X Close

Why is a Brit running a Chinese weapons conference? CCP and Russian 'experts' will be in attendance

(Chai Junwei/VCG via Getty Images)

(Chai Junwei/VCG via Getty Images)


August 29, 2024   7 mins

The city of Xi’an was once famed as the birthplace of the Silk Road, the tortuous trade route along which caravans bore textiles, jade and other luxury products to Persia, Egypt and Europe for more than 1,500 years. Just outside the city lies another ancient marker of its erstwhile wealth and power: the Terracotta Army buried in the vast underground necropolis that contains the tomb of China’s first emperor, Qin Shi Huang.

Today, the capital of Shaanxi Province has another source of renown: its armaments research and manufacturing hub, which serves the burgeoning strategic requirements of Qin’s distant successor, President Xi Jinping. The Xi’an Aircraft Industrial Corporation builds many of China’s bombers and assault planes, and the city houses four separate universities where staff conduct defence and weapons research.

Appropriately enough, then, starting on 23 September, Xi’an’s cavernous Quijang Convention Centre will play host to a high-profile four-day meeting, the fourth International Conference on Defence Technology (ICDT), at which some 2,000 scientists will discuss the latest research into ways of making weapons more deadly. The conference will examine work in highly sensitive fields that are already transforming the way nations wage war, and its considerable cost will be met by China’s weapons industry. Unsurprisingly, most of the delegates will be Chinese, although two of the listed keynote speakers happen to be citizens of China’s ally, Russia. However, somewhat less predictably, the conference’s co-chair will be a Briton who lives in Kent.

A tall, bald and bespectacled figure in his late sixties, Clive Woodley is one of Britain’s leading weapons technology experts, with much of his own ground-breaking research funded by Britain’s Ministry of Defence. Having worked closely with Chinese colleagues for at least a decade, he is set to play a central role in Xi’an; indeed, he is the author of the ICDT’s welcome message encouraging other scientists to attend the conference. The conference, he writes, will “allow exposure to the most current state-of-the-art technology in defence science”, and “provide opportunities for interactions with some of the world’s leading experts in the field”.

He goes on to explain how “new topics have been added which are at the frontiers of defence science and technologies, including hypersonic technology, artificial intelligence, directed energy, optoelectronics, stealth technologies, and electronic countermeasures”. Also promised are sessions on “explosions and impacts”, “armour and protection”, “advanced launch technology”, and quantum computing.

The full conference programme has not yet been issued, but the list of keynote speakers reveals an interesting array of expertise. Joining Woodley as co-chair will be Professor Baoming Li of the Nanjing University of Science and Technology — one of the “seven sons of national defence”, a group of Chinese universities which are especially close to the military. Baoming Li is also a high-ranking member of the Communist Party, and the Principal Scientist of the China Academy of Ordnance Science.

Elsewhere, accompanying Woodley will be at least one British colleague — Anthony Vickers, emeritus professor of computer science and electronic engineering at the University of Essex, who has published research on both lasers and quantum computing. (Like Woodley, Vickers did not respond to requests for comment.) Other keynote speakers listed to appear include scientists from Germany, Singapore and South Africa.

It’s not hard to see why Woodley tops the bill. His international stature as a scientist, and his long, close relationship with Britain’s Ministry of Defence, grant heft to his presence and add to the prestige of the ICDT. Having worked directly for the MoD after graduating from the University of Southampton in 1978, he went on to spend 17 years as Principal Scientist at Qinetiq, the MoD-controlled defence and security firm created when the Ministry privatised its laboratories in 2001. After leaving Qinetiq in 2018, he joined the Department of Shock Physics at Imperial College, London, where he stayed until 2022. He also served for several years as president of the International Ballistics Society, which has thousands of members across the globe. He remains the chair of its membership committee.

But what does this mean in practice? Well, according to his online biography, issued by the Chinese publisher of Defence Technology, a journal that Woodley co-edits and is closely linked to the ICDT, he is a “world expert on the mathematical modelling of the internal ballistics of guns”, who has “contributed to many of the gun systems used by the UK Armed Forces”. He has, it adds, also provided “critical insight” into the behaviour of explosives, and devised “innovative numerical modelling techniques” that have enabled the development of next-generation hypersonic artillery weapons such as railguns, whose shells are propelled not by conventional explosives but by electromagnetic pulses — weapons in which China appears to have developed a decisive lead.

