British government’s new China policy: Another case of one step forward two steps back?

The British government published a new National Security Strategy (NSS) on June 24. Before last year’s general election, the Labour Party said that it would carry out a comprehensive audit of the UK’s relationship with China within 100 days of taking office. With the publication of the NSS, a little over 350 days after taking office, the government announced that the audit had been completed. However, contrary to widespread expectations, it will not be published. Rather it is summarised in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of the NSS.

The strategy does at least draw a certain line under the more unhinged positions emanating from sections of the Conservative Party, including the short-lived Prime Minister Liz Truss in that it accepts that not engaging with China at all is simply not realistic:

“The actions taken by China, on issues from international security to the global economy, technological development or climate change, have the potential to have a significant effect on the lives of British people.”

“This work underscores the need for direct and high-level engagement and pragmatic cooperation where it is in our national interest – similar to all other members of the G7. In a more volatile world, we need to reduce the risks of misunderstanding and poor communication that have characterised the relationship in recent years. China’s global role makes it increasingly consequential in tackling the biggest global challenges, from climate change to global health to financial stability. We will seek a trade and investment relationship that supports secure and resilient growth and boosts the UK economy.”

However, it then goes on to repeat a number of slanders, false accusations and Cold War tropes, for example:

“Each pillar of the Strategic Framework contains measures that are designed to bolster our overall security with respect to China and other state actors that have the ability to undermine our security.”

“Yet there are several major areas, such as human rights and cyber security, where there are stark differences and where continued tension is likely. Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years. Our national security response will therefore continue to be threat-driven, bolstering our defences and responding with strong counter-measures.”

Other anti-China positions and statements are also scattered throughout the militaristic document. For example:

• Many of the rules which have governed the international system in the past are eroding. Global commons are being contested by major powers like China and Russia, seeking to establish control and secure resources in outer space, cyberspace, the deep sea, and at the Arctic and Antarctic poles.

• The possibility of major confrontation in the Indo-Pacific continues to grow, with dangerous and destabilising Chinese activity threatening international security.

• Authoritarian states are putting in place multi-year plans to out-compete liberal democracies in every domain, from military modernisation to science and technology development, from their economic models to the information space…  As the second largest economy in the world, with strong central government control, the challenge of competition from China – which ranges from military modernisation to an assertion of state power that encompasses economic, industrial, science and technology policy – has potentially huge consequences for the lives of British citizens.

• The hard realities of our geography, security and trade necessitate a prioritisation of the Euro-Atlantic area as part of our “NATO first” approach. But evidence of countries like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea cooperating across theatres – sometimes opportunistically and sometimes by deepening strategic ties – demonstrates the interconnectedness of the Euro-Atlantic with different theatres like the Middle East and Indo-Pacific, where we already have strong partnerships.

• The UK’s bilateral relationships and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific are designed to enhance the international security on which our shared prosperity depends. Among others, these include our Global Strategic Partnership with the Republic of Korea, Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty and AUKUS agreement with the US and Australia, our Global Strategic Partnership and joint development of the next generation combat aircraft with Japan alongside Italy, and science and technology collaborations with New Zealand. We will underscore our investment in the stability of the region with the sailing of the UK Carrier Strike Group to Australia, reaffirming the UK’s commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.

• The centrality of the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait to global trade and supply chains underscores the importance to the UK of regional stability. There is a particular risk of escalation around Taiwan… We do not support any unilateral attempts to change the status quo. As part of our strong unofficial relationship with Taiwan we will continue to strengthen and grow ties in a wide range of areas, underpinned by shared democratic values.

• The AUKUS programme remains a priority project for UK defence and collective security, as part of a NATO-first, but not NATO-only, approach. The US, Australia and the UK will co-develop an advanced fleet of interoperable nuclear-powered attack submarines, which will be operated by both the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy, and other advanced capabilities that will strengthen deterrence.

Responding to Pat McFadden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who introduced the report in the House of Commons, Labour’s Emily Thornberry, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, asked:

“In the absence of the published China audit, which we have all been looking forward to so much, the national security strategy has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by many of us. On China, it states:

“‘Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years.’

“May we have some guidance on how we will address that, because that is not entirely clear? In particular, what advice is being given to the nations and regions when they are dealing with our third-biggest trading partner, with whom we need to promote but also protect ourselves?”

The reference here to the “nations and regions” may be said to indicate a fear that the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and their societies in general, may prove less susceptible to cold war style confrontation and more open to the opportunities and benefits of respectful engagement and cooperation with China.

(The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a senior member of the British government. The exact meaning of the title is lost in the mists of medieval mysticism that still characterise much of the British ruling class and its system.)

The debate on the NSS was immediately followed by one on the China Audit, introduced by Foreign Secretary David Lammy. He said:

“China’s rise has shaped the geopolitical landscape. Over the past decade, its military expenditure doubled. Its armed forces became the world’s largest. It established dominance over critical mineral supply chains. It pursued relentless innovation in electric vehicles, artificial intelligence and even space travel. Over the same period, China has delivered a third of global economic growth, becoming the world’s second largest economy and, together with Hong Kong, the UK’s third largest trading partner. Not engaging with China is therefore no choice at all.”

