A golden carriage, a nuclear plant

But this was not really a case of China bowing to anyone. By the end of the president’s weeklong visit it was clear it was Britain seeking to court Xi and the billions of funds he controls. The visit saw a new deal which gives China a stake in the first nuclear plant built in Britain in decades.

All the stops were pulled out.

A golden carriage was used to take the president along the Mall to Buckingham Palace. Gifts were exchanged: the Queen presented Xi with a collection of Shakespeare’s sonnets. In return, she received two of folk albums from Madame Peng Liyuan, Xi’s wife.

Xi visited No. 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister’s residence at Chequers, and the Palace of Westminster where he addressed the members of the Houses of Parliament, including the elected representatives.

A state banquet was held at Buckingham Palace. The Duchess of Cambridge wore red.

By now it is clear successive administrations here have maintained links with China.

A series of “government-to-government” loans – at concessionary rates – have been used to fund a variety of projects, ranging from the National Academy for the Performing Arts (NA PA) under the PNM, and then the Couva Children’s Hospital under the People’s Partnership. A range of concerns have been aired. At first, questions were asked about the neglect of local labour and contractors, the impact of the projects on freetrade within the region’s construction sector, procurement matters stemming from the use of sole-select contractors hand-picked under the terms of the agreements, as well as standards. More recently, Finance Minister Colm Imbert questioned how the Budget could have allocations for the Couva Children’s Hospital if that project was under a government-to-government loan. The Partnership said allocations are made for fees and VAT , and this was standard, occurring in relation to NA PA as well.

The local discussion has neglected human rights questions, even when hundreds of Chinese workers – shipped into the country to work on projects, set up at ghettos and then denied payment of salaries – took to the streets to protest. But in Britain last week, the decision to roll out the red carpet to Xi, triggered much criticism.

The opposition leader raised human rights questions, a former adviser to the prime minister also criticised the trip and British journalists questioned Xi directly on the matter. In an unusual step for him, he replied.

“We have found a path of human rights development suited to China’s national conditions,” Xi said. “With regard to protection of human rights, looking around the world we note that there is always room for improvement.” He continued, “All countries need to continuously improve and strengthen human rights protection to meet the needs of the time and people….

I think the people of our respective countries are in the best position to tell. And China is ready to, on the basis of equality and mutual respect, increase exchanges and cooperation with the UK and other countries in the area of human rights.” Wrapped up in this response is an admission of the need for improvement.

But Xi also exploited the main problem faced by countries like the UK and the US when they seek to raise human rights questions: things are not perfect in those countries as well. Race relations there are poor, the gender gap remains wide, both states have been accused of invasive surveillance measures. Still, these problems are occurring in societies which already have key freedoms and in-built human rights protections which give citizens recourse.

The Chinese president was more than disingenuous in saying the matter was one for the people when, more than any other person, he has cracked down on dissent.

Since 2013, China has seen the suppression of pro-democracy elements in relation to Hong Kong, the arrest and imprisonment of human rights lawyers, suppression of NGOs working on women’s rights and LGBT issues, increasingly oppressive policies against ethnic Tibetans and sweeping new national security laws bolstering his powers. Xi’s call for universal rights to be tied to China’s “national conditions” is a veiled form of moral relativism: what’s good for you is not good for us.

The British prime minister believes engagement is the way to lobby for reform. But this works both ways. Engagement not only bolsters our ability to tell China to stop violating human rights, it bolsters China’s ability to tell us to do the opposite.

It seems that without much debate, Trinidad and Tobago has, like other countries in the world, decided China’s isolation is riskier than engagement. In a globalised world where our interrelationship with other countries means we have little choice, engagement is the mantra, whether willingly or involuntari