Security

After Andy Burnham’s speech at the Labour party conference on Tuesday, one veteran factionalist declared: ‘We are all Burnhamites now.’ Romantics love the rhetoric; cynics respect the ruthlessness. ‘Game recognises game,’ says one Labour figure. The Prime Minister’s address was pitched at a wounded party seeking support. Emotive and personal, yet also intensely political, it showed a keen awareness not just of Labour’s values, but of its interests too. Right to Buy, which attracted legions to the Tory ranks, will be halted for new homes; a new National Care Service will bring thousands more members into the unions’ fold.

If Andy Burnham wants a reminder of the case for artificial intelligence (AI), he need only walk down the streets of his Makerfield constituency. Drives are dominated by Ford Transits and VW Transporters, the favoured vans of the self-employed. Blue-collar, hard-working, manual labourers: these will be the people most secure in the coming jobs revolution. Their accounting is made easier via new online systems; their public services smoothed by better programmes. Wigan council is using AI to cut costs in the care system; the nearby Heinz factory deploys it in its production line. Burnham wants a ‘Makerfield test’ for all aspects of policy. Yet what does that really mean when AI is so fast-changing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?

It goes by an innocuous name – “Integrated Joint Operations Platform” (IJOP) – but it’s one of the most sinister components of China’s surveillance state, managing what has been described as a genocide against the Uighurs. The IJOP combines multiple systems of repression – location, messages, contacts, social media and other data from phones, together with information from checkpoints, cameras and biometric records. It then flags “suspicious” individuals for detention and forced labor. Now leading US universities have been accused of extensive collaboration with Chinese laboratories which develop technology that may be deployed or adapted for use in this system.

It was the political equivalent of Halley's comet. On Tuesday, Boris Johnson underestimated his own achievement. He claimed that the review of defence, security and foreign policy was the most wide-ranging study of those topics since the end of the Cold War. That was being too modest. It is the most important contribution since the Duncan Sandys Defence White Paper in 1957, which set out Britain's strategy for the Cold War: rethinking and re-organising our capabilities and commitments in order to contain and counter the Russian threat. But the latest review is even more radical. The Sandys paper rested on one assumption which is, alas, no longer true: that Britain was a superpower – if not a full member of the Big Three, still clocking in at two and a half.

The snow is falling in Moscow, but that is after the warmest autumn there on record. Meanwhile, perhaps reflecting that with the arrival of vaccines, there is at least the prospect of an end to the Covid-19 crisis, the climate change debate is rekindling – and with a particular geopolitical angle. Much of the conventional wisdom is that it is a perverse boon to Russia. Representative of this perspective, for example, has been a recent study that led the New York Times to predict that Moscow will ‘win the climate crisis’ – while its partner, ProPublica, warned that ‘Russia could dominate a warming world.’ Stirring stuff, and no doubt music to Vladimir Putin’s ears.

The national security law in Hong Kong has been passed for just over a month, but the scope of Beijing's plans are now clear. This is a constitutional coup. The safeguards which have historically defended human rights in Hong Kong have been shattered. Rule of law has been replaced with rule by law – and the Communist Party's word is law. Thursday 30 July brought home the reality of the new status quo. Hong Kongers woke up to the news that four young people aged between 16 and 21 years old – representing a small group of students who campaigned for Hong Kong independence last year – heard a midnight knock on the door and were arrested. Their crime? Posting on social media, or ‘organising and inciting secession’ in the new dystopian Hong Kong.

The controversy over the UK’s use of Huawei equipment in its 5G network has not abated, despite the government’s announcement that the Chinese manufacturer’s equipment will be stripped from the network by 2027. Conservative MPs continue to be unsatisfied by this half-way house, claiming that Britain will remain vulnerable to ‘back-door’ espionage by the Chinese state. They carry on threatening the government with an embarrassing, albeit symbolic, rebellion. But it is no secret that the real pressure to abandon Huawei equipment comes principally, and forcefully, from the UK’s ‘Five Eyes’ partners. The ‘Five Eyes’ network dates back to the Second World War and comprises the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.