GOOD MORNING FROM LONDON
06 JULY 2025.
—————————————————–
#1 CHINA’S GROWING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MUSLIM WORLD.
#2 CHINA AND JACK PERRY – PART 2.
#3 THE U.S + CHINA – RARE EARTHS AND SEMICONDUCTORS
————————————————-
#1 CHINA’S GROWING RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE MUSLIM WORLD
PEARLS AND IRRITATIONS – AUSTRALIA
By Dr AbdulWahed Jalal Nori, Assistant Professor at International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM).
“The 13 June Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military sites under “Operation Rising Lion” and Iran’s swift missile retaliation pushed the region to the edge of a broader war. That risk escalated further on Sunday when the United States launched coordinated strikes on several key Iranian nuclear facilities, including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
What this spiralling confrontation underscores is a sobering reality: the West is no longer capable of imposing stability on its terms. Amid this geopolitical fragmentation, a consequential shift is under way – an alignment between China and the Muslim world. Once seen as unlikely partners, this axis is now grounded in respect, sovereignty and a shared aspiration for a post-Western world order.
China’s engagement with the Muslim world is not impulsive but strategic. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, it has invested heavily in infrastructure and logistics in countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Unlike the traditional aid programs of Western powers, Chinese aid offers an alternative that is appealing to nations scarred by colonial legacies and structural adjustment programs.”
GRAHAM PERRY COMMENTS;–
China announced its arrival in the Muslim world when, in negotiations conducted in Beijing, it brought Iran and Saudi Arabia to the table to re-establish diplomatic ties. Additionally, the expanded BRICS grouping now includes Egypt, Iran and the United Arab Emirates and The Shanghai Co-operation Organisation facilitated direct Global South co-operation without the participation of either NATO or the Group of 7.
In Southeast Asia, Malaysia is a bridge between China and the Muslim world and hosts major halal expos and Islamic finance summits involving Chinese firms seeking to align with Muslim consumer standards.
Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, also illustrates the realignment. With its focus on maritime sovereignty, digital innovation and partnerships with other Global South nations, Jakarta is engaging China without compromising its political autonomy. This model — collaboration without dependency — is increasingly attractive among Muslim-majority nations.
Western-dominated institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have at times failed to provide sustainable solutions. China, by contrast, offers alternatives in digital finance through the digital yuan infrastructure via the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
Not all is plain sailing. There are tensions as the Muslim world is diverse – Turkey’s regional assertiveness; internal rivalries in the Gulf; and Pakistan’s security dilemma are just three stand-out areas of concern. China, too, faces questions; first, re debt concerns over the Belt and Road Initiative and, second, over its actions in Xinjiang Province.
On the plus side there are Joint ventures in Islamic fintech; blockchain trust systems, climate-resilient infrastructure and multilingual educational exchanges. China’s interest in securing long-term food and energy supply chains also aligns with the Muslim world’s pursuit of green growth and agricultural innovation.
The emerging China-Muslim relationship will bring pressure to reform the UN Security Council, to revisit trade rules under the World Trade Organisation and to reshape development finance. Dr Nori concludes “as the Western-led order faces growing internal fractures, the partnership between China and the Muslim world is no longer peripheral. It is not a rebellion but rather a renaissance”
———————————————————
#2 CHINA AND JACK PERRY – PART TWO.
MOSLEY AND THE BLACKSHIRTS IN THE EAST END OF LONDON
GRAHAM PERRY COMMENTS;-
The Nazi Party in Germany had been formed in 1923 and within ten years Hitler had ousted all his rivals and established himself as the undisputed leader of the increasingly revitalised Germany. He had gained support among the German population by focusing on the heavy cost imposed upon Germany by the Great Powers (the US, UK, France and Russia) at the Treaty of Versailles and by singling out the Jews as the #1 domestic enemy. Hitler stressed “Germanic purity” and mobilised public opinion against what he termed as “the blood-sucking Jews”. He widened his attack to include Socialists, Communists, Trade Unionists and the Liberal Academic sector as well. Romanies, homosexuals and libertarians of every dimension were also the focus of the fast developing racist and fascist character of the reviving Germany.
