中美沒有回頭路？對英反制雷聲大雨點小？我駐英大使回應

“中國駐英國大使館”微信公眾號8月2日消息：2020年7月30日，劉曉明大使就當前中英關係舉行網上中外記者會。英國廣播公司（BBC）、天空新聞台、獨立電視台、《金融時報》、《每日電訊報》、《泰晤士報》、泰晤士電台、《衞報》、路透社，新華社、《人民日報》、中央電視台、中國國際電視台（CGTN）、中新社、《中國日報》、《科技日報》、《環球時報》、觀察者網，以及美聯社、彭博社、美國全國廣播公司、今日俄羅斯電視台、《石英》雜誌、鳳凰衞視資訊台、《歐洲時報》、《蘇格蘭人報》、《曼徹斯特晚報》等27家中外媒體的30餘名記者參加。英國議會跨黨派中國小組副主席克利夫頓-布朗爵士、議會跨黨派中國小組副主席洛根、議會上院議員戴維森勳爵、英中貿協榮譽主席沙遜勳爵、沃爾布魯克俱樂部主席帕倫博勳爵、48家集團俱樂部主席佩裏、中國英國商會主席毛士真、倫敦國際戰略研究所中國防務政策專家温玫雅、皇家三軍防務與安全聯合研究所亞太及中國問題專家温麗玉等英國政商學界嘉賓出席。韓國、老撾駐英大使，歐盟、俄羅斯、吉爾吉斯斯坦、墨西哥、阿根廷、緬甸、巴西、沙特等國駐英外交官，以及香港駐倫敦經濟貿易辦事處處長蘇婉玲等在線出席。駐英使館通過劉大使社交媒體賬號對記者會進行全程直播。CGTN、路透社、美聯社等對記者會進行了直播報道。BBC、天空新聞台等媒體在各自電視台和網站進行了廣泛報道。

記者會實錄如下：

**劉大使：**大家上午好！歡迎大家出席今天的中外記者會。

今年是中英關係開啓“黃金時代”5週年。年初以來，習近平主席與約翰遜首相兩次通電話，就推進中英關係及兩國共同抗疫達成重要共識。兩國政府各部門認真落實這一重要共識，積極開展多領域合作。中英雙方本應珍惜這一良好勢頭，推動兩國關係向前發展，但令人遺憾和痛心的是，近來，中英關係遭遇一系列困難，面臨嚴峻形勢。

人們在問；中英關係怎麼了？英國媒體也在問，中英關係出現問題原因何在？是中國變了？還是英國變了？今天我就來回答這個問題：中國沒有變，變的是英國。中英關係遭遇困難，責任完全在英方。

首先，中方堅定奉行國際關係基本準則沒有變。互相尊重主權和領土完整、互不干涉內政和平等互利，是《聯合國憲章》確立的國家間關係的基本原則，是國際法與國際關係的基本準則，也是中英關係的基本原則，被寫入兩國建立大使級外交關係的聯合公報。中國從不干涉別國的內政，包括英國的內政，也決不允許別國干涉中國的內政。但是，近期英方卻一再違反這些重要原則：在涉港問題上無端指責香港國安法，改變英國國民（海外）（BNO）政策，暫停與香港引渡協定，粗暴干涉香港事務和中國內政，嚴重干擾香港穩定與繁榮；在涉疆問題上罔顧事實、顛倒黑白，在雙邊和多邊渠道對中國治疆政策大肆抹黑攻擊，借所謂新疆人權問題干涉中國內政，嚴重毒化中英關係氛圍。

第二，中方堅持走和平發展道路沒有變。走和平發展道路，是中國堅定不移的戰略選擇和鄭重承諾。中國沒有侵略擴張的基因，沒有也不會輸出自己的模式。中國發展是為了讓人民過上好日子，而不是要威脅誰、挑戰誰、取代誰。歷史已經並將繼續證明，中國始終是世界和平的建設者、全球發展的貢獻者、國際秩序的維護者，中國的發展壯大隻能使世界更和平、更穩定、更繁榮。而英國一些政客，抱守“冷戰思維”，與英內外反華勢力遙相呼應，大肆渲染“中國威脅”，將中國視為“敵對國家”，揚言要與中國全面“脱鈎”，甚至叫囂要對中國發動“新冷戰”。

第三，中方認真履行自身國際義務沒有變。今年是聯合國成立75週年，中國是第一個簽署《聯合國憲章》的國家。中國參加了100多個政府間國際組織，簽署了500多個多邊條約。中國始終認真履行自身承擔的國際責任和義務，從未“退羣”、“毀約”，從不謀求本國利益優先。英方妄稱中方出台香港國安法違反《中英聯合聲明》、未履行國際義務，這完全是錯誤的。《聯合聲明》的核心要義是中國恢復對香港行使主權，而香港國安法正充分體現了中國中央政府對香港的全面管治權。中國政府在《聯合聲明》中闡述的對港方針政策是中方單方面政策宣示，既不是對英方的承諾，更不是所謂國際義務，“不履行國際義務”的帽子扣不到中國頭上。反倒是英方不履行國際義務，違背自身承諾，改變BNO政策，暫停與香港引渡協定，擾亂香港人心，干擾香港國安法實施，干涉中國內政。

第四，中方致力於發展對英夥伴關係的意願沒有變。2015年習近平主席對英國國事訪問期間，中英發表聯合宣言，決定構建面向21世紀全球全面戰略伙伴關係。中國始終將英國看做夥伴，致力於發展健康穩定的中英關係。正如王毅國務委員兼外長前天與拉布外交大臣通話時指出的那樣：“對英國而言，中國始終是機遇而不是威脅，是增量而不是減量，是解決方案而不是挑戰。”然而，英方近來對華認知和定位發生重大變化，出現嚴重偏差，“禁用華為”就是最突出例證。這不是英國如何對待一家中國企業的問題，而是關係到英國如何看待中國的問題。英國究竟是把中國看作機遇、夥伴，還是威脅、對手？是把中國看作友好國家，還是“敵對”或“潛在敵對國家”？英方領導人多次表示要發展平衡、積極、建設性的中英關係。我們聽其言，觀其行。

當前，世界百年未有之大變局正向縱深發展。新冠肺炎疫情仍在全球肆虐，經濟全球化遭遇嚴重衝擊，世界經濟陷入深度衰退。面對這樣的形勢，我們需要一個什麼樣的中英關係？中英都是聯合國安理會常任理事國和二十國集團等國際組織重要成員國，都是具有全球影響的大國，都肩負着維護世界和平、促進發展的重要使命。一個健康穩定發展的中英關係，不僅符合中英兩國人民的根本利益，也有利於世界的和平與繁榮。我們有一千個理由把中英關係搞好，沒有一條理由把中英關係搞壞。如何搞好中英關係？我認為，做到以下三點至關重要：

一是相互尊重。歷史告訴我們，只要國際法和國際關係基本準則得到遵守，中英關係就向前發展；反之則遭遇挫折，甚至倒退。中國尊重英國主權，從未做任何干涉英國內政的事。英方也應以同樣態度對待中方，尊重中國主權，停止干涉香港事務和中國內政，避免中英關係受到進一步損害。

二是互利共贏。中英經濟互補性強，利益深度融合，雙方從彼此合作中都獲得了巨大收益，不存在誰更依賴誰、誰多佔誰便宜的問題。希望英方不要受個別國家的壓力和脅迫，為中國企業提供開放、公平、非歧視的投資環境，重塑中國企業對英國的信心。在“後脱歐時代”和“後疫情時代”，中英在貿易、金融、科技、教育、醫療衞生領域有廣闊合作空間，在維護多邊主義、促進自由貿易、應對氣候變化等全球性挑戰等方面擁有廣泛共識。英國要打造“全球化英國”，繞不開、離不開中國。與中國“脱鈎”，就是與機遇脱鈎，就是與發展脱鈎，就是與未來脱鈎。