Woodley insists that his involvement with the ICDT and his broader relationship with China is innocuous. While he declined to speak to me, he recently announced on LinkedIn that he is looking forward to an “impressive lineup of over 100 presentations and papers”, saying the conference will serve “as a conduit for the exchange of ideas, fostering collaboration”. (He also writes that he is “really looking forward” to staying at the five-star conference hotel, the Xi’an South Ramada Plaza by Wyndham, which “looks very comfortable”, and where he hopes “the breakfasts are good”.)

Yet not all are so blasé about his involvement. According to Charles Parton, formerly a Foreign Office China-watcher who spent several years stationed in Beijing, his presence in Xi’an is “extraordinary”. The only purpose of the ICDT, he told me, is to “attract people with his sort of experience to China in order to share that experience with China”. Moreover, “any usefulness which the Chinese can extract from his participation will be relayed into Chinese weapons programmes”, and if they believed his presence were not invaluable, “they would not have invited him” — and the weapons that China is trying to enhance “are intended for use against the UK’s allies, and even possibly in the unforeseeable future against UK forces”.

Clive Woodley at a previous conference in China

Parton’s assessment is supported by sources in China. In 2018, when Woodley co-chaired the first ICDT, the China Daily reported that it would “let China’s scientific researchers come into close contact with outstanding foreign scientists in the field of defence technology without leaving the country, conducting in-depth exchanges and gaining insight into the work being done on international academic frontiers in the field of defence”.

What this meant in practice became clearer in 2022. After that year’s ICDT in Beijing, Sun Zhuzhu, a young Chinese scientist based at Baoming Li’s university in Nanjing, posted a report on the event in Mandarin on his department’s website, saying that thanks to the “insights in the international academic frontiers in the field of defence” provided at the conference, it had “served the innovative development of [the Chinese] weapons industry”. He continued: “Not only is the gap between our product and technology level and the advanced level of foreign countries getting smaller and smaller, the influence of international defence technology is also increasing rapidly.” If any clarification was needed, he emphasised that the aim was for China to “truly grow into a scientific master”.

As UnHerd readers will know, Woodley’s involvement stretches back well beyond that conference. In May 2022, I drew attention to his appearance the previous October at a conference devoted to “New Material Technology for Ammunition” in Jinan, the capital of China’s Shandong province. According to the subsequent official Chinese report, the event “marked a new chapter in the development of artillery, shells and missiles”. Just a few weeks later, the MI6 chief Richard Moore gave a speech warning that the threats posed by China had become his agency’s “greatest single priority”, warning of “large-scale espionage operations against us, targeting those in research of particular interest to the Chinese state”.

I also revealed that, between 2014 and 2022, Woodley travelled to China to participate in seminars and lectures with senior defence figures and academics at least seven times. He had also published eight research papers either in Chinese journals or written jointly with Chinese scientists who worked for Chinese weapons firms.

Of course, when Woodley’s relationship with China began in 2014, Anglo-Chinese relations were still basking in the “golden age” inaugurated by David Cameron and George Osborne when Xi visited Britain in 2012. It took years for its warm glow to cool: it was not until 2020 that Britain decided it had to eradicate equipment made by the Chinese firm Huawei from its 5G phone networks on grounds of national security. In 2014, there had been no Uighur genocide, and the basic rights of Hong Kongers had not been crushed.

But if it was clear that the geopolitical landscape had shifted in 2022, the evidence is now impossible to ignore. “Xi Jinping has become even more authoritarian, the threat to Taiwan is greater than ever, and China is backing Putin’s brutal campaign in Ukraine,” says Professor Anthony Glees, the founder of the University of Buckingham’s Institute for Intelligence and Security Studies.

Indeed, the ICDT’s main sponsor, the China North Industries Corporation (Norinco), a manufacturing giant whose products include military jet aircraft, drones, artillery guns, shells, mortars, missiles, bombs, small arms, radar and anti-aircraft guns, has reportedly shipped guns and other military equipment to Russia for use against Ukraine. Having first been sanctioned by the US in 2003 for selling missile technology to Iran, Norinco fell within the scope of President Biden’s 2021 Executive Order prohibiting Americans from doing business with what he termed China’s “military industrial complex”. Woodley himself appears to realise how much things have changed. The futuristic technologies that will be discussed in Xi’an, he said in a recent LinkedIn post, are now “very topical, given events worldwide”.

“The ICDT’s main sponsor… has reportedly shipped guns and other military equipment to Russia for use against Ukraine.”

