Taiwan: International Status

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Blair McDougall

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

Absolutely. Although first and foremost in our minds should be the impact on people in Taiwan of any crisis, it would also be felt by our constituents in their cost of living and everything that happens in this country.

It is right that this is a worldwide debate, given the military incursions into Taiwanese territory, cyber-attacks, disinformation, interference with shipping and aircraft—all the things that make the headlines—and I welcome the new Government’s expressions of concern about aggressive moves in the strait. However, this needs to be a global conversation, because the People’s Republic of China is involved in an aggressive worldwide diplomatic strategy, especially across the global south. The strategy aims to secure international acceptance for its expansionist One China principle, which is to say that Taiwan is part of a single China and the PRC is the only legitimate Government of Taiwan, denying Taiwan’s democracy any distinctive international status.

Of course, resolution 2758 does not mention Taiwan at all, and it does not address in any way the political status of Taiwan. It does not establish the PRC’s sovereignty over Taiwan, and it is silent on the participation of Taiwan in the United Nations and its agencies. Importantly, it has no force of impact on us as sovereign nations and the relationships we choose to have with Taiwan. The current strategy by Beijing is a distortion of international law, but it is also at odds with the long-standing policy of the United Kingdom. It is essential that that is contested, and this debate offers the Minister and the new Government the opportunity to make it clear that the UK opposes that effort by the communist Government to rewrite history, or to unilaterally decide the future of Taiwan.

Debates about Taiwan are famously full of symbolism: which flag is flown, what nomenclature is used, and which seemingly synonymic words cause offence. It would be easy to write off discussions about the interpretation of resolution 2758 as yet another finer detail that distracts from a bigger picture, but that would be a mistake. This is not pedantry from Beijing; this is predation. Chairman Xi watched the near-unanimous diplomatic disapproval of Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, and he is seeking to reduce the chances of a similar chorus of condemnation towards any move against Taiwan.

If the PRC’s position that the UN resolution endorses its sovereignty over Taiwan were accepted, it would later use that consensus to argue that any future coercion of Taiwan through arms or other means—whether blockade or annexation—would be legal. Similarly, any acceptance of Beijing’s interpretation would be used to argue that moves to prevent such coercion by Taiwan’s democratic supporters were unlawful. This is not a technical issue but another source of increased risk for conflict across the Taiwan strait.

Will the Minister confirm today whether, as has been reported, any assurances have been given to the PRC that the UK will not seek to counter internationally its efforts on the One China principle, and whether promises have been made privately that we will not make the case with third-party nations for UK policy, namely our position that Taiwan’s status is undetermined? Does she recognise that any UK Government acquiescence with the idea that the status of Taiwan is an internal matter for the PRC alone risks giving legal cover to any future aggressive acts? Does she recognise that distorting resolution 2758 to pursue the exclusion from international organisations of Taiwan—a democratic, self-governing people—undermines the legitimacy of the international rules-based order, not least as it appears to be inconsistent with the treatment of other disputed territories? Will the UK advocate for meaningful Taiwanese participation in all international organisations for which statehood is not a prerequisite?

Past moments of crisis in the strait of Taiwan have flared up and subsided—in particular in 1996 and 2000 after presidential elections—but three things that have changed since then should make us more concerned. First, China is far more heavily armed. Already possessed of the largest naval fleet in the world, Beijing has been adding to it the equivalent of the entire Royal Navy every two years. It will soon have the largest air force in the world.

Secondly, people on both sides of the strait have grown apart. The Taiwanese now have more of a sense of their own identity, and their democracy is deeply embedded, while China’s populist nationalism has grown, and the PRC, which was hardly ever a free and open society, has moved even further in an authoritarian direction, from Xinjiang to Tibet and Hong Kong. Chairman Xi previously proposed to apply the “one country, two systems” approach to Taiwan. However, the systematic removal of Hongkongers’ civil liberties means that any promise from the mainland to maintain the freedoms that Taiwan enjoys could not be trusted. We know that Beijing does not keep its promises.

Thirdly, if we are honest, the west has been found wanting. We have been less than united and less than determined in our defence of democratic allies and democracy around the world. Xi has learned from Putin’s years of slowly boiling the frog, dividing western opponents from each other, manipulating our populations and operating in the grey zone where a gradual increase in aggressive acts avoids a strong strategic response from the west.

That mixture of Chinese armament, growing nationalism, increasing authoritarianism and western weakness is a potentially deadly combination. Indeed, the military exercises and provocations around Taiwan are a recipe for unintentional disaster. Last year, there were more than 1,700 occasions when PRC military aircraft deliberately entered the air defence identification zone of Taiwan. PRC jets turn away when they are just minutes from Taipei. During exercises, we see Taiwanese and PRC vessels in stand-offs on the edge of Taiwan’s nautical buffer zone. Meanwhile, we do not have agreed red lines around Taiwan with other like-minded countries, and worrying ambiguities remain. For example, a maritime and air blockade is normally classed as an act of war, but that is not clear in this case because of Taiwan’s ambiguous state.

