Creation: Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association Historical Materialism Group
On November 18th, during the G20 Summit in Peru, Xi Jinping met with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. As is well known, British imperialism and Australian imperialism, as members of the Five Eyes alliance, are staunch allies of U.S. imperialism, historically singing the same tune as U.S. imperialism. Now, however, they are meeting separately with China while U.S. imperialism is still loudly confronting China, which inevitably raises some questions.
For British imperialism, this is especially obvious, because it is the first time Sunak has met Xi Jinping since taking office four months ago, and since Theresa May’s visit to China in 2018, the Chinese and British leaders have not met again until now. The long-term cold relations between China and the UK are visible to the naked eye, and the refusal of the heads of these two imperialist countries to meet each other is deliberate. Now, avoiding a direct meeting with the U.S., precisely demonstrates that British imperialism has its own small calculations.
What further illustrates the issue is the content of their talks. Sunak bluntly told Xi Jinping that the UK would become a so-called “sovereign actor” in bilateral relations. The so-called “sovereign actor” means that British imperialism will act independently in favor of its own bourgeoisie’s interests. This may seem like nonsense, but it contains important implications. Historically, British imperialism has never shown an independent sovereign side, instead relying on the second world countries and being dependent on the world’s only superpower, U.S. imperialism, militarily participating in NATO and the Five Eyes, even outsourcing its national defense to U.S. imperialism, paying large amounts of military expenses annually, essentially following U.S. imperialist commands. However, with Trump’s impending presidency, U.S. imperialism might change the internal distribution of interests within Western imperialism under the guise of “America First,” demanding more profits from second world Western countries and gaining more political and military control over them. This threatens the interests of these second world countries, causing them to still be largely dependent on U.S. imperialism while seeking new avenues through China and Russia. Sunak also said that the two countries should “avoid surprises as much as possible,” implying an effort to avoid “surprises” brought about by Trump’s rise.
Of course, the most significant content is the classic scheming between two imperialist bandits—artificial intelligence and Hong Kong issues. China seeks to “grab a white wolf with empty hands,” trying to steal advanced AI technology from British imperialism, while British imperialism wants to keep the Hong Kong old-timers, remnants of British rule, on call to serve its interests. However, both sides, knowing each other’s schemes, naturally hit a wall. China’s “strengthening AI governance” was left unresolved, and British concerns about “the health of Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai,” “human rights,” and “the Taiwan issue” also ended without results. This reflects the ongoing covert and overt struggles between China and Britain even amid their collusion.
Certainly, although this meeting reveals cracks within the U.S. imperialist camp, its significance should not be exaggerated. Rather than indicating that Britain is leaning toward China, it shows that Britain is using such diplomatic gestures to protest potential future infringements on its interests by U.S. imperialism, employing a strategy of “playing hard to get” to make U.S. imperialism abandon its “America First” mindset. The substantive results of this meeting—on AI, Hong Kong, “human rights,” and Taiwan—are nonexistent; only the fact that the two countries met indicates increased direct contact. If Britain genuinely intended to turn toward China and cooperate, the outcome would be different.
A slightly different situation exists with Australia. During Xi Jinping’s meeting with Albanese, China reaffirmed its “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” with Australia, which, according to China’s diplomatic jargon, means “political differences exist, but economic cooperation can be mutually beneficial.” Facing Australia’s proactive approach, China started to make empty promises, saying it “wants to import more high-quality Australian products, encourage Chinese enterprises to invest in Australia, and hopes Australia will provide a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese companies.” In essence, Australia is expected to obediently supply minerals, oil, and wheat to China, fueling China’s Keynesian machinery, and exporting capital to Australia to inject Keynesian stimulus into China, which is suffering from economic crisis and “insufficient domestic demand.” Confident that imperialist sovereignty can safeguard economic sovereignty, China shamelessly claims that “China and Australia are supporters and defenders of economic globalization and free trade, and should strengthen coordination and cooperation, oppose protectionism,” portraying itself as a fervent supporter of “free trade,” even as it sanctions the EU and U.S. Meanwhile, Australia, with its own hidden motives, also makes superficial statements like “both countries have made encouraging progress in stabilizing relations, trade is flowing more freely, benefiting both nations and their peoples and enterprises.” Although economically colluding with China, politically Australia remains aligned with U.S. imperialism, opposing China just like Britain. Such meetings only prove that Australia, like Britain, is reluctant to be a puppet of U.S. imperialism but still depends on U.S. hegemony to pursue greater benefits.
What does all this indicate? On one hand, it reveals the double-dealing of British and Australian imperialism; on the other hand, it highlights China’s economic dilemma—so much so that it has to resort to diplomatic language to quietly pressure Australia into increasing exports of goods and allowing China to increase capital exports to Australia. The China-UK-Australia meetings expose the filthy reality of imperialist rivalry and collusion—regardless of their hostility, they are all just scoundrels. We must stay vigilant, not be deceived by any of their flowery words, and uphold an internationalist stance against all imperialism.