Tenzin Nyidon
DHARAMSHALA, Oct. 29: In a pointed statement to the parliament, UK’s Conservative MP Alicia Kearns criticised Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s recent visit to China, questioning the purpose and achievements of his diplomatic engagement with Chinese officials. Kearns, questioned the efficacy and ethical grounding of engaging with Chinese officials while serious allegations of human rights abuses against Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Hong Kongers continue to surface.
Kearns, who also chairs the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, emphasised her concerns about the transparency and strategy behind the visit, suggesting that Lammy may have acted without a comprehensive plan, especially given that it occurred before the government’s much-anticipated “China audit” was finalised.
In her statement, Kearns remarked, “It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Foreign Secretary did not see fit to update the House following his visit to China. I want to press him on what the visit achieved because, comparing the read-outs, I would be forgiven for thinking that two very separate visits took place. The Opposition understands the importance of engagement, but not at any cost. All interactions with the Chinese Communist Party must be clear-eyed and part of a meaningful strategy, as per the high-level China strategy that the Foreign Secretary inherited from our Government. Yet, as he said, this visit occurred before this Government had concluded its so-called China audit. Would it not have been better to wait until he knew what interests he is seeking to defend and further?”
Kearns voiced additional concerns over the foreign secretary’s conduct, particularly regarding alleged pressure on UK parliamentarians to avoid hosting former Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen shortly before his China visit. She framed this as a “fundamental breach of the constitutional principle that Parliament is sovereign,” highlighting that “the Government do not tell Members of Parliament who they can or cannot meet. Indeed, the Conservative Government told the CCP on multiple occasions that, no, it could not shut me and other Members up, despite its requests.
Kearns further pressed the foreign secretary on specific human rights issues: “Will the Chinese Communist party now step back from its human rights abuses in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Tibet Will the Chinese Communist party now refrain from actions to support Russia’s war machine and the intimidation of Taiwan? Will the transnational oppression of Hongkongers and Uyghurs now end? Which of those objectives did the Foreign Secretary achieve thanks to his visit?”
She also called attention to the Foreign Secretary’s purported commitment to addressing the unjust detention of British citizen and Hong Kong democracy advocate Jimmy Lai, who remains in solitary confinement at age 76. “Jimmy is 76 and is being held in solitary confinement, yet the Foreign Secretary still has not met Jimmy’s son, despite his coming to the UK on multiple occasions and asking for a meeting,” she said, questioning whether Lammy had made any progress on securing Lai’s release. She urged Lammy to meet with Lai’s son, Sebastien, to update him on his father’s circumstances.
In closing, Kearns argued that the visit could represent a lopsided approach to diplomacy, commenting, “It is easy to say that the visit was a reset in relations, but, as we all know, in every relationship there are givers and takers. Has the Foreign Secretary not simply proved that he gave and they took?”
In response to the critique, Foreign Secretary David Lammy defended his recent diplomatic visit, citing a trend of high-level engagements between China and other Western nations. Lammy pointed out, “The leader and the Foreign Minister of the United States have had eight engagements with China, France has had six, Germany has had four, Japan has had three, and Canada has had two. The right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Cleverly) went once. And the hon. Lady asks me what I have achieved!”
He stressed his commitment to continued engagement with China to secure tangible outcomes in the UK’s national interest, concluding, “I will go again and again to get outcomes in the UK’s national interest. The hon. Lady would expect nothing less.”