Will the Minister assure the House that the legal status of a blockade around Taiwan is being looked at? I worry that we could have a situation where Governments use that ambiguity as an excuse for inertia in the event of a crisis. Will she take the opportunity to say that a maritime and air blockade around Taiwan would be a red line for the Government?

On so many occasions during the cold war, catastrophe was avoided due to essential de-escalation protocols that prevented the misinterpretation of either side’s intentions. I would be interested in the Minister’s assessment of whether there are sufficient procedures of the kind between the military commands of Taipei and Beijing, as in such a febrile and nationalistic atmosphere, a mistake could easily be misunderstood as deliberate escalation, and control of volatile public opinion could easily be lost.

As was said earlier, let us not forget who paid the price for the collective failure of the international community to deter Putin’s aggression. It was first and foremost the Ukrainian people, but ordinary working people around the world also found themselves with unaffordable bills. If Bloomberg is correct, escalation across the strait would be, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, five times worse than the economic contraction post Ukraine. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

When we discuss Taiwan, we talk a lot about protecting the status quo, but we must recognise that the PRC is already actively working to change that status quo. Beijing has not paid any price for that. Xi’s diplomatic offensive has not been met with a commensurate effort from western democracies. As the PRC isolates Taiwan within international institutions, we have not increased our engagement in response. Above all, there has been no sanction for the constant military intimidation or grey zone attacks.

I recognise, of course, that careful diplomatic language is needed on this issue, but we live in a world where free and open societies are retreating in the face of authoritarian regimes who no longer recognise the old order or even international boundaries, and who are seeking to recreate the world in their image. I do not expect the Minister to depart from the delicate, long-established language that has defined the UK’s position towards Taiwan since diplomatic relations were established with the PRC, and the motion does not ask for such a departure. I ask the Minister to put on record the Government’s concern about Beijing’s distortion of the international law around Taiwan, and about the editing of historic UN documents by Chinese officials. I hope that is seen not as an outlandish or hawkish request, but merely as the least we can do when confronted with such troubling behaviour.

Finally, putting all diplomatic language aside, the debate is an opportunity to acknowledge the truth: Taiwan is not China in one important way that no amount of economic, military or diplomatic bullying by Beijing can obscure. It is this: the people of Taiwan are free and the people of China are not. Now more than ever, we must stand with democracies and against dictatorships. We must stand up for freedoms that we claim are universal, regardless of where people live in the world, and we should stand with the democracy of Taiwan.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) mentioned sanctions; it gives me huge pleasure to call my co-sanctionee, Sir Iain Duncan Smith.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Blair McDougall

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I am being welcomed to my place, I welcome you to your place and congratulate you. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes). He spoke about the lack of trust in politics; his eloquent speech and the service he will give to his community will go a long way to help to repair that. Can I say how wonderful it is to see him as one of many Labour MPs from that great city?

I do not wish to nauseate the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), but my speech is going to be about public duty. Apologies for that. Yesterday evening, after the Chancellor’s statement and the discussion afterwards about responsibility, duty and the legacy that people leave in this Chamber, I was standing on the banks of the river, watching the river go by as it has done for countless generations. I thought of everyone who had stood on those banks before—about the choices and decisions they had made, and how those choices had impacted on the lives of everyone who followed them.

The first and most important duty, and the duty the Bill seeks to enshrine, is to take responsible decisions that will ensure a richer life for those who follow us—for our children and our grandchildren. The failure of our age is that we departed from that purpose. In doing so, we have left people trapped in short-term lives—lives without the opportunity to learn for the future; lives without a permanent home; lives of short-term, precarious work. Falling life expectancy, a poisoned environment and a legacy of debt have been handed down to a generation.

Time and generations flow, and can change for the better or for the worse. That change happens as a result of political decisions and also as a result of personal decisions—I will talk about that aspect a little later in my speech—but the hard decisions that we make today are what create a better tomorrow. For me the Bill is about us, as political leaders, making the kind of decisions that my constituents make every single day. Passing this Bill will be a promissory note, saying that this new Parliament will do better and that this new Labour Government will reclaim the legacy and the future of an abandoned generation.

The story of intergenerational opportunity is the story of my constituency of East Renfrewshire. I am going to be very brave and not claim that mine is the most beautiful constituency, partly because, having listened to the speeches of other hon. Members over the last couple of weeks, I am quite happy for that title to rest until the next maiden speakers stand up. You certainly can find natural beauty in East Renfrewshire if you walk through Greenbank Garden, stroll through Rouken Glen or take a hike to the top of Neilston Pad, but the extraordinary thing about my constituency is not the place but the people.

