China In Your Hands?

[Thracian]

I have always favoured the monarchy - if only because it is an outstandingly lucarative tourist attraction, because it is a symbol of stability, because it is publicly non-political (or should be) and because it is the cornerstone of the Commonwealth.

That being the case am I the only one who thanks God the Queen has never abdicated in favour of Prince Charles and thanks God there seems less and less likelihood of his ever being King?.

Charles, as has always been known but is further revealed today, has strong views. As an individual there is nothing wrong with them and as an experienced (and priveleged) traveller there is no reason to believe those views are and more likely to be wrong than yours or mine.

The problem is that Charles is first and foremost a representative of Great Britain...a Prince, an ambassador, a diplomat - at least that's how I see it.

And yet, this so-Senior British figurehead (arguably the second/third most important British figurehad) has, according to today's Mail on Sunday, recorded "candid remarks" which are scathing about the Chinese leadership (during the handover of Hong Kong) and which are revealed only days after a state visit to Britain by the Chinese president.

Charles, who boycotted a previous Chinese state banquet and again failed to attend the latest one is said to have referred to Chinese diplomats at the time of the Hong Kong take-back as "appalling oild waxworks", to have ridiculed the leaderships totalitarian leanings and to have labelled the People's Army corrupt (we don't have anything like that here, I suppose).

Whether all or any of those things are true they are utterly disrespectful of a nation which is fast heading towards becoming the next Superpower, whice already gives aid to our supposed enemies, which is said to be increasing its spy network in the UK and on British activities elsewhere, which has been engaged in Sino-Russian joint military exercises, and which holds the key (via Taiwan) to the most explosive situation in World politics (and a more than possible source of World War 111) etc etc.

You would think, being mindful of this, Charles would be more tactful.

In fact seeing as the insults he reportedly utters could equally be applied to other regimes who we don't publicly insult (public because the private memoirs would appear to have been leaked) you would think he would be more concerned with establishing positive relations with China.

I don't want to labour the point anymore - my concerns about Chinese influence are the concerns of many - but I would have thought positive dialogue and efforts to form some sort of mutual respect/understanding/alliance, would have been more beneficial than cheap insults which (were they kept as personal opinions matter nothing) but which are certainly not representative (so far as I know) of the British people.

Anyone who has read Wild Swans (Three Daughters of China) by Jung Chang will quickly understand the historical ruthlessness of the Chinese leadership and judging by what they would do to their own kind, I would have no great desire to antagonise them enough to turn their single-mindedness against us.

It might not happen anytime soon directly, but indirect anger could well be chanelled through Iran.

This wholly unnecessary own goal from Prince Charles will hardly smooth any pathways and, were I his advisors, I would quickly suggest he take a leaf out of his mother's book and show respect to fellow nations and try to remain friends with most while being diplomatically communicative with others. Finally I would suggest he keps his personal opinions to himself.

After all this is a guy - supposedly fit to be king - who cannot make the best of a marriage to the beautiful, undoubtedly kind and articulate mother of his three sons.

Nor was he strong enough to resist the marriage if he was unhappy about it.

Not a great recommendation for World Statesmanship that, or for expecting others to respect your opinion - but why should it matter?.

Because, for one thing, this nation has been involved in all too many wars as it is.