三是求同存異。中英歷史文化、社會制度、發展階段不同，難免存在分歧。70年前，英國在西方大國中第一個承認新中國。70年來，中英本着求同存異的精神，超越意識形態差異，推動中英關係不斷向前發展。70年後的今天，中英關係更加豐富、更加深入，不是你輸我贏的“對手關係”，更不是非此即彼的“敵對關係”，而是平等相待、互利共贏的夥伴關係。我們應當有足夠的智慧和能力管控和處理好雙方分歧，不讓反華勢力和“冷戰分子”“綁架”中英關係。

我常説，只有擁有獨立自主的外交政策，“不列顛”才是名符其實的“大不列顛”。無論是1950年英國在西方大國中首個承認中華人民共和國，1954年與中國建立代辦級外交關係，還是英國選擇加入亞投行、與中國構建面向21世紀全球全面戰略伙伴關係，英國在關鍵歷史節點，都頂住外部壓力，做出了正確的戰略抉擇。現在，中英關係再次處於關鍵歷史節點。我希望，英國政治家和各界有識之士，認清國際大勢，排除各種干擾，把握時代潮流，做出符合中英兩國人民根本利益的戰略抉擇。

謝謝大家。

下面，我願回答大家的提問。

英國廣播公司記者：劉大使，如你所説，最近幾周，英中關係由於香港、華為、新疆問題明顯惡化。在這個過程中，上週我們看到，你以及好幾位中國政府代表均威脅稱英方將承擔嚴重後果、中方將採取反制措施或反擊行動。但到目前為止，我們還不清楚到底是什麼樣的反制措施。你能否具體介紹一下？這些措施是秘而不宣的，還是雷聲大、雨點小？

**劉大使：**首先我要澄清，我們從未威脅任何人。那些認為我的話是威脅的人是在斷章取義。正如我所説，中國希望成為英國的朋友和夥伴。但如果不想和中國做夥伴、做朋友，把中國視為“敵對國家”，就將付出代價。什麼代價？很簡單，你將失去把中國視為機遇和朋友所能得到的好處，這也是把中國當作“敵對國家”帶來的必然後果。

關於反制措施，我相信你已經看到，英方宣佈將改變英國國民（海外）護照（BNO）政策後，中方也作出回應，宣佈考慮不再承認BNO護照為合法旅行證件。這完全是因為英方行動違背了其在1984年備忘錄中的承諾。當時英方明確承諾不給予BNO護照持有者在英居留權，在此基礎上中方承認BNO護照為合法旅行證件。現在英方違約在先，中方必須作出回應。

此外，英方還無限期暫停與香港的引渡協定，損害了英國與香港司法合作的基礎。中方作出回應，宣佈香港暫停與英國的引渡協定和刑事司法互助協定，這是因為雙方司法合作的基礎遭到破壞。

天空新聞台記者：關於香港，近幾天，根據新的國家安全法，一些人因為在網上發表評論被拘捕。今天，還有些“民主運動人士”被取消參加選舉資格。這些情況是否印證了英國關於國家安全法破壞香港自由的擔憂？關於新疆，你是否願意澄清幾周前接受BBC採訪時所看到視頻？據歐洲安全部門消息稱，那些帶着手銬腳鐐、被剃光鬚髮、身着囚服的人是維吾爾族人。他們為什麼被押送？為什麼受到如此待遇？

**劉大使：**香港國家安全法是為了堵住維護國家安全的法律漏洞。香港迴歸23年來，一直沒有維護國家安全的法律。我們也看到去年香港遭遇的情況。一些人空談“一國兩制”，我們卻看到“一國”受到侵蝕、陷入危險之中。中國中央政府和全國人大及時通過並實施香港國安法，堵住漏洞，根本不存在所謂破壞言論自由的問題。

國家安全法明確規定，基本人權將得到充分尊重。該法只針對極少數妄圖破壞國家安全的罪犯，明確列出4類犯罪行為。如果你沒有這幾類犯罪行為，就不會有任何問題，依然享有言論自由、遊行自由、示威自由。香港的資本主義制度不會改變，獨立的司法體系包括終審權不會改變。國家安全法將確保“一國兩制”行穩致遠，也因此得到香港民眾的廣泛支持。有300萬香港市民簽名支持國安法，因為他們都希望香港能有一個安寧、繁榮、穩定的環境。關於你提到的涉疆問題，我一會兒再回答。

中國國際電視台記者：劉大使早上好。你剛才提到中國將不承認BNO作為有效旅行證件。從實踐上看，這對香港居民來英意味着什麼？現在中英兩國相互間的信任和善意已大幅減少，你認為應該如何重建？

**劉大使：**中國沒有做任何損害中英互信的事。我説過，我們將英國視為夥伴和朋友，想要推進中英關係“黃金時代”。今年是中英關係“黃金時代”五週年，雙方本應進行慶祝。但遺憾的是，英方卻無端指責香港國家安全法、干擾該法實施、干涉香港事務，損害中英互信。

我在開場白中已經闡明，中英關係的出路在於堅持三個原則：相互尊重、互不干涉內政、平等相待。我們承認存在分歧，但雙方應在互相尊重的基礎上處理分歧。中國無意改變英國，英國也不應該試圖改變中國。我們的合作基礎和共同利益遠大於分歧。中英都是具有全球影響的大國，我們肩負着維護世界和平、促進發展的重要使命，我們之間有廣泛的共同議程。

關於你提到的具體問題，由於英方違背了其關於BNO的承諾，我們不得不採取措施，不承認此護照為有效旅行證件。

路透社記者：謝謝大使。我想問一個比較宏觀的問題。美國總統特朗普似乎已將中國作為21世紀最大的地緣政治敵人。你認為中國和西方是否已在進行“新冷戰”？有人説，中國近年來更加強硬，引起美國不安，你如何評價？謝謝。

**劉大使：**我認為你已經回答了你自己的問題。中國並沒有變得更強硬，而是太平洋對面的國家想對中國挑起“新冷戰”，我們不得不做出反應。我們不希望打“冷戰”，我們不希望打任何戰爭。當美國對中國掀起“貿易戰”的時候，我們就説“貿易戰”沒有贏家。我們主張接觸，雙方達成了第一階段貿易協議。現在我們仍願與美方進行接觸。但是，美國國內情況大家都看到了，新冠肺炎疫情形勢不斷惡化，美國想把中國當作“替罪羊”，把自己的問題都歸咎於中國。

大家知道，今年是美國大選年。我在美國常駐兩次，5次近距離觀察美國大選。人們説，在大選年美國政客為了贏得選票口不擇言。我覺得今年他們不僅口不擇言，而且不擇手段，包括將中國作為敵人。他們認為需要對中國發動“冷戰”，但中國對此不感興趣。我們一直向美方表示，中國不是美國的敵人，中國是美國的朋友和夥伴；美國的敵人是病毒。我希望美國政客能將精力放在抗疫和拯救生命上，而不是專注指責中國。

中央電視台記者：大使上午好！我的問題是，英國工商業聯合會總幹事近日在《金融時報》撰文稱，中英合作使英方獲益巨大，英國無法承受單方面與中國減少往來的代價。但正如你剛才所説，一些英國政客對此持完全相反的看法。你對此怎麼看？如果允許，我還想再問一個問題。你近期接受英國媒體採訪時曾看過相關視頻和圖片，你也曾多次闡明中方在新疆問題上的政策立場。但西方媒體在這個問題上還是不斷指責中國。你對此有何評論？

**劉大使：**我在開場白中講過，中英關係是互利共贏的夥伴關係。我非常贊同英國工商業聯合會總幹事的觀點。有人説中國從雙邊關係中獲益更多，我認為這有違事實。

我可以用一系列數字來説明：1999至2020年，英國對華出口增長約20倍；自我擔任中國駐英大使以來，中英雙邊貿易額翻了一番；在過去十年，中國對英投資增長約20倍。這兩個“20倍”很能説明問題。