Generation after generation has moved to East Renfrewshire because it offers hope for the next generation and a better life for their children. First they came for the mills, the works and the quarries—to Neilston, to Busby, to Giffnock and to Thornliebank. In Barrhead they came in great numbers for jobs at the old Shanks works, making toilets for the Titanic, for royalty and, indeed, for this place. I must admit that I feel some jealousy when I hear other hon. Members talk about the pride they feel when Mr Speaker has chosen the whisky that Members sip on, or the shortbread for the canteen that Members snack on. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) has told us that the seats we sit on come from his constituency. I do not want to think about what hon. Members do on my constituency’s most significant product, but I hope the relief it provides enhances the quality of debate in the Chamber.

Those industrial workers were followed south out of Glasgow by the Irish and Jewish communities, then by Muslim families, and in turn by Hindus and Sikhs. More recently we have been joined by Ukrainians and Hongkongers, who are looking not just for opportunity but for liberty. Because East Renfrewshire is somewhere people aspire to live. Parents sacrifice and strive to make the dream of living there real, driven on by the love of their families, because in East Renfrewshire we have extraordinary schools—the best schools in Scotland—with remarkable teachers who open wide the future for our children. I want to make special mention of the very remarkable Isobel Mair school, where every child with additional special needs is valued and celebrated.

Sacrificing and striving for the next generation does not stop at the school gates in my constituency; it goes far beyond that. Volunteers at NellyBoxes, the Include Me 2 Club and Back to SchoolBank work to ensure that disadvantage and disability are no barriers to a childhood of opportunity, discovery and fun. St Cadoc’s football team is typical of the sports clubs that offer our kids the confidence and comradery that comes with competition—started in 1987 by the school janny, it now has thousands of kids playing football—but I could just as easily have told the story of Giffnock Soccer Centre, Barrhead Youth football club, Neilston Wasps, GHA and Whitecraigs rugby clubs, or our East Renfrewshire cricket club. I could go on, and as this is my maiden speech I will: Harlequin Youth Theatre gives kids the thrill of performance, and our flourishing girl guides, scouts and boys’ and girls’ brigades, and our Maccabi, offer young people adventure and a taste of leadership.

East Renfrewshire is, to borrow a phrase from someone else, a constituency of joiners. That is a wonderful thing—unless you happen to be their Member of Parliament. I know from speaking to my predecessors that East Renfrewshire is not always the easiest place in the world to represent. Three different hon. Members from three different parties have won and lost my constituency in the last decade. My immediate predecessor, Kirsten Oswald, deserves enormous praise for the service she gave to the constituency, which is typified by the fact that when she lost at one general election, she came back, fought again and won. I hope that is not something that is repeated, but it is typical of how much she loves the constituency. Both she and Paul Masterton, my Conservative predecessor, have been a source of constant support and advice, and I thank them for that.

I pay special tribute to my former hon. Friend—he is now just my friend—Jim Murphy, who served the constituency for 18 years. I know from my time knocking doors in the election how fondly he is remembered in the constituency, and it has been wonderful to talk to more long-standing hon. Members and find out that he is still as fondly remembered in this place.

Prior to the election, I spent most of the last decade working with democrats and against dictators around the world, but not all of my predecessors had such a frosty relationship with authoritarians. In 1941, Rudolph Hess bailed out of his Messerschmitt over the fields outside Eaglesham in my constituency, and parachuted to the ground. The Deputy Führer of the Nazi party was seeking to negotiate with Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, a former Member of Parliament for East Renfrewshire, who Hess believed—perhaps unfairly—to be a Nazi sympathiser. Hess was swiftly captured by a local farmer at pitchfork, and then taken to Busby scout hall, apparently by an inebriated member of the national guard at pistol point. He was then taken to the Tower of London, which sits alongside the river that flows outside here. Time may have passed, but I can tell you that my constituents, informed by events in Ukraine and elsewhere, still have as little tolerance for dictators as they did back in the 1940s.

My argument today is that we should think more long term in this House, but I make it in the knowledge that my own place here will only ever be temporary. I will close by saying why I feel that so acutely. My roots are in East Renfrewshire, where I was born and brought up, but my ancestors hail from much closer to this Chamber. My grandfather was born across the river, in Lambeth. He was one of seven children scattered to different orphanages and foster homes when his parents died. He went to his grave believing that his mother had been taken by consumption and then his father had succumbed to old wounds from the great war.

But that story was a lie. It was a lie told to a boy to protect him from a horrible truth that was discovered when we researched our family tree. The truth was that my great-grandfather, overwhelmed by grief and overcome by poverty, decided that his children would have a better future without him—that their life would be better if he ended his. So he walked to Lambeth pier and threw himself into the freezing water that runs past this Parliament.

As the once famous Newton Mearns poet Robert Pollock wrote:

“Sorrows remembered sweeten present joy.”

Today, if you stand at the place where my great-grandfather’s story ended, you can look across the river to where his great-grandson just gave his maiden speech as a Member of Parliament—watched from the Gallery by his own children. However long I serve on the banks of this river, I will always have an eye on the water flying by and my mind on the responsibility we have to our children and grandchildren.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will do his family very proud—but for me, comfort breaks will never be the same. I call Bobby Dean to make his maiden speech.