Asia, Books, Britain, China, History

Book Review: Imperial Twilight

DARK TRUTH OF THE OPIUM WARS

THE Opium War began in 1839 in which the British and Chinese faced one another. It was a one-sided affair: The Royal Navy was the most powerful military force in the world, while the Chinese possessed weaponry that was centuries out of date.

The Chinese were reduced to desperate measures. One commander hatched a plan to strap fireworks or pyrotechnics to the backs of monkeys and catapult the poor primates onto the British ships in the hope that they would blow up their powder magazines. In the event, nobody could get close enough to launch the monkey bombs at the enemy.

The war was the end result of a decades-long, often fractious relationship between China and Britain, characterised by misunderstandings and ignorance on both sides.

Eighty years earlier, in 1759, there was only one British national, James Flint, who knew how to speak and write in Chinese. His attempt to present a petition to the Chinese emperor on behalf of the East India Company ended with Flint imprisoned for three years and the man who had taught him Chinese decapitated.

In 1793, Lord Macartney arrived in Beijing, bearing gifts from King George III including telescopes, a planetarium and a hot air balloon. The Emperor announced that they were “good enough to amuse children”. Macartney left Beijing having achieved little.

It was trade that finally brought the two nations together, but there were, unfortunately, two kinds.

One consisted of legal commodities such as cotton, silks and tea. The other was in opium, which the East India Company smuggled from India into China, where demand was high.

The two countries had very different attitudes to opium. In Britain, the drug was legal and sold by apothecaries and tobacconists. There was even a tonic for teething babies called Mother Bailey’s Quieting Syrup.

But China’s growing addiction problem was devastating its cities. Opium was illegal and punishments for using it grew even harsher.

The war was precipitated by the Imperial commissioner Lin Zexu, who confiscated vast amounts of the drug and threw it in the sea. (He wrote a prayer to the god of the sea apologising for his defilement of the waters.)

Charles Elliot, the chief superintendent of the British in Canton, sent a furious dispatch to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, demanding military action. Some months later Elliot got what he wanted.

The Opium War was not the British Empire’s finest hour. The Times newspaper described it as “nothing less than an attempt, by open violence, to force upon a foreign country the purchase of a deadly poison”.

But the twilight of Stephen Platt’s title was not that of Britain’s empire. It was China that was in decline – and worse was to come. Now that China is once again one of the world’s great powers, knowing the history of its relationship with the West becomes ever more important. Platt’s book makes a scholarly, but enjoyable, contribution to that knowledge.

– Imperial Twilight by Stephen Platt is published by Atlantic for £25

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, NATO, Norway

Britain and Norway in collaborative mission to curb Russian threat

DEFENCE

BRITAIN’S new fleet of submarine-hunters will work alongside Norwegian forces as a deterrent to the Russian threat.

Britain and Norway will combat the resurgent threat from Russian naval forces by sharing facilities for new Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA).

The “significant increase in Russian submarine activity” means NATO naval forces are at particular risk in the North Atlantic and Baltic Sea.

The UK will take delivery next year of the first nine P-8A aircraft, at a cost of around £3billion.

Norway is buying five of them in a move that reflects the “changing security environment” in the North Atlantic, according to a statement jointly signed by the UK, Norway and the US.

The UK aircraft will be based at RAF Lossiemouth in Moray, Scotland, with operational and logistical support extended to the Norwegian planes.

The plan to share facilities comes in the wake of comments by Gavin Williamson, the Defence Secretary, that increased Russian naval activity in the Atlantic “shows the increasing aggression [and] increasing assertiveness of Russia”.

He said the Royal Navy had responded 33 times to Russian warships approaching UK territorial waters in 2017 compared with just once in 2010.

The decision in 2010 to scrap Britain’s MPA capability was subsequently reviewed in light of Russia’s military actions in Georgia and Ukraine, according to a spokesperson for the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The UK is investing in nine P-8A maritime patrol aircraft.

“The change of gear in the relationship with Russia meant filling the gap [in MPA capability] in the 2015 Defence Review was a significant priority.”

Submarine hunting skills had been retained in the RAF by embedding personnel in the US, Canada, Australian and New Zealand armed forces. The decision was taken in 2015 to revive a sovereign British maritime patrol capability.

Submarines are the most potent part of the Russian navy.

The fleet consists of about 60-70 vessels and only a handful could pose a problem for NATO naval forces. The P-8 conducts anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, and shipping interdiction, along with an electronic signals intelligence role.

This involves carrying torpedoes, depth charges, Harpoon anti-ship missiles and other weapons.

The Poseidon’s search radar is optimised for detecting small objects on the surface of the sea, such as submarine periscopes, as well as larger surface contacts. And it deploys sonobuoys to help detect submarines.

A spokesperson for Norway’s Ministry of Defence previously stated: “Norway and the UK are natural partners given our shared values, as well as our history and geography.”

Standard
Britain, Government, Politics, Scotland, Society

Brexit and the devolution settlement

BREXIT

For most of the two decades following Scottish devolution, nobody would have anticipated for a moment that the UK would be leaving the European Union or that this would have consequential effects on relations between Edinburgh and London.

But, given we have had two years of dithering as the UK Government decided what kind of Brexit it wanted, there was surely a time when a sensible compromise could have been delivered that respected the devolution settlement and one that did not undermine the UK’s own internal market.

. See also Scotland’s EU Continuity Bill now being tested in Supreme Court

Instead, what we have witnessed is relations descending into a bitter row over what the SNP has described as a “power grab” over issues that are currently controlled by the EU (but which would otherwise be devolved).

In the context of the arguments, both the UK and Scottish Governments had a point. Westminster wants to make sure the UK doesn’t leave the wealthiest single market in the world and end up with further sub-divisions inside the UK. Yet, it’s not unreasonable for the SNP to be concerned that matters which are supposed to be devolved might end up being controlled in London. Whilst the UK Government insists this will not happen and that powers transferring from the EU will all be sorted out eventually, it does feel like ministers ran out of time to sort out a deal in advance of Brexit.

What has transpired since is the potential start of a constitutional crisis. The Scottish Parliament passed its own Continuity Bill in an attempt to safeguard the disputed powers of which the bill’s legitimacy is currently being considered by the UK Supreme Court.

An indication of the reason behind the chaos has emerged in a report by MPs that says Whitehall officials don’t actually understand devolution. This is all the more surprising given that the committee is chaired by Sir Bernard Jenkin, a prominent Conservative Brexiteer.

Scotland’s Constitution Secretary Mike Russell remarked it is an “astonishing state of affairs” and one that should be rectified as soon as possible (which will only happen after Brexit now). There is perhaps, though, a silver lining that stands out from the conclusions of the report, in that the UK Government hasn’t been deliberately trying to grab powers that should be devolved. It’s simply been struggling to understand what to do.

Might this just be the basis for a general cooling of tensions between Holyrood and Westminster and a chance to find a reasonable way forward? In these turbulent times, that would certainly help.

Standard