In the 1920s and the early 1930s the activities of Hitler and his storm troopers were not considered as a major news event by the British media and attention instead focused on the Hunger Marches of the UK unemployed, the General Strike of 1926 and the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Unemployment and insecurity dominated the thoughts of the British public. There was an awareness of the rise in Italy of Mussolini but front-page news was dominated by the growing economic hardship of the British people. Things changed with Hitler’s election in 1933. It was not just his focused hatred of the Jews of Germany but also on his determination to right the wrongs imposed on Germany by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler, and Germany, were becoming an international threat.
Initially UK leaders welcomed the growing role of Hitler. He was seen as a “patriot” who would provide Germany with the strong post-War leadership that it needed but concerns began to arise in the UK as Hitler focused his attention on the restoration of Germany’s powerful military machine and the dismantling of the restrictions imposed on Germany at Versailles.
Winston Churchill was the first UK politician to warn of the growing threat of a re-militarised Germany – undertaken in defiance of the Versailles Treaty. He recognised that Hitler’s goal was to spread Nazi power across Europe as a prelude to an onslaught on the British and French Empires and also the USSR. Churchill had only modest support – Anthony Eden, Duff Cooper, Brendan Bracken and others – whereas Prime Ministers Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain and their policy of appeasement of Germany enjoyed support from a UK electorate – many of whom were eager to avoid any repeat of the horrors of World War I.
But there was an anxiety and it was increasing as newsreel film of Hitler’s angry speeches at the Nazi rallies was viewed in UK cinemas. Anti-semitism came out of the shadows and began to infect parts of the UK population. As my father wrote “Organised fascism, modelling itself upon the German and Italian example was soon to appear on British streets”
SIR OSWALD MOSLEY
It is at this point of the narrative that Sir Oswald Mosley plays a significant part. Mosley had commenced his political journey as a member of the Conservative Party but had switched to the Labour Party where he had risen to be a Cabinet member. Following Labour’s big defeat at the 1931 General Election, Mosley left Labour and together with liberal and labour intellectuals formed the New Party – its main purpose being the invigoration of the British economy through an attack on unemployment then at crisis level.
Mosley had crowd appeal – being an orator of immense skill. He had seen the Nazi electoral success and read reports of the rise of the street-based Mussolini party in Italy and, with shadowy monied UK backers, he launched the British Union of Fascists (BUF) in 1932. The membership was visibly distinctive on the streets of London with Blackshirt uniforms and jackboots and the adoption of the armband lightening insignia as the British equivalent of Hitler’s swastika.
Mosley made an impact. As my father observed in his book ‘From Brick Lane to the Forbidden City’ “At open air public meetings in key working class districts in London, he preached hatred and violence to increasingly large crowds, impressed by his theatricalism, histrionics and virulent oratory. Surrounded by an army of black-shirted bodyguards, the Hitler-like raised arm salute and the rehearsed audience acclaim soon won him immense publicity. With a growing number of trained speakers articulating his new fascist plan of action, his showmanship attracted increasing numbers of working-class youth, many of them unemployed, leading to a burgeoning presence at public places throughout London and a rapidly expanding membership. BUF activity soon spread to other towns and cities throughout Britain – Glasgow, Birmingham, Leeds, Coventry, Sheffield and Newcastle all acquired impressive central headquarters, while a further feature was the growth of organised fascist activity in middle class areas – Brighton, Worthing, Cheltenham, Exeter, Blackpool and other “dormitory towns. Within a year, the BUF could fill Britain’s largest meeting places.“
There was opposition – of sorts. The Labour and Liberal parties protested but with mild emphasis which failed to meet the fascist challenge head-on. The Conservative Party maintained a silence – being unsure which way the British electorate would go.
UK JEWS AND THE MOSLEY CHALLENGE
The greatest anxiety was felt by the vilified Jewish community. Its main representative body – the Board of Deputies (BOD) – made its concern felt in a limited public arena. Through its hastily-formed Defence Committee, it challenged the more bizarre charges made by the Mosleyites – pamphlets demonstrating the falsity of the allegations.