中英經貿關係為英國創造了大量就業。此外，中國遊客每年赴英旅遊，也為英國帶來1.1萬個就業崗位。英國還是接收中國留學生最多的歐洲國家，這些學生在英求學獲益匪淺，同時他們也為英國發展做出了貢獻。劍橋大學研究表明，中國赴英留學人員在英各種開支，僅在2018年就給英國創造1.7萬個就業崗位，更不要説華為公司為英國電信產業發展做出的巨大貢獻。中國企業還參與中英法三方共同建設的英國核電項目，我認為這一項目符合英國自身利益，能幫助英國實現2050年“零排放”的目標。但在那些“冷戰鬥士”眼中，這個項目卻是下一個攻擊目標。我希望這些英國政客能客觀看待中英關係，認識到它是一個互利共贏的關係。

關於新疆問題，現在有太多的謬論和謊言，可謂“世紀謊言”。不僅如此，一些西方國家利用新疆問題大肆抹黑攻擊中國、干涉中國內政。很遺憾，英國也難辭其咎。因此，我願借今天的機會揭穿謊言、澄清事實，向大家介紹一個真實的新疆。

首先，所謂新疆問題根本不是什麼人權、民族、宗教問題，而是反暴恐、反分裂、去極端化問題。上世紀90年代以來，特別是“9·11”事件之後，“三股勢力”在中國新疆地區製造了數千起暴恐案件，造成大量無辜羣眾生命和財產損失。其中，震驚世界的新疆“7·5”事件（2009年）造成197人死亡，1700多人受傷。面對嚴峻形勢，新疆自治區政府依法打擊暴恐活動，同時重視源頭治理，積極推進去極端化工作。這些措施十分有成效，確保新疆3年多未發生一起恐襲事件，最大限度保障了各族人民的生命權、健康權、發展權等基本權利，得到新疆各族人民廣泛支持和衷心擁護。

這些措施為全球反恐事業作出積極貢獻，得到國際社會積極評價。2018年底以來，聯合國官員、外國駐華使節、有關國家常駐日內瓦代表、媒體記者和宗教團體等70多批團組、90多個國家的1000多人赴疆參訪，他們紛紛稱讚新疆反恐、去極端化做法符合聯合國打擊恐怖主義、維護基本人權的宗旨和原則，值得充分肯定和學習借鑑。2019年10月，60多個國家代表在第74屆聯大三委會議期間發言稱讚新疆人權進步。今年7月，46個國家代表在人權理事會第44屆會議上作共同發言，支持中方在涉疆問題上的立場和舉措。

為幫助大家認清恐怖主義、分裂主義、極端主義在新疆造成的危害以及開展反恐、反分裂、去極端化活動的必要性和重要性，我們現在播放一段視頻。

第二，新疆“教培中心”根本不是什麼“集中營”或“再教育營”，而是預防性反恐和去極端化的有益嘗試和積極探索。這一舉措旨在根除極端主義、防止暴力恐怖活動升級，符合《聯合國全球反恐戰略》等一系列反恐決議的原則和精神，本質上這與英國設立的轉化和脱離項目（DDP）、美國推行的“社區矯正”和法國成立的去極端化中心沒有什麼區別。受極端主義思想影響以及有輕微違法犯罪行為的人員參加教培中心培訓，通過學習國家通用語言文字、法律知識、職業技能教育培訓，去除極端化思想，掌握勞動技能，不僅使這些學員結業後重返社會，做守法公民，而且自食其力，有了穩定的工作和收入，生活水平明顯提高。

教培中心嚴格貫徹落實中國憲法和法律關於尊重和保障人權的基本原則，充分保障學員的人格尊嚴不受侵犯，嚴禁以任何方式對學員進行人格侮辱和虐待；充分保障學員人身自由，實行寄宿制管理，學員可以回家，有事可以請假；充分保障學員使用本民族語言文字的權利，各項規章制度、課程表、食譜等均同時使用國家通用語言文字和少數民族語言文字；充分尊重和保護不同民族學員的風俗習慣，為少數民族學員免費提供各種清真飲食；充分尊重和保護學員宗教信仰自由，信教學員回家時可自主決定是否參與合法宗教活動。

現在我們播放一段教培中心學員的視頻，聽聽他們講述教培中心的真實情況。

第三，在新疆問題上，不能讓謊言與污衊橫行，不能讓傲慢與偏見充斥頭腦，而要用事實與真相説話，用客觀與理性評判。下面，我願用事實揭穿西方媒體“廣為流傳”的四大謊言：

一是謊稱“新疆近百萬維吾爾人被拘押”。事實上，這是兩個反華機構或人員炮製的謠言。幕後黑手之一是美國政府支持的“中國人權捍衞者網絡（Chinese Human Rights Defenders，CHRD）”，它僅僅通過對8名維吾爾人的採訪和粗略估算，就得出“新疆地區2000多萬人口中，10%的人被拘押在‘再教育營’的荒謬結論”。幕後黑手之二是受美國政府資助的極右翼原教旨主義基督徒鄭國恩，他在《中亞調查》雜誌上發文稱，“據估計，新疆在押人員總數超過100萬”。據美國獨立新聞網站“灰色地帶”披露，鄭得出這一數字，依據的是總部位於土耳其的一家維吾爾流亡媒體組織——Istiqlal TV的一篇報道，而Istiqlal TV根本不是一家新聞組織，而是推進分離主義、極端主義的組織。鄭本人則自認“受上帝的引領”，肩負着反對中國的“使命”。

最近，我在接受BBC“安德魯·馬爾訪談”節目時，馬爾先生播放了一段經所謂西方情報機關和澳大利亞專家確認的視頻，以此説明大批維吾爾人被拘押。現在讓我們來看看這段視頻的真相到底是什麼。

事實上，這是新疆喀什看守所（Kashi Detention House）集中轉運服刑犯人的場景，根本不存在所謂大批拘押維吾爾人的問題。中方打擊犯罪從不與任何民族、宗教掛鈎。司法機關押送服刑人員屬於正常司法活動，不容歪曲和抹黑。

二是謊稱“新疆強拆清真寺”。事實是，目前新疆共有清真寺2.44萬座，平均每530位穆斯林就擁有一座清真寺，比例高於一些穆斯林國家，也高於英格蘭地區人均擁有教堂數量。被誣稱“拆除”的葉城縣加米清真寺、和田艾提卡爾清真寺等根本未被拆除，而是被修繕後重新使用，編造謊言的人用清真寺危房的圖片來支撐其謊言，但不會展示清真寺修葺一新的照片。現在，讓我們用修葺一新的清真寺的照片來揭穿謊言。

三是謊稱“新疆強制絕育”。事實是，新疆維吾爾自治區是中國五個少數民族自治區之一，是一個多民族聚居區，擁有13個世居民族，2500萬各族人民和睦共處。中國政府始終一視同仁地保護包括少數民族在內的各族人民合法權益，人口政策長期以來對包括維吾爾族在內的少數民族更為優待。1978年至2018年，新疆地區維吾爾族人口從555萬增長到1168萬，整整翻了一番。

關於網上那些宣稱維族人“受迫害”的視頻，新疆方面已經多次揭穿了這些人的身份，他們有的是從事反華分裂活動的“東突”分子，有的是美西方反華勢力培植的“演員”。他們的説法根本站不住腳。他們中有些人在疆內的親友已經直接站出來闢謠，駁斥了他們的謊言。

我接受BBC“安德魯·馬爾訪談”節目採訪時，馬爾先生播放了一段“訴苦者”的視頻，真實情況是：這位女性名叫早木熱·達吾提（Zumrat Dawut），謊稱“被強制絕育”。但她的姐姐和哥哥去年11月公開揭穿其謊言，她從來沒有進過教培中心；她生第三個孩子時被查出患有子宮肌瘤，因此做了手術，根本沒有“被強制絕育”。讓我們看一下她姐姐和哥哥接受採訪的視頻。

