November 19, 2024 - 7:00am
Keir Starmer has made headlines by meeting Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Brazil yesterday. Could it mark another change of tack in Britain’s China policy?
Labour has hardly been more forthcoming about its intentions abroad than any other area of policy, and China is no different. But the basic dilemma Beijing poses to British policy hasn’t changed.
The UK is not (yet) the sort of country targeted by things such as the Belt and Road Initiative — although Beijing might prove better at building our infrastructure than we are at present — but it isn’t hard to see why improved relations with Beijing would appeal to a government desperate for any hint of growth.
The challenge is that, even in the world of commerce, it is very hard to have fair competition with China because it does not play by Western rules. Any major Chinese company has political oversight, and many are in any event notorious for intellectual property theft.
This dilemma is best captured by what Labour will do about the National Security and Investment (NSI) Act. Passed by the previous government, this legislation gives the state more powers to intervene and block corporate takeovers in strategically important sectors, or where there is believed to be a major security risk.
Yet that increased security comes at a price. Generally speaking, the greater the scope for government — i.e. “politically motivated” — intervention in such matters, the worse the overall investment environment in the country concerned. Yet while such security-mindedness might be the right long-term call, relaxing the rules is more likely to lead to a short-term payoff. This goes doubly for big strategic shifts such as expanding domestic capacity in sectors such as microchips: it’s expensive, and Beijing has a big pool of ready cash.
The CCP knows this. It’s no surprise that Xi took the time to praise Starmer’s growth plan; generally speaking, the more focused British politicians are on headline growth, the less weight they give to domestic and global security arguments — something George Osborne’s fleeting “golden era” can attest to.
Some Labour figures did hint at a tougher line in Opposition. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds attacked Tory proposals to streamline the NSI Act. And Rachel Reeves delivered a lecture on “Securonomics” which was also the title of a Labour Together pamphlet by Hamish Falconer, now an FCDO minister.
There are also plenty of examples of Labour pulling in a more dovish direction. Last month, Angela Rayner called in plans for a so-called “super-embassy” in East London which had previously been blocked; one of Reeves’ advisors has facilitated access to the Treasury for Shein; and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, has refused to call Beijing’s persecution of the Uighurs a genocide.
Speaking of Lammy, he’s also been defending the Government’s plan to pay Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands, proposals which raise questions about the security of a critical British and American base given Port Louis’s exposure to Chinese influence.
Then there’s the question of universities. There are serious concerns about the role of Confucius Institutes as vectors for CCP influence overseas. But with the Government so desperate to prop up the sector that it’s raising fees, is it going to close the door on Beijing’s money?
For Starmer, who makes so much of his record as a human rights lawyer, the China question must pose something of a personal dilemma. Beijing’s record on human rights is horrific, and those abuses are inextricably linked to its economic power. Though he was critical of the country’s human rights record yesterday, it will be a test to see what effect this has on actual policy.
After all, it’s easy to have high principles in Opposition, or in legal practice. It’s much harder to stick to them when your poll rating is tanking, the economy is flat, and a more relaxed approach to China offers opportunity after opportunity for an easy short-term win.
Main Edition
US
FR
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.
SubscribeGiven weakness of our position keeping some doors open, for now at least, seems wise. And always useful to have met and developed some form of relationship. No specific agreements emanated of course, and any UK Govt would be treading v carefully in current climate.
One suspects had Starmer refused to meet Xi then a reverse criticism article could have just as easily been published. One of those damned if you/don’t etc.
An uptick from me, for once. As I read these things my first thought is ‘beggars can’t be choosers’.
The Labour Government is expending a lot of time and energy doing things which are not for the people of Britain but for a theory – the theory of moving to a pseudo-totalitarian (communist) society. Why not meet with one of the big communist leaders in the world (Xi) and get very excited in discussions of their common aim? Very, very excited perhaps.
So, to confirm: human rights lawyers exist to facilitate Chinese human rights abuses.
I read on Bloomberg yesterday that the British press were manhandled out of the room when human rights abuses were brought up. Odd that isn’t mentioned here. Perhaps not odd that the BBC didn’t mention it in their coverage.
It was mentioned in the Telegraph today.
The solution is clear to me now. In addition to buying all its wind and solar from China, they can also finance it through China. I’m sure the rates will be very reasonable. Problem solved. Maybe they can even get China to assemble it as well – for a reasonable price of course.
…. while China throws up more and more coal fired power stations… and burns oil and ships the turbines on diesel boats to the UK.
On the very day that Starmer kowtowed to President Xi, a court in Hong Kong imprisoned 47 democracy activists to prison terms of up to 10 years: so much for Human Rights.
Two Tier would approve: he’s opposed to anyone standing up to the government and he’s introducing thought policing. Probably asked Xi for tips and technology
The problem is that thanks to the geopolitically illiterate Lammy, we do not have a coherent foreign policy. In short, progressive realism is an oxymoron and Lammy is just the last part of that.
We need to take the opportunity present by Trump’s win to strengthen all ties with USA and thereby really take advantage of Brexit. Starmer is ideologically committed to doing the reverse which is why, by the time we finally kick him out, our country will probably be so far round the U bend it is irrecoverable.
It’s never wise to get in to bed with a dragon.
Did he ask for reparations for covid?
They are latterday socialists full of class war and ressentiment, so of course they should find a natural affinity with corporatist post-Maoist Chinese communists.
What a totally Ignorant article
Completely devoid of factual evidence
Go research Chinese history from 5000 yrs ago to present day
Then once you’ve done so then immerse yourself in the Philosophies of Buddhism, Zen Buddhism and Confuciousism
Then apply to their history
If so you shall realise just how China thinks and eliminate your ignorance
Utterly different from Western Beliefs
Er, that’s the point of the article, Brian. The Chinese think differently from Europeans. That also applies to the Arabs, Iranians, Russians and, indeed, most of the rest of the world. Failure to recognise this is the reason our foreign policy is such a mess.
One wonders who our Brexiteers imagine we should do business with. Any, even tentative attempts, to improve trading conditions with the EU, are immediately shouted down. Tentative attempts to come to an understanding with China, are likewise condemned as unacceptable – I assume because it will upset Trump. Fact is, supposed persecution of Muslims in China doesn’t seem to unduly bother BRICS members Iran or Egypt or other prospective Muslim members of BRICS like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan or Malaysia.
It seems to me that according to Farage and the rest we are ideally only to be allowed to trade with the USA – deepening our already worryingly asymmetric relationship with that country.
You’ll find Brexiteers are perfectly happy to trade with European countries. Indeed, trade with EU countries has increased since 2016. They just don’t see why we should have to submit to control by Ursula von der Leyen in order to do so.
‘..trade with EU has increased since 2016.’. A little context always helps: https://www.cer.eu/insights/brexit-four-years-answers-two-trade-paradoxes
Can someone please explain to me what are Western rules in this context?
The challenge is that, even in the world of commerce, it is very hard to have fair competition with China because it does not play by Western rules.
I doubt very much that China’s human rights stance is a ‘personal dilemma’ for our dear TwoTierFreeKier. He has flip flopped on so many issues in the last few years that it’s clear that he will say and do whatever is politically and personally convenient for him at the time. Principles can go hang.