For example – when the fascist speakers alleged that a Jewish plutocracy controlled the British state, this was countered by giving the names of a handful of Jewish bankers and industrialists as proof of their very limited influence. When it was further alleged that the Jews dominated the Stock Exchange, the insurance companies, large-scale industry and important sectors of the media, the Defence Committee sought to ridicule these assertions by publishing the names of powerful non-Jews in an attempt to demonstrate the paucity of Jewish influence in the apparatus of the British state.
As my father wrote “Few read these pamphlets, they were trivial instruments in the face of the onslaught daily shouted from the housetops throughout the land. Increasing numbers of young people, Jews and non-Jews, who refused to concede the British streets to the fascists, rejected this futile response to the anti-Semite poison. Soon squabbles and physical violence became a regular occurrence at fascist meetings. Frowned upon by the authorities, opposition groups began to be formed, mounting a challenge to the Hitlerite thugs who strutted the British streets.”
The response of the Labour Party was spontaneous and ineffective and the crusade against the Blackshirts began to take shape only when the Communist Party instructed their members not to be acquiescent or low key in the face of Mosley violence. The time had come to take the fight to the Fascists on the broadest front linking up with Trade Unionists, minority groups such as the Irish and well intentioned local citizens. For the first time Mosley encountered resistance and responded by raising the stakes. Now his Blackshirts would march in military formation waving provocative banners and challenging the Police for control of the streets.
THE POLITICISATION OF JACK PERRY
My father’s changing political priorities – from being an uninvolved observer to being a street militant – were triggered by living in the road in Hackney – St Johns Church Road – where the headquarters of the Hackney Branch of the BUF were located identified by a large Union Jack that the BUF had appropriated as their own. Jack witnessed violence for the first time as BUF members would gather every Friday evening at the end of the Road and harangue passing Jews in a provocative and often violent manner.
Mosley was trying to take control of the streets and to underline the growing strength of the BUF he ensured it was re-enforced by mainly unemployed white youth whose assaults on Jews was an echo of the same action in Germany undertaken by Hitler’s SS.
The street violence continued and led my father to ask questions about Germany, Hitler, Unemployment. Keynes and Capitalism Lenin and Imperialism. He was becoming political and in a matter of months he turned his back on religion and became involved in politics. This was a big change in his life. He was intrigued by the contrast between the repetitive and detached study at Synagogue of the Torah and other religious texts on the one hand and the street violence of the fascist challenge on the other. As I stated in Part 1 in China Post #578 Jack’s politicisation was assisted by many late-night discussions with his soon-to-be father in law – Morris Shaer.
Jack was not alone. Many other young Jews – antagonised by the provocative actions of Mosley’s Blackshirts – were dissatisfied with the Rabbinical instruction – ‘Stay Low Key. Don’t Confront.’ Jack was alert. He had a brain. He read voraciously turning his attention from the classic novels of English literature to the political texts of idealogues and idealists as he made the connection between the street violence of the Fascists, the progress of the Jarrow marchers and the rise of the Soviet Union. His political education was given urgency by the street challenge from the Mosleyites. The British Union of Fascists needed to be confronted.
Jack’s inherent talents came into play. He was quick and responsive. He could read and absorb the arguments about the direction of UK society and world affairs. He could write and organise and also developed his lifelong ability to be an orator. Never a blushing violet, he was the first to respond in a discussion, to attract the attention of those that looked for guidance and direction. He was becoming a ‘stand-out’ person.
He was embarking on a lifetime’s political activity that led him in 1953 to become the first Western businessman to visit the fledgling People’s Republic of China – a journey that took him from the fisticuffs on the streets of Bethnal Green and Hackney to the mass political struggles of the Forbidden City in Beijing. Jack was on a journey. But China, too, was on a journey.
PART 3 OF CHINA AND JACK PERRY WILL APPEAR IN CHINA POST #580
IT WILL ADDRESS JACK’S LINKS WITH THE U.K. COMMUNIST PARTY AND THE MOSCOW ECONOMIC CONFERENCE OF 1952.
