When Sir Keir Starmer lands in Beijing this week, his itinerary will be clearly determined. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for his objectives.
He’s right that the history of Britain’s approach to China is a confused one. Speaking at the Mansion House last month, he condemned the “hot and cold” relationship between Britain and China: “We had the golden age of relations under David Cameron and George Osborne, which then flipped to an Ice Age, that some still advocate.”
It was a serious error of the Coalition to seek to cosy up to the Chinese Communist Party in the hope of inward investment, disregarding the many risks along the way. But it’s hard to agree with the Prime Minister when he criticises the correction to that mistake, a so-called “Ice Age”.
Which elements of this more cautious approach is he criticising? The decision to protect vital systems from infiltration by a foreign dictatorship? The willingness of the Parliamentary authorities to publicly warn against espionage targeting our democracy? Criticism of the crimes against humanity routinely committed by the Chinese state, including by its MPs? Nonetheless, he has at least said what he does not want for the relationship, which is some sort of start.
The confusion comes when he articulates his positive vision. Here’s the Mansion House speech again: “It’s time for a serious approach, to reject the simplistic binary choice. Neither golden age, nor Ice Age.”
What we might call Starmer’s Goldilocks Approach – neither too hot nor too cold – sounds nice in theory. But is it viable in practice?
He’s correct that China is a major power and cannot be ignored. And – while he won’t put it this way for diplomatic reasons – the alarming and erratic conduct of the United States, pulling the rug on its defensive allies in Nato and lashing out at historic friends via tariffs, has rocked the assumptions on which this country has long founded its view of the world.
In that, Starmer is far from alone. A fortnight ago, Canada’s Prime Minister, Mark Carney, visited Beijing to declare that “we are forging a new strategic partnership” with China, in the hope of delivering what his government called “a stronger, more independent and more resilient economy” in the face of “a more divided and uncertain world”.
The former Bank of England governor and the former director of public prosecutions are politicians cut from similar cloth, who approach their jobs and the world in like manner. As dispassionate technocrats, each seems willing to open their arms to Beijing, seeking refuge from Washington’s destabilising psychodrama.
To each man, China’s offer of stability and predictability is dangerously tempting when contrasted to Donald Trump, whose entire life seems dedicated to being the very opposite.
I say dangerously tempting, because there’s a serious risk that each will prioritise the superficial appeal of the manner of a new relationship with China over the material costs. Indeed, so reckless is America’s current conduct that it could easily push them to delude themselves about their newfound friends – a force far more effective than any active attempt at deceit by Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Consider for a moment the British government’s official line on China since the election, known in shorthand as the three Cs: cooperate, compete and challenge. The idea is to cooperate where we can, compete where we choose, and challenge where we must, an approach intended to imply that the relationship can essentially be moderated from London.
The three Cs have a ring to them, but depend entirely on Jinping’s willingness to play ball. This is not a pick-and-mix.
Co-operate! Great, but at what price? As others have noted, the majority of high-growth focuses in Labour’s Modern Industrial Strategy – which includes the energy grid, critical supply chains, defence capacity, data and cutting-edge research – are directly linked to national security, and all major Chinese enterprises are connected to the state’s espionage apparatus.
Compete! OK, but aren’t we doing that anyway? British business is always keen to compete, but there is no prospect of China’s government abandoning its total control of the economy, nor hobbling its businesses with green taxes and high employment costs to level the playing field with the UK.
Challenge? It’s admirable to raise the plight of the Uighurs or the intimidation of Taiwan, but when exactly has the ruling Communist Party ever shown any sort of willingness to listen, still less change tack, in response to such “challenge”?
The three Cs seem better suited to reassure ourselves that we know what we are doing than they are to actually constrain the fire with which we are playing.
What exactly has come of the “purposeful internationalism” that Starmer now espouses? We know at least some of what this country has given up already.
Your next read
square SARAH BAXTERMelania knows what’s really going on with Trump. She’s keeping her distance
square COLIN DRURY How I ParentI tried ’empty weekend’ parenting. I got lie-ins and happy children
square YASMIN ALIBHAI-BROWN Who broke Britain?Margaret Thatcher: The pitiless PM who sold the country to get-rich predators
square ANDREW FISHERPolanski is the threat to Labour, not Farage
The British authorities controversially preferred to allow a case against two men accused of spying for China to collapse rather than state in court that China poses a hostile threat to national security. Now the Government has waved through the new Chinese super-embassy, despite it featuring subterranean rooms adjacent to fibreoptic cables carrying the most sensitive market data for the City of London.
The price for absorbing such risks ought to be extremely high – if it could ever really be worthwhile at all. Yet the government has precious little to show for them.
When he shakes hands with Jinping, the Prime Minister may well be full of concern about the damage wrought by Trump. Perhaps he may hope that China could help him through that uncertainty and chaos. But if he is anything less than clear-sighted that anything Jinping may offer comes with a hefty cost, then he is on the cusp of a grave mistake.
Hence then, the article about starmer s next mistake turning his back on trump was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Starmer’s next mistake – turning his back on Trump )
Also on site :
- Mountain lion spotted in San Francisco's Pacific Heights neighborhood
- Sydney Sweeney gives first look at forthcoming lingerie brand, Syrn, in black lace
- Trump Briefed on Intelligence Saying Iran’s Government Is Weaker