四是謊稱“新疆存在大規模強迫勞動”。事實上，這是另一黑手憑空捏造出來的。長期接受美國政府和軍火商資助的“澳大利亞戰略政策研究所”（ASPI）今年3月炮製所謂《出售維吾爾族人》報告，將南疆貧困民眾前往內地務工就業、脱貧增收的自發性行為，歪曲為“強迫勞動”。此後，“美國國會—行政部門中國委員會”將這一謬論作為“依據”，炮製《全球供應鏈，強迫勞動和新疆維吾爾自治區》報告，進行大肆污衊和誹謗。現在讓我們放一段視頻揭穿他們的謊言。

我們中國人常説，不到新疆，不知道中國之大；不到新疆，不知道中國之美。當前，新疆經濟持續發展，社會和諧穩定，民生不斷改善，文化空前繁榮。新疆各族人民安居樂業，和睦相處，享受着充分的生存權、發展權，宗教信仰自由依法得到保障，正常宗教活動受到法律保護，新疆處於歷史最好發展時期。任何謠言都不能抹殺新疆人權事業發展進步的事實，任何圖謀都不能干擾新疆發展繁榮的進程。希望大家不要聽信反華分子的謠言，不要聽信反華政客的蠱惑。我們敦促英國政府全面客觀看待新疆發展成就，停止在新疆問題上發表不負責任的言論，停止利用新疆問題干涉中國內政。我們也希望英國媒體摒棄傲慢與偏見，客觀、公正地報道新疆，讓英國民眾瞭解一個真實的新疆。

獨立電視台記者：請問劉大使，中國是否允許聯合國人權高專署派團，在不受中國共產黨干擾的情況下，獨立訪問新疆，到剛才視頻裏展示的那些地方，親眼看看發生了什麼？

**劉大使：**自2018年以來，已經有幾十個國家和國際組織的1000多名外交官、記者和代表訪問了新疆。我們歡迎人權高專訪問新疆，這個邀請長期有效。

我們反對的是別有用心的所謂“獨立調查”，這實際是企圖借新疆問題干涉中國內政。新疆的大門是敞開的，每年迎接成千上萬的遊客來新疆旅遊、參觀。我們歡迎所有善意、客觀、不持偏見的人士訪問新疆。

美聯社記者：劉大使，你曾經在美國長期工作過，請問從特朗普政府的一系列言論和威脅來看，你是否認為中美關係已經“沒有回頭路”可走？

**劉大使：**我希望不是這樣。中國仍然相信不衝突、不對抗、互相尊重、合作共贏的中美關係符合兩國利益。中國無意破壞中美關係，中方將繼續努力與美方保持接觸。

但我也在很多場合説過，探戈需要兩個人跳，一個巴掌拍不響。我認為，支持中美關係的民意基礎仍然十分廣泛。1972年尼克松總統訪華以來，中美雙方始終致力於建立基於共同利益的中美關係。這種共同利益基礎仍在，中美關係在美國民眾中的民意基礎仍在。當美國國務卿發表反對中國共產黨的“新冷戰”宣言後，我們看到很多美國人站出來批評這種論調，他們對美國政府將中美關係引入歧途憂心忡忡。

所以，我不認為中美關係已經“沒有回頭路”，將中美兩國聯繫在一起的根本利益仍在，很多美國有識之士仍在努力維護中美關係的基本盤。我希望人們最終能迴歸理性。

新華社記者：華為一直聲稱自己是一家獨立的私人控股公司，與中國政府沒有隸屬關係，那為什麼中國政府不遺餘力地維護華為？如果中英關係持續惡化，兩國會否像當年的中日關係一樣，陷入“政冷經熱”的局面？

**劉大使：**關於華為，我剛剛在《南華早報》發表了一篇文章。我不是為自己的文章作廣告，而是希望大家能花些時間讀一下。英國政府決定禁用華為後，我努力向英國主流媒體投書，因為這個問題對英國很重要。英國公眾需要了解問題的全貌。但不幸的是，英國主流報紙都表示不能刊登我的文章。我已在英國工作10多年，算是領教了什麼是英國標榜的“新聞自由”。他們非常直白地告訴我，只願刊登有利於報紙銷量的文章。因此他們不願刊登我關於香港的文章，不願刊登我關於華為的文章。我不得不讓我的文章“飛越”萬里到香港《南華早報》發表，當然《南華早報》在英國也有不少讀者。我的文章主要觀點是，拒絕華為就是拒絕機遇，就是拒絕增長，就是拒絕未來。

關於華為與中國政府的關係，首先，正如我在開場白中所説，華為問題不是一家中國公司的問題，而是關乎英國如何對待中國的問題：是將中國視為機遇，還是威脅？是把中國作為夥伴，還是競爭對手？這是一個必須做出選擇的根本問題。

第二，任何政府都應維護本國企業的合法權益。這一點不僅中國政府如此，英國政府也一樣。我在英工作10年間，清楚記得英國領導人和政要是如何為英國企業説項的。我記得英國首相在接待中國領導人訪問時，不忘推銷帝亞吉歐項目，堅持訪問期間能夠簽署有關項目。我記得英國財政大臣努力向中方推銷羅爾斯羅伊斯公司的發動機，堅稱羅爾斯羅伊斯公司生產的發動機比包括美國通用電氣在內的其他任何國家的產品都好。我還記得英國商業大臣為了推銷英國鋼鐵公司專程訪華，最終促成中國敬業集團收購英鋼，並同意在未來10年投資12億英鎊實現英鋼轉型升級。

我認為，一國政府維護本國企業權益無可厚非。一些“冷戰鬥士”借中國政府努力維護本國企業權益來證明華為與中國政府關係密切，並以此作為攻擊華為的理由，這是非常荒謬的。中國政府對每一家中國企業都一視同仁。我們希望華為在英國取得成功，實現雙贏。所以，在英方宣佈禁用華為那天，我説，這一天對華為是黑暗的一天，對中英關係也是黑暗的一天，對英國則更是黑暗的一天，因為英國將錯失成為5G領軍者的機會。

關於中英關係會否“政冷經熱”，我認為政治和經濟密切相關、很難完全分開。我們需要一個良好的氛圍和條件才能進行合作。我説英方關於華為的決定對中英關係是黑暗的一天，是因為這一決定破壞了中英互信，損害了英國信譽。在英國宣佈“禁用華為”後，我與在英中資企業舉行了網上座談，中資企業都表達了他們的擔憂和關切，因為這不僅涉及安全風險，也包括投資風險。我們無意將經貿問題政治化，但是信任和信譽在國與國關係中至關重要。

謝謝大家。

記者會英文實錄：

Ambassador Liu Xiaoming Holds On-line Press Conference on China–UK Relations

On 30 July 2020, Ambassador Liu Xiaoming held an on-line press conference on China-UK relationship at the Chinese Embassy. Around 30 journalists from 27 media agencies joined the conference, including the BBC, Sky News, ITV, Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, Times Radio, The Guardian, Reuters, Xinhua News Agency, People’s Daily, CCTV, CGTN, China News Service, China Daily, Science and Technology Daily, Global Times, Guancha.cn, AP, Bloomberg, NBC, Russia Today, Quartz, Phoenix Infonews, European Times, The Scotsman, and The Manchester Evening News. Guests from UK’s political and business sectors also attended the conference, including Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Deputy-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on China (APPCG), Mark Logan, Vice Chair of APPCG, Lord Davidson, Stephen Perry, Chairman of the 48 Group Club, Lord Sassoon, President of China-Britain Business Council, Lord Palumbo of Walbrook Club, St. John Moore, Chairman of British Chamber of Commerce in China, Meia Nouwens, Research Fellow for Chinese Defense Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and Veerle Nouwens, Research Fellow at the International Security Studies Department of the Royal United Services Institute on geopolitical relations in the Asia-Pacific region and China. Foreign diplomats in the UK from South Korea, Laos, the EU, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Argentina, Myanmar, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia, and So Yuen Ling, Director-General of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office London, also joined the event. The press conference was broadcast live via Ambassador Liu’s Twitter account. CGTN, Reuters and AP also broadcast the conference live. The event was also covered by the BBC and Sky News in their programs and on their websites.

