【Text by Observers Net, Wang Yi】With the continuous rise of China's economic influence and technological strength, the Chatham House (also known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs) in the UK published an article on July 8th, stating that the current UK policy towards China does not reflect China's current status in the international community.

The article pointed out that the UK is "walking a tightrope" between the US and China, and cannot ignore a reality: China's leading position in global supply chains and high-tech fields makes it impossible for the UK to cut off ties with it. If the UK blindly follows the US's strategy towards China, there will be great risks for the UK in terms of economy and politics in the future.

In the view of the article's author William Matthews, "the UK cannot continue to rely on the US at the cost of key supply chains and advanced technologies," and even if facing the risk of US retaliation, it should maintain economic ties with China.

This January, the UK's Chancellor Rachel Reeves visited China. Visual China

At the beginning of this month, the UK's long-awaited "Foreign Influence Registration Scheme" (FIRS) came into effect. The system consists of two parts: the "Political Influence Tier" and the "Enhanced Tier", aimed at strengthening the regulation of activities of "foreign entities that pose a national security risk", requiring those who work for foreign governments to report their activities. Those working for foreign governments classified in the "Political Influence Tier" must disclose their identity when lobbying, while those in the more strictly regulated "Enhanced Tier" must register for any activity they undertake.

What has drawn attention is that the UK government included Russia and Iran in the "Enhanced Tier", but did not include China. Last week, the Financial Times reported that this has angered some British pro-China hawkish MPs, who consider excluding China as "a major mistake", while the Labour government insists that including China would hinder the UK's commercial relationship with China.

As both sides argue, Matthews published an article on the 8th in the Chatham House suggesting that instead, both China and the US should be included in the highest tier of FIRS, the "Enhanced Tier", "as part of a broad measure for the UK to counter the influence of major powers", to show fairness.

Chatham House was established in 1920 and is one of the world's most renowned centers for research on international issues. It got its name because it is located in the Chatham House in London. Six years after its establishment, the institute received a royal charter. As an independent research organization, it is neither affiliated with the government nor receives funding from it, and mainly conducts research in four areas: energy, environment and resource governance, international economy, international security, regional studies, and international law.

Matthews wrote in the article that including both China and the US in the "Enhanced Tier" does not mean that they are both considered threats, but rather reflects the UK's independent foreign policy in adapting to the global landscape of great power competition.

"Including the US can offset the risk of confronting China, although China may still respond angrily, and it is almost certain to provoke an angry response from the US," Matthews said, "However, in the long run, it would be better for the UK to face such situations now, rather than in the future... Due to the intensification of the US-China competition, the risks will be amplified, making it harder for the UK to go its own way where its interests differ from Washington."

The article also points out that from former US President Obama's "rebalance to Asia" strategy, we can see that the US's global strategy has shifted from being a global leader to a more narrow focus on national interests. After Trump's second administration took office, it showed obvious "transactional" diplomatic methods, using economic coercion and withdrawing defense support to continue reducing the US's global involvement. Of course, this decision is also driven by the fact that the US's economic strength and ability to maintain global military presence are no longer what they were before.

In this context, Matthews pointed out that an obvious dilemma for the UK is that its "special relationship" with the US seems to have greatly weakened, and the question is where its loyalty lies in the future. He believes that resolving this dilemma does not necessarily require the UK to abandon the US and turn to China, but the UK should realize that its interests with the US in China will increasingly diverge.

"China is rapidly catching up with the US in certain technology fields, and in some cases, it has even surpassed the US," Matthews warned, "The UK cannot completely rely on the US at the cost of the supply chains and technologies necessary for economic prosperity. This requires the UK to maintain economic channels with China, even if it risks provoking US coercion."

The article states that China's leadership in global manufacturing, rare earths and critical minerals, electric vehicles, and new energy has no other country that can match in scale and price. The cost of cutting economic ties with China would be "unbearable". Just like when the UK followed the US's footsteps to ban Huawei, resulting in the UK still lacking a cutting-edge 5G network supply today, the consequence would be that the UK lags behind other developed economies.

Regarding Matthews' proposal, a spokesperson for the UK Foreign Office responded, "The current government is taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing relations with China, rooted in the interests of the UK and the world. We will cooperate where possible, compete where necessary, and challenge where essential."

According to previous statements from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, China's attitude towards Sino-British relations has always been "China is willing to work with the UK, upholding the partnership positioning, adhering to open cooperation, promoting mutual benefit and win-win, and pushing for the steady and far-reaching development of Sino-British relations."

This article is exclusive to Observers Net. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7524596912176005632/

Statement: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of Observers Net. Please express your opinion below with the [Top/Down] buttons.