Yet for now, the new British government appears just as reluctant to criticise, let alone block, Woodley’s involvement with the Chinese weapons industry as its Conservative predecessor — despite a Labour manifesto pledge to conduct an immediate “review” of UK relations with China. Last week, when I asked the MoD to comment on Woodley’s trip to Xi’an, its spokesperson replied with an emailed statement: “We have robust procedures in place to make sure research contracts do not contribute to overseas military programmes and that individuals or organisations with foreign-state links cannot access our sensitive research.” Somewhat disappointingly, the statement was a verbatim replica of the statement the MoD issued when I asked about Woodley two years ago.

Others are more forthright. According to Glees, “on the face of it, Woodley’s behaviour is astonishing”. It is, he says, just possible that Woodley has been a British intelligence asset all along, tasked with penetrating China’s defence establishment. But if this is so, none of the several sources from Britain’s defence and intelligence communities with whom I have consulted has made any suggestion that this might be the case.

Meanwhile, a curious stipulation set out on the ICDT website appears to support the fear that the direction of traffic in sensitive knowledge taking place in Xi’an will be strictly one way. Chinese scientists who wish to submit papers must sign a declaration that none of their contents is classified, and that they have obtained approval from the “comrades” in their department’s “confidentiality unit”. Scientists from abroad, however, are not bound by this rule. Should they wish to divulge, the ICDT will not stand in their way.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a former Whitehall security official with long experience of trying to stop the transfer of sensitive technology to potentially hostile powers says that while Woodley has done nothing unlawful, he appears to be disregarding “ethical and moral norms”. His apparent impunity, the former official says, will only make it more difficult to stop other military experts from sharing their knowledge with China, while Russia’s involvement with the ICDT makes it still more dangerous: “In my view, what he is doing does not align with Western interests.”


David Rose is UnHerd‘s Investigations Editor.

DavidRoseUK

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

38 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael Kellett
Michael Kellett
12 days ago

What I don’t understand is that, if Woodley worked for Qinetiq until 2018, why he was allowed to travel to China in 2014 and after and still – presumably – keep his secuity clearance allowing him to have a senior role in Qinetiq.

Matt B
Matt B
16 days ago

Hmm. No comments on a China story. In a forum not short of views. What does that tell you?

Brett H
Brett H
16 days ago
Reply to  Matt B

That they’re asleep?

Martin M
Martin M
16 days ago
Reply to  Matt B

That all UnHerd’s commenters are Chinese sleeper agents?

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
16 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Excellent!

Graham Stull
Graham Stull
16 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

I was a sleeper agent until my alarm went off at 6:45. Now I am an awake agent.

Derek Smith
Derek Smith
16 days ago
Reply to  Graham Stull

LOL!

Derek Smith
Derek Smith
16 days ago
Reply to  Matt B

Most people on here are from the UK, and the articles are published around midnight UK time. Give it a few hours and the comments will arrive thick and fast.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
16 days ago
Reply to  Derek Smith

Tongue-in-cheek, but the “thick and fast” comments often come from the US, which is a few hours behind of course, so early evening there.

David McKee
David McKee
16 days ago

Woodley is subject to the Official Secrets Act of course, but that’s not the point, is it?

Woodley can do one of two things. He can keep his mouth shut, and listen to the chatter around him. Then report back to the authorities what he has learned. In which case, good on him.

Or he will allow himself to be flattered into divulging much more than he learns. Then he’d be a fool, and his wife would do him a favour if she burned his passport.

Derek Smith
Derek Smith
16 days ago

“It is, he says, just possible that Woodley has been a British intelligence asset all along, tasked with penetrating China’s defence establishment. But if this is so, none of the several sources from Britain’s defence and intelligence communities with whom I have consulted has made any suggestion that this might be the case.”

Does the author really imagine that the security services would admit that Woodley was an intelligence asset to a journalist who would then publish it on an online news platform?

Martin M
Martin M
16 days ago
Reply to  Derek Smith

Excellent comment! I couldn’t have put it better myself!

Derek Smith
Derek Smith
16 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Ah I see your comment now! It wasn’t there when I posted.

Josef Švejk
Josef Švejk
16 days ago

The name is Woodley. Clive Q. Woodley.

Graham Stull
Graham Stull
16 days ago

I’ll hijack this article to make a wider point:
Let’s say for the sake of argument China is the geopolitical rival they are being hyped to be, then my God the American Empire has done an impressive job of bolstering their alliances and creating a superpowered rival out of them.
First, we support their economic growth through favourable trade agreements. Then, when they get big and powerful, we annoy them by questioning established doctrine around Taiwan’s status, and a creeping militarisation of the Pacific region.
Next, we instigate a coup in Ukraine, crossing many of Russia’s red lines in a way that drives Russia (a country that has practically begged to be let into the Western fold) into what now almost constitutes an open stategic alliance with China.
We don’t even give the Ukrainians enough to win this war (though arguably that was never possible). Just enough to lose it slowly and at great cost, all the while allowing Russia the time and oil export prices to remilitarise its economy and foster new trade partnerships with its new Asian bedfellows.
It’s almost like we want a new Cold War with China, even to the point of maybe losing that Cold War.