The following is the transcript of the press conference.

Ambassador Liu: Good morning! Welcome to today’s press conference.

This year marks the fifth anniversary of the China-UK “Golden Era”. Since early this year, President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Boris Johnson have had two telephone conversations, during which they reached important agreements on advancing China-UK relations and enhancing joint response to Covid-19. The departments of the two governments have been working hard to implement these agreements and carry out cooperation in various areas.

This was a positive momentum in China-UK relationship that should be cherished so that further progress could be achieved. To our regret however, this relationship has recently run into a series of difficulties and faced a grave situation.

People are asking: What is happening to China-UK relationship? The British media are also asking: What has caused the current difficulties in China-UK relationship? Has China changed or has the UK changed?

Today, I am going to give you my answer to these questions. My answer is loud and clear: China has not changed. It is the UK that has changed. The UK side should take full responsibility for the current difficulties in China-UK relationship.

First, China’s determination to follow the basic norms governing international relations has not changed.

These basic norms include:

mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,

non-interference in each other’s internal affairs,

equality,

and mutual benefit.

These are the fundamental principles that are enshrined in the UN Charter. They are the basic norms of the international law and state-to-state relations. They are also the basic guidelines that have been written into the Joint Communiqué of China and the UK on exchange of ambassadors and hence form the bedrock for China-UK relationship.

China has never interfered in the internal affairs of other countries, including the UK, and we ask the same from other countries.

Recently, however, the above-mentioned important principles have been violated time and again.

On Hong Kong:

There has been blatant interference from the UK in Hong Kong affairs, which are internal affairs of China, including

groundless accusations against the National Security Law for Hong Kong SAR,

change to the policy involving BNO passport holders,

and suspension of the extradition treaty with Hong Kong.

These moves have severely disrupted the stability and prosperity in Hong Kong.

On Xinjiang:

The UK disregarded the facts,

confused right and wrong,

flung slanders recklessly at China’s Xinjiang-related policies

and interfered in China’s internal affairs by raising the so-called “human rights issue” in Xinjiang, bilaterally and multilaterally.

These actions have seriously poisoned atmosphere of China-UK relationship.

Second, China’s commitment to the path of peaceful development has not changed.

Pursuing peaceful development is the unwavering strategic choice and solemn pledge of China. China has never invaded other countries or sought expansion. China has never and will not export its system or model. China seeks development because we want better life for our people. We do not want to threaten, challenge or replace anyone.

History has proved and will continue to prove that China is always a defender of world peace, a contributor to global development and an upholder of international order. A stronger China will make the world a more peaceful, stable and prosperous place.

However, some British politicians cling to the “Cold War” mentality and echo the remarks of anti-China forces in and outside the UK. They

play up the so-called “China threat”,

see China as a “hostile state”,

threaten a “complete decoupling” from China,

and even clamour for a “new Cold War” against China.

Third, China’s resolve to fulfill its international obligations has not changed.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. China was the first country to put its signature on the UN Charter. It is now a member of more than 100 inter-governmental international organisations and has signed over 500 multilateral treaties.

It has faithfully fulfilled its international responsibilities and obligations.

It has never withdrawn from international organisations or treaties.

Nor does it believe in “us first” at the expense of others.

It is completely wrong to see the National Security Law for Hong Kong SAR as a violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration or a failure to honour international obligations.

The core content of the Joint Declaration is about China’s resumption of exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. The National Security Law for Hong Kong SAR fully embodies the comprehensive jurisdiction of the Central Government of China over Hong Kong.

The policies regarding Hong Kong laid out in the Joint Declaration were proposed by China on our own initiative. They are not China’s commitments to the UK or international obligations. The label of “failure to fulfill international obligations” should not be stuck on China.

It is the UK side that has failed to fulfill its international obligations and went against its own pledges by changing the policy on BNO passport holders and suspending the extradition treaty with Hong Kong to create public confusion in Hong Kong, disrupt the implementation of the National Security Law and interfere in China’s internal affairs.

Fourth, China’s willingness to develop partnership with the UK has not changed.

During President Xi Jinping’s state visit to the UK in 2015, China and the UK issued a joint declaration on building a global comprehensive strategic partnership for the 21st century.

China has always seen the UK as a partner and it has been committed to developing a sound and stable relationship with the UK. As State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said two days ago in his telephone conversation with Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, for the UK, China is an opportunity rather than a threat, a factor for growth rather than a cause for decline, a solution rather than a challenge or a risk. However, there have been major changes and serious deviations in UK’s perception and definition of China. This is particularly evidenced by the recent ban on Huawei.

The issue of Huawei is not about how the UK sees and deals with a Chinese company. It is about how the UK sees and deals with China. Does it see China as an opportunity and a partner, or a threat and a rival? Does it see China as a friendly country, or a “hostile” or “potentially hostile” state?

The UK leaders have said on many occasions that they want to build a balanced, positive and constructive China-UK relationship. We hope they will match their words with actions.

The world is undergoing increasingly profound changes unseen in a century. Covid-19 is still ravaging, dealing a heavy blow to economic globalization and resulting in a deep recession of the world economy. What kind of China-UK relationship do we need in face of such a situation?

China and the UK are both permanent members of the UN Security Council and important members of the G20 and other international organizations. Both are countries of global influence. Both shoulder the important mission of safeguarding world peace and promoting development.

A sound and stable China-UK relationship is not only in the fundamental interests of the peoples of the two countries but also conducive to world peace and prosperity. We have a thousand reasons to make this relationship successful, and not one reason to let it fail.

How can we make it successful? I think it is critically important to follow three principles:

First, respect each other.

History tells us that when international law and the basic norms governing international relations are observed, China-UK relationship will move forward; otherwise, it will suffer setbacks or even retrogression.

China respects the UK’s sovereignty and has never interfered in the UK’s internal affairs. It is important that the UK do the same, namely, respect China’s sovereignty and stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs, which are China’s internal affairs, so as to avoid further harm to China-UK relationship.

The second principle is: engage in mutually-beneficial cooperation.

China and the UK have highly complementary economies and deeply integrated interests. The two sides have both benefited tremendously from cooperation. Such mutual benefit should not be gauged by an over-simplified comparison of who is more dependent on the other or who has been “taken advantage of”.

It is our hope that the UK would resist the pressure and coercion of a certain country, and provide an open, fair and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese investment, so as to bring back the confidence of Chinese businesses in the UK.

China and the UK already share broad consensus on safeguarding multilateralism, promoting free trade and addressing global challenges such as climate change. When Brexit is completed and Covid-19 is over, there will be unlimited prospects for China-UK cooperation in the areas of trade, financial services, science and technology, education and health care.

It is hard to imagine a “global Britain” that bypasses or excludes China. “Decoupling” from China means decoupling from opportunities, decoupling from growth, and decoupling from the future.

The third principle is: seek common ground despite differences.

China and the UK differ in history, culture, social system and development stage. It is natural that we do not always see eye to eye.

Seventy years ago, the UK was the first major Western country to recognize New China. For the past 70 years, China and the UK have found common ground despite differences and went beyond ideological differences to achieve continuous progress in their bilateral relationship.

Today, after 70 years, this relationship has been more substantial and profound. It is not a relationship between rivals, where one side’s gain is the other’s loss. Still less is it a relationship of “either-or” that exists between hostile states. China-UK relationship is one of partnership, which is defined by equal treatment and mutual benefit.

