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.
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.
SubscribeHmm. No comments on a China story. In a forum not short of views. What does that tell you?
That they’re asleep?
That all UnHerd’s commenters are Chinese sleeper agents?
Excellent!
I was a sleeper agent until my alarm went off at 6:45. Now I am an awake agent.
LOL!
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.
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.
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.
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?
Yep, that made me laugh.
“Hello, is that MI6? Do you have a guy named James Bond working for you? You do? Thanks!”
“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?
Excellent comment! I couldn’t have put it better myself!
Ah I see your comment now! It wasn’t there when I posted.
The name is Woodley. Clive Q. Woodley.
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.
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.
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?
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.’
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.
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.
Yes, I myself am quite resistant to believing it. But if I look around the world today…
“… 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!
The “Woking Class”? Do they all actually live in Woking? It is very convenient to the centre of London, I suppose.
Woodley reminds me of the Alec Guinness character in Bridge on the River Kwai.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
Arms dealer and/or spy. Didn’t GB invent these 2 jobs?
Some ridiculous statements in this article. If he is an agent, why on earth would anyone confirm it?
“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?
Read Catch-22.
There’s nothing better than a bit of high-calibre, armour-piercing goodwill.
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.