Sinister threat or new best friend? We must stop flip-flopping on China

Eight years ago, George Osborne, the then chancellor, visited China. Then, the talk was of a “golden era” in Anglo-Chinese relations and the UK promising to be Beijing’s “number one partner in the West”.

Much has happened since then, notably China’s crackdown on civil rights in the UK’s former colony of Hong Kong. Since then, relations have been decidedly unfriendly.

Now, the foreign secretary, James Cleverly, is visiting Beijing, paving the way for a bilateral meeting between the countries’ two leaders at the forthcoming G20 summit in New Delhi. The relationship is back on, albeit not to the same degree of closeness wished for by Osborne.

Predictably, that is too much for critics on the Tory right. Iain Duncan Smith compared Cleverly’s overture with “appeasement”. Duncan Smith, who is one of five MPs sanctioned by China, said the trip was the latest stage of “Project Kowtow”. The UK position, he said, “smells terribly of appeasement”. Duncan Smith added: “It’s like we want more business, therefore we don’t want to upset the Chinese too much. What we end up with is that they think we are just too weak.”

Duncan Smith will not shift from his position that Beijing represents a “dangerous threat to the free world”. Liz Truss, too, does not shirk from labelling China a “threat”.

The other factor that unites them both – apart from their loathing of China and choice of vocabulary – is that they are both very much ex-Tory leaders. The current chief sees Britain’s required approach very differently. Rishi Sunak would have resumed engaging with President Xi at the last G20 meeting in Indonesia, but their get-together was cancelled after a stray missile killed two people in Poland and it appeared, briefly, that the war in Ukraine had spilled over into NATO territory. Diplomatic diaries were hastily rescheduled as premiers took stock.

Then, Cleverly was due to journey to China in July but a sudden purging of the politburo in Beijing meant the trip was off. Now it is going ahead, with the likelihood of further discussions and rapprochement to come, whatever Duncan Smith, Truss, et al might say.

Sunak signalled as such in his speech at the lord mayor’s banquet last year, when he declared an end to the “golden era” of relations with Beijing but defended the need to maintain “diplomacy and engagement”.

His critics see this as typical Sunak softness, treading a cautious line that does Britain no favours. Equally, though, their belligerence has had no effect. The two nations are not equals, not remotely; the period when a mighty empire enabled London to lay down the law across the world, when its word could cause quaking in other capitals, has long gone.

On the hit list of Chinese actions that have provoked apoplexy, it is impossible to find any that have softened because Britain no longer speaks to them. On Hong Kong, threats to Taiwan, handling of the pandemic, treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, refusal to condemn Russia over Ukraine, Beijing has not given ground.

Worse, the behaviour of Truss in particular has raised the possibility of some sort of retaliatory measure – one that could cause real damage. She had been planning to officially brand China a threat to British national security before she was ousted as prime minister last year. Since then Truss has continued to beat the drum, visiting Taiwan and demanding a firmer line against Beijing. She was the first former prime minister to go there since Margaret Thatcher, earning a severe rebuke from the Chinese who called it “a dangerous political stunt”.

Cleverly and Sunak are attempting to draw the sting, to tone down the tit-for-tat, and create a level of warmth. In truth, Britain’s about turn is not a good look. Once again, Britain is flip-flopping – acting hard one minute, easing the next.

It’s been a consistent aspect of our foreign policy these past few decades, as we’ve struggled to find our place, to realise we’re not in a position to dictate as we once were. Frequent changes in prime minister have not helped.

It ought to stop. Other nations take a steadier line. While it’s possible to argue that Hong Kong does not resonate with them as it does with Britain, France and the US are already ahead in the diplomatic courtship stakes.

Once China opened up belatedly after the Covid outbreak, president Macron went there, as too did the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, treasury secretary Janet Yellen and climate envoy John Kerry. US commerce secretary Gina Raimondo was in Beijing this week, in front of Cleverly.

There are other issues too, where not talking to China seems perverse. On climate change, it’s impossible to imagine any substantial progress being achieved unless Beijing is at the table. On artificial intelligence, Britain is trumpeting the hosting of a global conference in November. Again, it is difficult to see how the gathering can be deemed remotely successful if China is not present.

We must assume that Cleverly and Sunak are going into meetings with their Chinese counterparts with eyes wide open. Just because they’re speaking does not mean Britain can resurrect the claim of becoming China’s Western bestie.

We should be wary, guarded. We want Chinese investment, but on our terms. We’re not going to compromise our secrets. If they do something we regard as bad, we will make our views known. We will be keeping them closer, which given climate change alone, is a stand worth making.