China and the UK should have enough wisdom and capability to manage and deal with differences, rather than allowing anti-China forces and “Cold-War” warriors to “kidnap” China-UK relationship.

I often say “Great Britain” cannot be “Great” without independent foreign policies. The UK has withstood the pressure from others and made the right strategic choices at many critical historical junctures,

from becoming the first major Western country to recognize the People’s Republic of China in 1950, to establishing diplomatic relationship with China at the chargé d’affaires level in 1954;

from taking part in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to building a global comprehensive strategic partnership for the 21st century with China.

Now, China-UK relationship is once again standing at a critical historical juncture. It is my hope that political leaders and visionary people from all sectors in the UK would keep in mind the big picture of the international trend, prevent various disruptions and make the strategic choice that serves the fundamental interests of the peoples of our two countries.

Thank you.

Now I would like to take your questions.

BBC: Ambassador, good morning. As you say, relations between the United Kingdom and China have deteriorated significantly in recent weeks over Hong Kong, Huawei and Xinjiang. Throughout that process, you and various other government representatives have threatened consequences, counter-measures, even counter-attacks, to use the language of last week. And yet it’s still not entirely clear to me what those counter-measures are. So could you elaborate a little bit more? Is China retaliating in secret, or is its bark worse than its bite?

Ambassador Liu: I want to set the record straight. We made no threats. We threaten nobody, as I said. We just let you know the consequences. People regard some of my remarks as threatening words. I think they quote my remarks out of context. As I said, China wants to be friends of the UK. China wants to be the UK’s partners. But if you do not want to be our friend, you want to treat China as a hostile country, you will pay the price. That’s simple. It’s very clear. That means you will lose the benefits of treating China as opportunities and as a friend. And you will bear the consequences of treating China as a hostile country. So that’s very clear.

And you’re talking about the counter-measures. I think you have already seen that after the UK announced that they are going to change the policy on BNO, we have made a response by saying, we are considering not to recognize the BNO passports as legal travel documents. That is because the UK takes the measure that is a departure from their commitments under the MOU of 1984. At that time, they said they were not going to give right of abode to the BNO holders. And we also agreed to regard the BNO passport as a legal travel document. Now since they have violated their commitments, we have to make a response.

Again, with regard to extradition treaty, the UK suspends it indefinitely. I think it will undermine the basis for legal collaboration between the UK and Hong Kong. China has to make a response to that and we announced that Hong Kong government also suspends the extradition treaty with the UK. And they also suspend the mutual legal assistance agreement with the UK because the basis and the foundations of the legal collaboration between the two sides have been undermined.

Sky News: Thank you, Ambassador. On Hong Kong, in the last couple of days, we’ve seen a small number of people being arrested under these new security laws, seemingly just for posting comments on the internet, and also a number of pro-democracy activists today being disqualified from running in the elections. Doesn’t this really prove the concerns that the UK have about the national security law undermining Hong Kong’s freedoms? If I may, as you mentioned Xinjiang, have you had any more clarity about those images that you were shown a couple of weeks ago on the BBC? European security sources say they believe those men who are shackled and shaven, and in those suits, were members of the Uighur minority. Why were they being transported and treated in such a way?

Ambassador Liu: First, on Hong Kong, the National Security Law is about plugging the legal loopholes for safeguarding national security. You know, since handover, for the past 23 years, there has been no law taking care of the national security. We’ve seen what happened last year. People talk about “One Country, Two Systems”. But we all witnessed how “One Country” has been eroded, how “One Country” has been put at risk. It’s timely for the Central Government and the National People’s Congress to enact the law to plug the loopholes.

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of expression. It has been clearly stipulated in the National Security Law that the basic human rights will be fully respected. This law is only targeted at a very few criminals who intend to endanger the national security. The law is very clear with four categories of crimes. If you stay away from these categories of crimes, you will have no problem with regard to a freedom of expression, freedom of procession, freedom of demonstrations. So the capitalist system will not change, and Hong Kong would continue to enjoy independent judicial system, including power of final adjudication. So I think this law will only make “One Country, Two Systems” more sustainable. And so that’s why it’s overwhelmingly supported by the Hong Kong people. About three million Hong Kong people have signed up a petition to show their support for this law because they want to have a peaceful, prosperous and stable environment for Hong Kong.

With regard to Xinjiang, I will respond a little later but I will certainly respond to your question.

CGTN: Good morning, Ambassador. So you just mentioned that China might stop recognizing BNO passports as valid travel documents. What would that mean in practice for Hong Kong residents who want to travel to the UK? And also, how do you see a path forward for restoring trust and goodwill between China and the UK which has diminished so much on both sides?

Ambassador Liu: China has done nothing to weaken the mutual trust between the two countries. As I said, we see the UK as a partner, as a friendly country. We want to advance this relationship and the “golden era” between our two countries. As I said on many occasions, we are about to celebrate its fifth anniversary. It’s a time for celebration. But unfortunately, it’s the UK side that has done things to undermine the mutual trust by making unwarranted accusation of the National Security Law, to interrupt the implementation of this law and to interfere in Hong Kong internal affairs.

So I think, as I already said in my presentation, the way out for China-UK relations are the three basic principles: mutual respect, non interference into each other’s internal affairs, and treat each other as equals and partners. And we do recognize we have differences. But we need to address these differences on equal basis and recognize differences. China has no intention to change the UK. I think the UK should have no intention to change China. I think we have more common grounds and common interests to unite our two countries than differences that divide us. China and the UK, as countries of global influence, have enormous duties to live up to our responsibility to promote world peace and world prosperity. There are so many common agenda in front of us.

With regard to the specific question you mentioned. Since the UK violated its commitment with regard to BNO, we have to let them know that we have to take our measures not to recognize the BNO passport as a valid travel document.

Reuters: Thank you very much, Ambassador. I just wanted to sort of take a slightly bigger picture. My apology if this is a stupid question, but it seems clear that US president Donald Trump sees China as the major geopolitical foe of the 21st century. So, do you see a new cold war between the west and China? How do you react to the view that President Xi has been too assertive over recent years, and this has upset the Americans.

Ambassador Liu: I think you have already answered your own questions. It’s not China that has become assertive. It’s the other side of the Pacific Ocean, who wants to start a new cold war on China. So we have to make response to that. We have no interest in any cold war. We have no interest in any wars. When the United States started this trade war against China, we said there would be no winner in a trade war and we wanted to engage with them. Then we had a phase one agreement. We are still keeping engaging with them. But I think this coronavirus really worsened the situation, because we have all seen what is happening in United States. They tried to find a scapegoat in China. They want to blame China for their problems.

We all know this is the election year. I’ve been posted twice in Washington. I witnessed five elections, on the ground, in person, not from a distance. People say, US politicians will say anything in order to get elected in the election years. It seems to me this year, it is likely that they are going to not only say anything but also do anything, including treating China as an enemy. Probably they think they need an enemy. They think they need a cold war. But we have no interest. We keep telling Americans: China is not your enemy. China is your friend and your partner. Your enemy is the virus. I hope that the US politicians will focus on fighting the virus and saving lives instead of blaming China.

CCTV: Good morning, Ambassador. My question is: the Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry shared her opinions in Financial Times a few days ago. She said that the UK cannot afford to self-isolate from China because of the huge benefits from the collaboration between the two countries. But I think as you just mentioned, some of the British politicians hold the opposite opinion. So what’s your comment on that? And also, if it’s allowed, can I ask another question: I think you have watched many videos and pictures in the previous interview with the local media. And also you have stated and clarified many times on the Chinese policy on the Xinjiang issue. But I think probably my western colleagues are still keen on the similar topics. Personally I think they probably like to blame China for this issue a lot. So what’s your comment on this kind of communication? Thank you.

Ambassador Liu: As I said in my opening remarks, I think China-UK relations are really mutually beneficial. I quite agree with the Director-General of CBI.