Jim C
Jim C
16 days ago
Reply to  Graham Stull

There are a number of theories that try to explain this behaviour… I mean, besides the (laughable) notion that “our” leaders care about the liberty, happiness and prosperity of their subjects.
The least controversial is that Western decisionmakers have been driven by short term profiteering… the MIC and big finance pushed for NATO to be moved Eastward because it meant those newly-admitted countries buying Western arms via deficit spending. Kerching!
More controversial is that the Western MIC needs a bogeyman, and they deliberately pushed NATO Eastward knowing that eventually Russia would see this as a threat and re-militarise, thus breathing new life into Western defence spending.
Most controversial is that a small cabal of globalists don’t really see different countries competing against each other so much as them devising ever better ways to keep the real threat to their power – their own citizenry – under control, with the ultimate goal of turning every country into a mini-me China, with social credit scores, digital IDs and vaccine passports. Thus all our defence experts might as well confer and share ideas, because the resulting weaponry will be used to control citizens (with the occasional cull thrown in to keep them miserable and immiserated; Ukraine/Russia for example)
This last interpretation of reality might seem a little far-fetched, but look at the way “our” Elites in 2020 started pushing for lockdowns, masks, censorship, digital IDs and vaccine passports in lockstep, and how all governments – including “renegade” Russia – are co-ordinating with the BIS to introduce CBDCs… the ultimate population control mechanism.

j watson
j watson
16 days ago
Reply to  Jim C

How about Putin and Xi are Autocrats who can’t stand, nor risk, an emerging democracy, or existing democracy, doing well adjacent to them?
The rest of your babble the sort of thing the FDS and MSS probably look to plant. Question is are you a useful idiot or in on it?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
16 days ago
Reply to  j watson

Xi and China have lived next to the democracies of South Korea and Japan for decades. Putin has lived next to the democracies of Europe for 20+ years. Both countries have found willing markets in those democracies, be those markets for finished goods, energy, or something else. But do go on about other people’s ‘usefulness.’

Jim C
Jim C
15 days ago
Reply to  j watson

By most measures, Putin is less an autocrat than many of the “free” world’s allies… and certainly less autocratic than Zelenskiy, who campaigned on making peace with the rebel oblasts – “who cares what language Ukrainians speak?” – but quickly caved to the ethnonationalists and Western cat’s paws who actually run Ukraine, and resumed his predecessors’ Russophobic killings in the East. And whose mandate ran out 3 months ago in May.
Putin was desperate to “make nice” with the West, which was rebuffed – again and again – driving him into the arms of China.
In fact, here’s a video of that geostrategic genius Joe Biden mocking the Russians’ concerns and warnings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3tdF2S04wg&t=1311s
now, did Putin really want to get along with the West, or did he just try “to make nice” with them to satisfy the Russian populace’s desire to become a Western-style liberal democracy (which was a very different thing in the ’80s and ’90s) so that when he pivoted to China, Russia’s citizenry would say, “well, he did try for decades to get along with the West, but they made it impossible”?
Meanwhile Mr Watson, do enjoy your (purported) belief in fairy tales of Western “democracy” and our elites’ benevolence.

james elliott
james elliott
15 days ago
Reply to  Jim C

The last theory – while, yes, sounding rather far-fetched – has the discomfiting quality of fitting rather precisely with the actual, strictly fact-based events of the last decade or so.

So, there’s that.

Jim C
Jim C
15 days ago
Reply to  james elliott

Yes, I myself am quite resistant to believing it. But if I look around the world today…

Chipoko
Chipoko
15 days ago
Reply to  Jim C

“… a small cabal of globalists don’t really see different countries competing against each other so much as them devising ever better ways to keep the real threat to their power – their own citizenry – under control, with the ultimate goal of turning every country into a mini-me China, with social credit scores, digital IDs and vaccine passports.”

Brilliant! Hit the nail squarely on the head. The Woking Class is exactly that!

Martin M
Martin M
14 days ago
Reply to  Chipoko

The “Woking Class”? Do they all actually live in Woking? It is very convenient to the centre of London, I suppose.

