This exchange during a debate in the Commons yesterday about lifting the EU arms ebargo with China is worth noting:

Mr. Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con): There is a strong and growing alliance against lifting the EU embargo. All the informed regional players—the United States, Japan, Australia, Russia and South Korea—are, for regional security reasons, all against lifting the ban.

In the context of China’s anti-secession legislation, which talks about using non-peaceful means against Taiwan, is it not time that the UK Government stopped vacillating and that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary took a principled stance on this issue?

Mr. Rammell: I seem to recall that the arms embargo was put in place in response to the events in Tiananmen square and that the first Government to visit Beijing after that event was the previous Conservative Government.

Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s specific concerns. As the Foreign Secretary has made clear, he recognises that the political environment has become more difficult in the light of the passing of the anti-secession law in China on 14 March. Nevertheless, China is a major strategic partner in the international community and the hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on whether it is right to put China in the same basket as Burma and Zimbabwe. We do not believe that it is, and we are protected by the EU code of conduct. There are questions and concerns across the EU and we must deal with them effectively. As I said, that process will take as long as it takes.

That’s Bill Rammell, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

…the hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on whether it is right to put China in the same basket as Burma and Zimbabwe. We do not believe that it is…

I beg to differ. As do Amnesty International. In their report, The death penalty worldwide: developments in 2004, Amnesty say:

Based on public reports available, Amnesty International estimated that at least 3,400 people were executed in China in 2004, but the true figures were believed to be much higher.

Those executed included a minor. One case involved a pregnant woman charged with heroin smuggling who had her pregnancy forcefully terminated - Chinese law prohibits the execution of pregnant women - so she could be executed if found guilty.

Neither Burma nor Zimbabwe feature in the report.

It’s a useful mental exercise this - you could spend all day and learn a lot. Visit Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International and decide for yourself “whether it is right to put China in the same basket as Burma and Zimbabwe” or not.

Again, it’s the evil of banality and other such cliches. To be honest, I’ve almost stopped raising my eyebrows at the innate ability of these managerial types to paper over the crimes and abuses of those they want to do business with. I imagine most people never did, which is a shitty state of affairs in itself.