In a historic election victory, Sir Keir Starmer successfully advocated for an YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard) agenda of growth and development for Britain. It all sounds quite familiar to Chinese ears, except for one missing piece of the puzzle: the country’s foreign policy approach of “Global Britain”, established by former prime minister Theresa May, and its implications for China.
The Labour Party’s campaign understandably focused on domestic issues, such as high energy prices, the country’s flailing National Health Service (NHS), immigration and infrastructure. Meanwhile, “Global Britain” appears to have fallen by the wayside. However, domestic politics and international diplomacy are always intertwined. This is of particular significance for Britain’s multifaceted relationship with China.
Right now, as Britain seeks to ramp up manufacturing capacity, China is under domestic and international pressure to wind down. When factoring in China’s experience in building a development-oriented state, it appears that Britain and China are at a point of historic economic complementarity.
British foreign secretary David Lammy has identified climate change, health and artificial intelligence (AI) as areas where China and the UK should work together. Renewable energy is a key area of China’s industrial strength. Any path to net zero by 2050 likely means working with China. To make this work, Chinese firms shouldn’t just sell solar panels to the UK, but also build production plants in Britain.
When it comes to healthcare, the level of cooperation between China and the UK has been consistent across various administrations. So far, much of the cooperation is focused on research between academic institutions. However, as China faces the challenges of its ageing population and the UK seeks to improve the NHS, healthcare provision may be an area for increased cooperation.
Like climate change, the risks associated with AI can only be solved on the global level. China’s involvement in the AI Safety Summit last year might have surprised many, but was welcomed by then British prime minister Rishi Sunak as necessary for global action on AI. Other Western countries have expressed concern about the safety risks of AI. Meanwhile, China would like to see continued and regulated data sharing. As everyone refines their position, AI may be one of the few areas where a global compromise can be reached.
In these and other areas, such as infrastructure, Starmer could always consider cutting China out of the picture, for security reasons or otherwise. But without China, implementation costs might be more expensive than they otherwise would have been, making Starmer’s agenda all the more difficult to achieve.
Part of Starmer’s goal is building a Britain that is more competitive, including against China. Beijing should support this push for its short- and long-term implications. Over the past decade, Britain has seen effectively zero net growth; this means that, should China wish to grow its economic engagement with the UK, someone else would need to lose out.
Should Britain return to a path of consistent growth, its bilateral trade volume with China could increase, even as UK leaders diversify the country’s trade network. This is probably what Chinese diplomats mean when they emphasise “win-win cooperation”.
China should recognise that Britain, as a core member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is aligned with the United States on security matters. Meanwhile, the UK must recognise that the South China Sea should not be a British defence priority. The UK is certainly not a Pacific nation as barely more than 10 per cent of its trade passes through the South China Sea. If the UK diversifies its global trade network, it might be less inclined to see China as a security challenge. This could be an incentive for Beijing to support Britain’s trade goals.
The past few years have shown that any fruitful engagement between China and the West requires an absence of bombastic rhetoric, as well as going beyond symbolic gestures. China, for example, should not make a renewed push for the UK to adopt Huawei’s 5G network. It wouldn’t do any practical good for bilateral relations, but instead lead to increased suspicion from foreign policy analysts and decision-makers. This would ultimately harm ties between China and the UK.
While Britain’s cybersecurity concerns and stance on human rights are quite clear to China, and will probably continue to be a topic of bilateral discussions, it would be better done in private settings.
“Progressive realism”, as advocated by Lammy, means that Britain will push for what it believes is right, but in a results-oriented way. In his victory speech, Starmer said his government will turn away from the era of domestic British politics as “noisy performance”. This should apply to Britain’s foreign policy too. Loud China-bashing won’t achieve any non-political goals, and will probably only lead to China digging in. Consistent and principled engagement with China has a long and proven history of success.
Britain once was a diplomatic powerhouse. Many practices in international dialogue, such as the Chatham House rule, were conceived here. Over the last century, the UK has slowly seen this tradition somewhat wither, as declining global influence and interests takes their toll. So far, British think tanks and research institutions are keeping the flame alive.
A global Britain cannot just be backed by economic and military weight, which aren’t the UK’s strengths anyway. Its greatest strength has long been its soft power and historical ties with countries around the world. The British foreign ministry should support the efforts of think tanks and academic institutions, but also step into the arena itself, carrying the torch from former foreign secretaries Lord Castlereagh, George Canning and Lord Palmerston, and show once more that Britain has a valuable, independent role to play on the global stage.
Hua Han is co-founder and secretary general of Beijing Club for International Dialogue
Jersey Lee is associate of Beijing Club for International Dialogue