Let me give you a few figures. Some people say that China gains more from this relationship. I don’t think this is true. In the past 20 years, from 1999 to 2020, UK exports to China increased twenty times. Since I became Chinese Ambassador, trade between our two countries has doubled. In the past 10 years Chinese investment increased twenty times. So these two “twenty times” are really self evident.

It created enormous jobs. And Chinese tourists to this country each year supported 11,000 jobs. And the UK is the largest recipient of Chinese students in Europe. Of course, Chinese students benefit from studying here. But they have also made contribution to this country. The students’ expenditure alone, according to a Cambridge study, supported 17,000 jobs in 2018, not to mention the contribution made by Huawei. They have helped build the telecommunications industry in this country. And also, some “cold war warriors” as Chinese people call them are trying to find another target in the nuclear project where Chinese companies are working together with their French and British partners. I think this project will serve the interests of the UK, and also help the UK to achieve its goal of realising zero-emission by 2050. I really hope that the politicians will look at this from an objective perspective. This is a win-win relationship.

Since two journalists asked questions about Xinjiang, I want to make a response.

On issues relating to Xinjiang, there are so many fallacies and lies that permeate the Western media. They can well be called “the lies of the century”. Moreover, some Western countries have been using Xinjiang-related issues to discredit China and interfere in China’s internal affairs. Regrettably, the UK is one of them. I would like to take this opportunity to debunk the lies and let facts be known, so as to show you the real Xinjiang.

First, Xinjiang-related issues have nothing to do with human rights, ethnic groups or religions, but everything to do with fighting violent terrorism, separatism and extremism.

Since 1990s, especially after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, terrorist, separatist and religious extremist forces have launched thousands of violent attacks in Xinjiang, resulting in devastating casualties of innocent people and huge loss of property. During the riots on July 5th, 2009, which shocked Xinjiang and the whole world, 197 lives were lost and more than 1,700 people injured.

In face of such grave situations, the Government of Xinjiang Autonomous Region has struck down upon violent terrorist activities in accordance with law and adopted de-radicalisation measures to address the root causes. These measures have been very effective: there has not been a single terrorist attack for more than three years in a row in Xinjiang, and the basic rights of all ethnic groups, especially the rights to life, health and development, are fully safeguarded. Therefore, these measures have won extensive and heartfelt support from people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang.

These measures have also been an important contribution to the global fight against terrorism, and thus won positive response from the international community. Since the end of 2018, more than 1,000 people in over 70 groups, including officials from the United Nations, members of foreign diplomatic corps in China, permanent representatives to the UN and other international organisations in Geneva, journalists and representatives of faith groups, have visited Xinjiang. They represent over 90 countries. They spoke highly of the counter-terrorism and de-radicalisation measures in Xinjiang, saying that these measures are in line with the purposes and principles of the United Nations in striking down upon terrorism and safeguarding basic human rights, and should be fully recognized and shared with other countries.

In October 2019, representatives from more than 60 countries spoke at the 74th session of the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly in recognition of the human rights progress in Xinjiang. In July this year, representatives from 46 countries made a joint statement at the 44th session of the Human Rights Council in support of China’s position and the counter-terrorism measures in Xinjiang.

Now I would like to play a video to help you see the harm caused by terrorist, separatist and extremist attacks in Xinjiang, so that you will understand why the measures taken in Xinjiang against terrorism, separatism and extremism are necessary and important.

Second, there are many rumours and lies about the vocational education and training centres in Xinjiang, calling them “concentration camps” or “re-education camps”. The truth is they are none of these. They are useful and positive explorations of preventative and de-radicalisation measures.

The centres were established to address the root causes for extremism and prevent further escalation of violent terrorist activities. They are in line with the principles and the spirit embodied in a number of international documents on counter-terrorism, such as the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. In nature, they are no different from the Desistance and Disengagement Programme (DDP) of the UK, the community corrections in the United States, or the de-radicalisation centres in France.

At the vocational education and training centres, those who have been led astray by extremist ideas or who have committed minor crimes could learn the common language, legal knowledge and vocational skills. Such education and training will strengthen their ability to break away and stay away from extremist ideas and master vocational skills, and help them to not only become law-abiding citizens but also find stable jobs, earn their own living and live a better life.

At the centres,

The Constitutional and legal principles on respecting and safeguarding human rights are strictly followed, the dignity of the trainees is fully respected, and insults and abuse of all forms are strictly prohibited.

The freedom of trainees is guaranteed. The centres are managed as boarding schools. Trainees can have home visits or ask for leave to attend to private affairs.

Meanwhile, the right of the trainees to use languages of ethnic groups is also fully guaranteed. All rules and regulations, school timetables and menus are written in both the common language and languages of ethnic groups.

The customs and habits of different ethnic groups are fully respected and protected. A variety of Halal food are provided for free.

The freedom of religious belief is also fully respected and protected. Religious believers have the freedom to attend lawful religious activities while on home leave.

Now I would like to show you a video in which the trainees of the vocational education and training centres tell the stories of their life in the centres.

Third, let me turn to four lies and slanders widely spread in Western media about Xinjiang. I think it is wrong to allow the lies and slanders to run amok, or to let arrogance and prejudice prevent people from seeing the facts and truth. So it is important to get the facts and truth out there, so that people could make up their own minds from an objective and reasonable perspective.

The first lie is that “nearly a million Uygurs in Xinjiang are detained”.

This is a lie cooked up by an anti-China organization and an anti-China individual.

The organization is the so-called “Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD)” backed by the government of the United States. Armed with interviews with only eight people who are ethnic Uygurs and based on an extremely rough estimation, CHRD reached an absurd conclusion that 10% of the more than 20 million people in Xinjiang are detained at so-called “re-education camps”.

The anti-China individual is called Adrian Zenz, a far-right fundamentalist funded by the government of the United States. He published an article on the journal Central Asian Survey, claiming that “Xinjiang’s total re-education internment figure may be estimated at just over one million.” According to The Grayzone, an independent news website, Zenz’s conclusion is based on a single report by Istiqlal TV. This so-called “Uygur exile media organization” based in Turkey is far from being a media organization. Istiqlal TV is an organization that advocates separatism and extremism. And Zenz himself believes that he is “led by God” on a “mission” against China.

A few days ago when I gave an interview on BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Mr. Marr showed me a footage which he said has “been authenticated by Western intelligence agencies and by Australian experts” to prove that a large number of Uygurs are detained. Now let’s see what is really happening.

The video shows transfer of a group of prisoners by the Kashgar Detention House. It has nothing to do with the so-called “detainment of a large number of Uygurs”. China’s criminal law does not target specific ethnic group or religion. Everyone is equal before the law. The transfer of prisoners by judicial authorities is a normal judicial practice and brooks no distortion or defamation.

The second lie is that “Xinjiang has demolished a large number of mosques”.

The fact is, there are 24,400 mosques in Xinjiang, which means there is on average one mosque for every 530 Muslims. This ratio is higher than that in some Muslim countries and also higher than the number of churches per Christian in England.

The Jiami Mosque of Yecheng County and the Id Kah Mosque in Hotan prefecture, which were claimed to have been “dismantled”, were in fact renovated and put to use again. Those who cooked up the lies used the photo of the old, dilapidated mosques to support their lies. But I will refute their lies with photos of the new, renovated mosques.

The third lie is that “forced sterilization is carried out in Xinjiang”.

The fact is, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region is one of the five ethnic autonomous regions in China. It is home to many ethnic groups, including 13 ethnic groups who have been living there for generations. It is a place where 25 million people of all ethnic groups call home and live together in harmony.

The Chinese Government protects the lawful rights and interests of people of all ethnic groups, big or small in population. Over the years, the Uygur people and other ethnic minorities have enjoyed a preferential population policy. Between 1978 and 2018, the Uygur population in Xinjiang doubled, from 5.55 million to 11.68 million.