R.I. Loquitur
R.I. Loquitur
16 days ago

Woodley reminds me of the Alec Guinness character in Bridge on the River Kwai.

Geoffrey Kolbe
Geoffrey Kolbe
16 days ago

You know, the Napoleonic wars were more enlightened times when scholars moved freely between France and England, despite the war that was going on between their countries. But we are not at war with China. We do an enormous amount of trade with China, vast numbers of Chinese students study in this country and we have pretty good diplomatic relations with China.
In this case, as I pointed out back in 2022 the last time David Rose ran his lance at this topic, the background is that China about the only country in the world which treats ballistics as open intellectual pursuit rather than a quasi-secret military endeavour. All the journals dedicated to the various flavours of ballistics are Chinese run and owned – and they are international, publishing in English. All the international conferences (apart from the odd NATO bash) are Chinese organised and the proceedings are published (in English) by organisations which Chinese dominated, if not Chinese owned.
Very little original research work in ballistics is carried on in the West. We have almost given up on this topic. Clive Woodley is one of very few researchers in ballistics in the West compared to China. We are well behind China in the size and scope of research in all forms of ballistics (internal, transitional, external and terminal) and these days I am not sure there much Clive Woodley could teach them. The boot is rather on the other foot in that regard – more is the pity!
And in any case, you can be sure that Clive Woodley would have the full permission of UK Export Control in this country for anything he might discuss or disclose in the setting of this conference, which is standard procedure for anyone involved in any matters that may be of military interest.
So, David Rose, give it a break. This is sensationalist journalism and I am sure you are worthy of better than this.

Andrew Floyd
Andrew Floyd
16 days ago

A lot of talk in the comments about whose side Mr Woodley is on and the political or otherwise prudence of his attending which conference or how terribly clever he is at designing weapons. The fact is his speciality and that of his many colleagues around the world is how to kill people efficiently. Basically he is a murderer. Bob Dylan wrote about him and his pals back in ’63 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEmI_FT4YHU – Give it a listen

J 0
J 0
16 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Floyd

You’re correct of course. We in these Isles should just stick with bows and arrows and laud our moral superiority. Are you one of those supine Quaker types that allow others either to trample over them and their families, or insist that others defend your wives, daughters and freedoms from the marauding hordes?

Andrew Floyd
Andrew Floyd
15 days ago
Reply to  J 0

I might well be – but I certainly wouldn’t rely on Mr Woodley to defend my country since he’s so ready to share his knowledge and expertise with a country that may well in the future become our adversary.

mike flynn
mike flynn
15 days ago

Arms dealer and/or spy. Didn’t GB invent these 2 jobs?

Peter Walton
Peter Walton
15 days ago

Some ridiculous statements in this article. If he is an agent, why on earth would anyone confirm it?

John Riordan
John Riordan
15 days ago

“It is, he says, just possible that Woodley has been a British intelligence asset all along, tasked with penetrating China’s defence establishment. But if this is so, none of the several sources from Britain’s defence and intelligence communities with whom I have consulted has made any suggestion that this might be the case.”

They could hardly admit it if it was true, could they?

Michael Clarke
Michael Clarke
15 days ago

Read Catch-22.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
14 days ago

There’s nothing better than a bit of high-calibre, armour-piercing goodwill.

Martin M
Martin M
16 days ago

It is, he says, just possible that Woodley has been a British intelligence asset all along, tasked with penetrating China’s defence establishment. But if this is so, none of the several sources from Britain’s defence and intelligence communities with whom I have consulted has made any suggestion that this might be the case. Well, they wouldn’t, would they?

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
16 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Yep, that made me laugh.

Martin M
Martin M
14 days ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

“Hello, is that MI6? Do you have a guy named James Bond working for you? You do? Thanks!”

P Branagan
P Branagan
16 days ago

Only dimwits or the brainwashed believe that there was a genocide against the Uighurs.
10s of thousands of independent travellers have gone to Xinxiang including a UN inspector, gone anywhere they wanted and talked to whoever they wanted. No sign whatever of concentration camps or reports of mass killings.

Far from genocide the Uighurs have special status for their language and culture. Uighur students are given bonus points in state examinations to help advance an increasing number of them going to prestige Chinese universities.
In fact there is systematic POSITIVE discrimination in favour of Uighers and other ethnic minorities in China.

The Uighur ‘genocide’ is 100% fabricated by several of the vile 3 letter agencies based in Washington DC.

Peter B
Peter B
15 days ago
Reply to  P Branagan

No doubt you include the Tibetans in this and claim they are not being discriminated against and have not been a) invaded and subsequently b) colonised.