in gesture. It is unlikely indeed the individuals had assets in China. However, it seeks to serve as a warning shot for future individuals to think twice before they criticize Beijing’s policy. For MP’s and governments, this is no deterrent. The Conservative front-bench have lined up to voice their support for their fellows. However, for the advisers and experts who help these MP’s or who work on issues key to understanding or engaging with China- like the lawyer and academic, or indeed 2 the institutions that facilitate them, it is a clear warning shot that they should all think very hard in the future before they lend their expertise to problems and projects which Beijing deems as ‘anti-Chinese’, unless they are willing to risk a loss of work, funding or business going forward. Indeed, Essex Court Chambers have removed their reference to the statement due to the potential loss of their Chinese clients trust and custom

This political warning shot is supported by a similar approach to western companies who speak out against China. Recently Beijing officials, celebrities, and the media organized a boycott campaign against companies such as H&M, who had spoken out against the treatment of the Uighurs and refused to purchase Chinese goods related to their exploitation. This has resulted in serious upheaval to these companies’ Asian markets as they face online de-platforming and largescale consumer loss. It has led to many companies quietly retracting their statements in the hope of appeasing Beijing

Beijing’s willingness to use its significant economic clout to pursue political ends, and specific targeting of individuals who lend their expertise to work deemed to criticize China is concerning. It is a further shift that in a globalized world, politics is becoming very personal indeed. Whether it may put off advisers and experts pitching in on politically controversial projects surrounding China remains to be seen, but it does highlight that Beijing certainly is keen to explore how it might influence behavior of foreign individuals, in almost an outreach of its development internally of a social credit system to influence its own citizens behavior.

For international companies and corporations though the consequences are more clearly immediate. With the rise of the ethically conscious consumer in western markets, who care about the human rights and green credentials of products, and whose pressure was responsible in the first place for H&M and others making statements against China, companies may find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They will have to choose which market they are willing to risk, and which to cater to in future as any balancing act becomes harder over time as the political situation continues to harden.

This problem of global consequences for actions typically perceived in simply localized terms and horizons is likely to only increase for both individuals and companies as Beijing’s reach increases in line with its economic and political power over the coming decades. If 3 these early successes of retraction continue from businesses and institutions due to Beijing’s pressure, there is the very real risk that the scope of criticism which Beijing chooses not to tolerate will significantly expand.