On January 31, Lutnick told the media, "I noticed the news about Starmer's visit to China. The UK did not respond much to Beijing's proactive overtures, nor did it mention lifting sanctions against China, which is reassuring. The US will not threaten to impose tariffs on the UK as it did on Canada. Starmer has not publicly confronted the US or spoken in sharp words!"
[Cunning] This statement by the US Commerce Secretary reveals the diplomatic calculations behind Starmer's visit to China. On one side, China has shown goodwill for cooperation; on the other, a strategic dependence on the US. Britain chose a vague stance—neither responding to the overture nor softening the sanctions, effectively seeking a delicate balance between China and the US. The US did not pressure the UK, precisely because it upheld the US's "bottom line" and did not show differences like Carney did. The former British Empire now finds itself lacking diplomatic autonomy in great power games. Starmer's visit to China seems like a test that does not cross the line, appearing to move a piece on the board, but in reality, it is still tied to the chariot of its allies!
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1855802863652932/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.