——————————————–
#3 IS THE U.S.-CHINA CEASEFIRE HOLDING?
RYAN FEATHERSTON –
THE CENTRE FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (CSIS).
“The tentative consensus the U.S. and China reached in Geneva on May 12 began to fray almost immediately after being issued due to differing understandings of what each side had pledged to do. The Trump administration was frustrated with China’s reticence to remove export controls on a set of seven key rare earth elements. The Chinese side claimed that since the export controls were aimed at addressing the potential dual-use applications of the minerals, they were compatible with international law and the agreement. Conversely, Beijing expressed frustrations with the U.S.’s continued tightening of export controls, including restrictions on Huawei’s chip sales throughout the world including China.
This led to a broader deterioration in the relationship, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing steps to revoke the visas of Chinese students studying in the U.S. and a series of new export controls on jet engines, ethane and semiconductor design tools in response to China’s continued rare earth controls. This breakdown culminated in a call between Presidents Trump and Xi on June 5, where they discussed the potential collapse of the ceasefire and agreed to send negotiators to London the following week to find a resolution. The call itself had been an uncertain outcome, given differing negotiating styles – Trump’s desire to hash out deals at the head-of-state level, and Xi’s typical refusal to engage in direct discussions without pre-negotiated outcomes. The Chinese reporting noted specifically that Xi “held phone talks with U.S. President Donald Trump at the latter’s request,” implying that China was beneficent in being open to listening to the U.S. leader’s worries.
The exact terms of what was agreed to in London remained uncertain until June 26, when both sides announced that a deal was reached between the two parties. As part of that agreement, China would expedite reviews of export licences for its rare earth export controls in exchange for the U.S. reversing recently imposed export controls and continuing to allow Chinese students to study in the United States.
The timing of the agreement itself is notable. After negotiations in Geneva, there was a clear joint statement released shortly after with takeaways on what had been agreed, even if such an understanding proved to be fleeting. It took over 20 days for the finer details to be hashed out and formed into a workable agreement after the London meeting. For that period, a variety of statements and social media posts from the President and senior administration officials served as the main outcome of the talks. This added a degree of uncertainty to the current state of the relationship. Indeed, though President Trump and Commerce Secretary Lutnick have announced the deal was signed on June 24, the full text has yet to be released – an occurrence that is at best annoying and at worst a signpost of a worrying trend in waning transparency.
The London deal, identified through the statements from Chinese and U.S. officials, largely preserves the equilibrium reached in Geneva by addressing the primary U.S. concern: China’s rare earth export controls.”
GRAHAM PERRY COMMENTS;-
The meeting in London and the subsequent delay in confirming a deal has demonstrated the fragility of what was agreed to in Geneva
in May and also changed longstanding assumptions about how economic diplomacy between the U.S. and China is conducted.
China has learned from experience. In 2018 the U.S. tried to torpedo China’s economic development by banning the sale to China of semiconductors. The writing was on the wall. The U.S. was trying to bring China to heel. China responded – quietly but persistently – to make itself a world leader in Rare Earths. It also had its own “card to play”. In Geneva and in London China has demonstrated its capacity to find and use leverage. Rare Earths matter to the U.S. just as semiconductors matter to China.
There is one significant difference – China has focused with intensity since 2018 to make itself independent of the U.S. when it comes to semiconductors whereas the U.S. has only just woken up to its strategic vulnerability in Rare Earths – hence Trump’s recent urgent talk about taking over Greenland. China’s agreement with the U.S. to expedite approvals of Rare Earth export licenses for U.S. firms is a sign of growing confidence in China’s own ability to exploit chokepoints.
This recent tit-for-tat has reminded both sides of an unavoidable truth – the U.S. and China are for now deeply intertwined with each other and attempts to thrash out the ties which bind them will be painful. China has come of age. The World is a different place in 2025 to what it was in 2000 – just 25 years has seen a big change in the balance of power. The U.S. now knows that the lead times for mining and refining Rare Earths are quite lengthy. The Rising Power is challenging the Established Power.
GRAHAM PERRY