The true identities or stories of the so-called “victims” in the on-line videos about Uygurs being “prosecuted” are not what they claim. These self-claimed “victims” are either the so-called “East Turkistan” elements engaged in anti-China and separatist activities, or “actors” trained by anti-China forces in the US and other Western countries to spread rumours about China. Their claims have no factual ground. The relatives and friends of some of these people in Xinjiang have stood up to refute these rumours and lies.

At the Andrew Marr Show I mentioned earlier, Mr. Marr showed me another video of a so-called “victim”. This woman in the video, whose name is Zumrat Dawut, claimed that she went through “forced sterilization”. But her sister and brother publicly refuted her lies last November. It turns out that she has never been to any vocational education and training centre, she had an operation because she was diagnosed with myoma of uterus when she had her third child, and she has never been “forced to get sterilized”. Now let’s watch a video interview given by her sister and brother.

The fourth lie is that “mass forced labour is taking place in Xinjiang”.

In fact, this is yet another story fabricated by a hidden hand. This hidden hand is called the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), which is funded by the US government and arms dealers. This institute made up the so-called “Uyghurs for sale” report last March, which is a distorted description of people from the southern Xinjiang seeking job opportunities in central and eastern China and trying to make a living and get rid of poverty. The report refers to stories of these people as “forced labour”.

After that, this absurd report was used as “evidence” by the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China to make up the so-called “Global Supply Chains, Forced Labor, and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region” report to fling slanders at China.

Now I would like to show you another video to lay bare their lies.

The Chinese people often say, “One does not know how vast and beautiful China is until one visits Xinjiang.” This vast and beautiful region is now witnessing sustained economic growth, social harmony and stability, improved wellbeing, and unprecedented cultural prosperity. People of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang are leading a secure life, getting along with each other in harmony, and enjoying full rights to life and development. Their freedom of religious belief and normal religious activities are protected by law. Now is the best time in history for Xinjiang to achieve development.

Rumours will not write off China’s progress in safeguarding human rights in Xinjiang. Attempts to disrupt Xinjiang’s development and prosperity will never succeed. It is my hope that you will not believe the rumours or the deceptive words of anti-China elements and politicians.

We urge the UK Government to view the progress and achievements in Xinjiang from a comprehensive and objective perspective, stop making irresponsible remarks on Xinjiang, and stop using Xinjiang to interfere in China’s internal affairs. We also hope that British media will discard their arrogance and prejudice, and report and cover Xinjiang in an objective and fair manner so as to help the British public see the real Xinjiang.

ITV: Thank you, Ambassador. Will China agree to allow a team from the United Nations Human Rights Council to visit Xinjiang and the facilities that you have just shown us to carry out an independent investigation, unfettered, without any interference of the Chinese Communist Party to see for themselves what is going on there?

Ambassador Liu: As I told you, since 2018 there have been about 1000 diplomats, journalists and representatives from various countries, and international organisations who have been to Xinjiang. We also welcome the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Xinjiang. The invitation is always there.

What we are opposed to is the so-called “independent investigation” that has ulterior motives, which is trying to use Xinjiang issue to interfere into China’s internal affairs. Xinjiang’s door is always open. Each year there are hundreds of thousands of tourists visiting Xinjiang. People who go there with good intention, objective and not biased, will be welcomed.

Associated Press: Ambassador, thank you for taking my question. I would like to draw upon your long history in the United States to ask you whether or not you believe relations with the US are at “a point of no return”, given the statements from the Trump Administration and the continuing threats that they could make against China?

Ambassador Liu: I certainly hope not. China still believes that good relations based on mutual respect, non-confrontation, cooperation and coordination are in the best interests of the two countries. We have no intention to undermine this relationship. And we’ll try our best to engage the US side.

But as I said on many occasions, you need two to tango. You need two hands to make a clap.

I also believe that there is a broad-based public support for the relations. Since Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, both countries have worked to build a relationship based on common interests. I think the common interests of the two countries are still there. The foundations, especially among the American people, are still there. American people still support engagement with China. When we heard US Secretary of State make this anti-Chinese Communist Party remarks, I would call it a declaration of cold war, we’ve seen many criticism of his statement by American people. People are concerned where this administration will take this relationship.

So I don’t think we have passed the “point of no return”. I think the fundamental interests that tie the two countries together should be there. And I think the people with a vision, with farsightedness, still work to maintain the fundamentals of this relationship. I hope that common sense will prevail at the end of the day.

Xinhua News Agency: On Huawei, Huawei has been saying that it is an independent and privately-held company, not affiliated with the Chinese government. So why has the Chinese government spared no effort to defend Huawei in the ongoing row? And also if the China-UK relations continue to sour, is there any possibility that the two countries will find themselves in a relationship that is characterized by “hot economically” and “cold politically”(zheng leng jing re), which once happened between China and Japan? Thank you.

Ambassador Liu: On Huawei, I’ve just published an article in the South China Morning Post. I’m not trying to advertise my article, but I really hope you could take some time to read this article.

As a matter of fact, I have tried my very best to contribute my article to major British newspapers, because it’s really relevant. I think British public needs to hear the other side of the story right after the UK government’s decision to ban Huawei. Unfortunately, no major newspaper would like to carry my article.

I’ve been here for 10 years. Now I really have a taste of what the “freedom of press” is about in the UK. One of your colleagues earlier told me that they only want to carry articles which they believe will sell better. So they do not carry my article on Hong Kong. They do not carry my article on Huawei. So I really have to let my article to fly thousands of miles to Hong Kong, to the South China Morning Post. They told me they still have some readers in the UK. So I decided, okay, that’s good. I encourage you to read my article in which I said, to refuse Huawei is to refuse opportunities, refuse growth and refuse the future. I do not need to elaborate on my main points.

I just want to answer your question about China-UK relationship. As I said in my opening remarks, this issue of Huawei is not about one Chinese company. It’s about how the UK treats and deals with China. It is about the big picture. Do you treat China as an opportunity or do you treat China as a threat? Do you treat China as a partner, or you treat China as a rival? That is a fundamental issue. You have to make a choice.

Secondly, governments have to provide protection for the legitimate rights and interests of the business people. It’s true not only for the Chinese government, but also true for the UK government. I’ve been here for 10 years. I remember vividly how British leaders and politicians worked very hard for your businesses. I still remember even your Prime Minister tried to promote the sale of Diageo while our Premier was here, in a hope that there should be a signing ceremony for the Diageo project in China. I still remember that your Chancellor of Exchequer pushed very hard for the Chinese side to buy the engines of Rolls-Royce. They told us Rolls-Royce produces much better engines than any other countries, including GE from the United States. I still remembered that your Business Secretary even went to China to promote the sale of British steel, asked Chinese companies to buy British Steel. And they ended up with a buyer called JINGYE who agreed to invest for the next 10 years 1.2 billion pounds.

I think there’s no question about the government working for the business interests of the country. So I think you can’t regard China’s efforts to raise the Huawei issue as an example of what some “cold war warriors” claim -- that this shows that Huawei is close to the Chinese government. We treat Chinese businesses as equals. We hope Huawei is succeeding in this country. It’s a win-win. So that’s why I said on the day of the decision made by the British government that the day was a dark day for Huawei, a dark day for China-UK relations, and an even darker day for the United Kingdom because it will miss the opportunity to be a leading country in 5G infrastructure.

You also mentioned the relationship being “cold politically and warm economically”. I think the two are related. You need to have a good atmosphere to engage each other. When I said it was a dark day for China-UK relations, it’s because the decision really undermines the trust between the two countries and the credibility of the UK government. So that’s why there are quite some concerns from Chinese businesses. I had a webinar with Chinese businesses right after the UK’s ban on Huawei. They all expressed their concerns because there’s a security risk, there’s an investment risk. So I think you can’t separate the two. We have no intention to politicize economic affairs. But you have to realize that trust and credibility are important for countries to engage each other.

Thank you for your questions.