On December 1, UK Prime Minister Starmer delivered a speech in the City of London, stating that the US, EU, and China are the three major powers in today's world. He said that the current situation of the UK lacking engagement with China "can no longer continue," and the UK needs to strengthen its exchanges with China and carry out trade and cooperation with it. At the same time, he claimed that China poses a "national security threat" to the UK and that the UK will continue to take measures to address this.
The contradictory stance of Starmer, who "relies on China economically but guards against China for security reasons," reflects the fickle and profit-seeking nature of British foreign policy, as well as the dualistic character of its approach toward China.
Fickleness and pursuit of profit have always been prominent features of British diplomacy. Since the early formation of the European international relations system in the 17th century, Britain's diplomatic strategies enabled it to adjust its interests and alliances in the process of competing with other European powers, playing an important role in its successful role as a "balancer from the sidelines" and maintaining the status of the "Empire on which the sun never sets." Since the end of World War II, Britain's comprehensive strength has greatly declined, and its "flexible" diplomatic methods have become an important way for it to maximize domestic interests and international influence, allowing it to play the role of a "global strategic balancer" despite its medium size. In his speech on December 1, Starmer mentioned the drastic change in Sino-British relations from the "golden age" under Cameron to the "ice age" under Truss, indicating that the UK's future policy toward China will not follow the above-mentioned path but seek new solutions - reflecting the UK's consistent fickle characteristics. Starmer's mention of the need to strengthen contact with China for economic purposes is a clear manifestation of the profit-seeking nature.
However, behind the fickle and profit-seeking nature of British diplomacy lies an unchangeable fundamental logic: the strong ideological coloration and serious entanglement in geopolitical strategy with the United States. This logic is also vividly reflected in Starmer's duality of speaking ill of China while trying to gain commercial benefits. As one of the birthplaces of Western systems and ideological concepts, Britain's obsession with so-called democracy and its promotion, as well as its emphasis on ideological competition and confrontation, remain deeply embedded in its foreign policy logic. From the perspective of the Anglo-American special relationship, since the signing of the Atlantic Charter in 1941, Britain has regarded supporting the US leadership as an important pillar for maintaining its strategic interests. Its international strategic layout after the end of World War II also implemented this decision. Therefore, the basic strategic color of British diplomacy is an "orthodox" political correctness that neither the Conservative Party nor the Labour Party can shake, and it is also the basic logic and "source of rationality" for criticism and scrutiny of government foreign policy within the British Parliament and the strategic community. In a sense, the combination of the fickle nature of British diplomacy and the ideological coloration also reflects its failure to reduce its "nostalgic mentality" commensurate with the decline of its strength since World War II. The concept of a "Global Britain" proposed by the British government, as well as Britain's increasing interference in Asia-Pacific affairs, reflect this outdated mindset.
It is evident that what Starmer expressed in his remarks is a "wanting both" mentality, which aims to denigrate and suppress China under Western discourse and logic, while at the same time seeking economic benefits, and attempting to obtain China's cooperation on global governance issues. In fact, the negative attitude of the UK towards China politically means that it has already placed itself on the opposing side of the Chinese government and the Chinese people, not only preparing public opinion and justifying further negative actions in areas such as trade, technology, and politics, but also damaging the hard-won mutual trust and interaction between China and the UK. If the UK continues to use "national security" as an excuse to interfere in China's internal affairs and harm China's core interests, the process of British businesses expanding cooperation and opening up markets in various fields with China will face increasingly serious geopolitical risks. The idea of "helping British businesses expand commercial interests based on national security" will only be an unrealistic talk.
In the current complex and changing international situation, any country's diplomacy needs to actively recognize changes, respond to them, and even seek change. The UK's China policy needs to acknowledge the reality of China's continuously rising comprehensive strength. If it continues to implement inflexible and outdated China policies, it will only lead to increased vigilance and prevention from China, thus consuming its already limited strategic credibility. The UK's attempt to develop cooperation in all fields with China based on a "dual" China policy will only bring about self-inflicted consequences. In his speech, Starmer mentioned that the UK does not want a "frozen period" in Sino-British relations, but if the UK's dualistic China policy translates into damage to China's sovereignty and core interests, the development direction of its China policy will inevitably go beyond the control of the UK government and may cause irreparable consequences. The UK should recognize the situation, adjust its mindset, treat China's development rationally and kindly, and pursue an active and pragmatic China policy. It should move in the same direction as China, promoting the healthy and stable development of Sino-British relations. This is the wise choice that serves the national interest of the UK.
(Author is a deputy researcher at the Institute of National and Regional Studies, Beijing Language and Culture University)
Source: Global Times
Original: toutiao.com/article/7579797425800495667/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.