He added: “Hon. Members will understand that much of the audit was conducted at a high classification and that most of the detail is not disclosable without damaging our national interests. I am therefore providing a broad summary of its recommendations today in a manner consistent with that of our Five Eyes partners. [The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.] On security, the audit described a full spectrum of threats, from espionage and cyber-attacks to the repression of Hongkongers and attacks on the rules-based order. It made clear that our protections must extend more widely than they currently do – from the security of this House to our critical national infrastructure.”

Doubling down on the anti-China rhetoric, the profoundly ignorant Foreign Secretary continued:

“On global security, the audit underlined the extent of Beijing’s support for the Kremlin. The Government have already tripled the number of Chinese entities sanctioned for equipping Russia’s illegal war, and we will continue to confront that.

“The audit reiterated that our approach to China must stay rooted in both international law and deterrence. We will continue to confront China’s dangerous and destabilising activity in the South China Sea, which I saw for myself when I visited the Philippines. We will continue to work with our regional partners to support freedom of navigation and call out China’s abuses. We will double down on AUKUS. We will not change our long-standing position on Taiwan, while sustaining unofficial but vibrant ties with Taiwan on trade, education and innovation. We will also never shy away from shining a spotlight on human rights – notably the situations in Xinjiang and Tibet – while on Hong Kong we will insist that China honours its commitments under the Sino-British joint declaration, including by repealing the national security law and releasing Jimmy Lai.”

(Lammy is presumably either too stupid or too shameless, or more likely both, to note the particular irony contained especially in the last above quoted statement when uttered by a leading member of a government that is shamefully and brutally misusing its draconian and  anti-democratic “terrorism” legislation to ban Palestine Action, to terrorise progressive journalists like Richard Medhurst, Asa Winstanley and Sarah Wilkinson who speak out against genocide, and to prosecute and attempt to silence popular young Irish and black working class musicians like Kneecap and Bob Vylan.)

In the time limited debate that followed, MPs from the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Scottish National (SNP) parties, along with the three pro-British unionist parties in the north of Ireland, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) and the far right Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV), fell over each other in a race to the bottom in terms of attempting to outdo one another in the vulgar display of their anti-China credentials.

The UUP’s Robin Swann, as befits a running dog, picked up the bone that had been thrown his way by Thornberry in the preceding debate and asked:

“The audit received responses from the devolved Governments. Last month, the Northern Ireland Finance Minister met the Chinese consul general in Belfast. The meeting was described as a formal diplomatic engagement with views exchanged on deepening co-operation. Significantly, there were no press interviews, publicly released minutes or full attendee list; no specific sectors or agreements were referenced. Northern Ireland’s foreign policy is not devolved, so does the Foreign Secretary know what was discussed or agreed? Does he think he should know and will he ask? As a response to the audit, did the Northern Ireland Executive include what was discussed in that meeting or previous meetings between the Chinese Government and the First and Deputy First Ministers?”

Lammy lamely responded: “The hon. Gentleman has put his views on the record, and I will consult my officials about what he has revealed.”

The Northern Ireland Finance Minister is Sinn Féin’s John O’Dowd.

The sole voice of reason in the entire debate was provided by Dr. Scott Arthur, Labour MP for Edinburgh South West, who said:

“Huawei has been mentioned a couple of times in passing. The reality is the guddle over it delayed the roll-out of 5G by three years and cost the economy £7 billion, which is just incredible and shameful, actually. I welcome the emphasis placed on improving cultural links between the UK and China and, of course, our universities are a key part of that. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that our universities have a say in how we establish better relationships between China and the UK?”

Lammy’s reply in full was: “I reassure my hon. Friend that our universities were able to contribute to our China audit.”

Responding to the parliamentary pantomime, the Xinhua News Agency reported that a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in London stated:

“We firmly oppose the erroneous remarks in the UK’s statement and report that spread ‘China threat,’ make groundless accusations against China, and interfere in China’s internal affairs. Accusations such as Chinese espionage, cyber-attacks, and transnational repression against Britain are ‘entirely fabricated, malicious slander.’ Issues related to Taiwan, Hong Kong and human rights are purely China’s internal affairs, which brook no interference from any external force.”

The spokesperson urged Britain to see the situation clearly, adopt the right mindset, and completely abandon Cold War mentality and ideological bias.

Global Times further reported that a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry had stated:

“China stands ready to grow its ties with the UK based on mutual respect and proper management of the differences, but we never accept any smear or groundless accusation.”

Cui Hongjian, Director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies, told Global Times that by simultaneously sending two conflicting policy signals – one for cooperation and another portraying China as a “threat” – the UK government is eroding the very foundation of mutual trust necessary for stable bilateral relations.

“Such contradictory messaging will inevitably create practical disruptions in China-UK relations. While we recognise the Starmer administration’s stated intention to recalibrate Britain’s foreign policy approach toward China, the fundamental logic underlying both parties’ China policies remains remarkably similar. Their so-called ‘balanced strategy’ essentially follows a ‘have-them-all’ approach: pursuing economic benefits through cooperation with China while maintaining ideological distance and emotional resistance toward China. This new report perfectly encapsulates this dual mentality.”

The following articles were originally published by the Xinhua News Agency and Global Times. The full text of the UK’s National Security Strategy 2025 may be read here and the two parliamentary debates here and here.