UK Faces A Critical Juncture In Its China Relationship – Analysis

By Mitchell Gallagher

A glaring omission in the 2024 UK general election was a minimal focus on foreign policy, especially China — a critical factor in national and global stability. As the United Kingdom mires in domestic adversities including record National Health Service waiting times, prisons bursting at their seams and the highest tax burden in 70 years, the lack of clarity about where UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government stands on East Asia remains puzzling.

The United Kingdom, as a G7 and United Nations Security Council member, still commands significant geopolitical influence. But the ‘Golden Era’ in UK–China relations — captured by then-prime minister David Cameron sharing a pint of beer and fish and chips with Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2015 in a display of public camaraderie — seems increasingly distant. 

Post-Cameron, Conservative prime ministers have swung between seeing China as a lucrative opportunity and a security threat, over time intensifying their hawkish stance. These shifts have had profound effects, especially after passing the National Security and Investment Act which ramped up scrutiny of foreign investments, notably from China.

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy faces the task of managing the delicate ‘special relationship’ with the United States, fostering improved ties with the European Union and stabilising UK–China relations. Drawing parallels with former UK prime minister Tony Blair’s victory in 1997, which led Labour to champion greater trade and cultural exchanges with China that generated substantial Chinese investments in UK infrastructure and education, one could predict a comparable approach under the Starmer administration. 

Starmer’s references to his role as Director of Public Prosecutions underscore a commitment to the rule of law, signalling a likely reassessment of Labour’s position on China that balances economics with ethical imperatives. Starmer’s legal commitment will shape his strategy, making a return to Blair’s engagement approach arduous if it does not address China’s conduct and human rights abuses. Starmer confronts a dual challenge, delineating foreign policy from his Conservative predecessors, yet simultaneously assuring businesses and international allies. This juggling act demands a foreign policy stance that is principled and grounded, but resilient to practical realities.

Emboldened by critiques of the Conservatives’ coziness with Russian oligarchs, Labour sets its sights on the pervasive influence of investments and interests in the United Kingdom. Starmer’s criticism of Conservative ties with Russian money paves the way for investigating the United Kingdom’s dependence on Chinese capital. Just as the Conservatives were accused of overlooking the influence of Russian oligarchs, Labour is also positioning to scrutinise the extent to which the United Kingdom has become beholden to Beijing’s economic and political interests. 

Labour’s priority is to reset ties with the European Union and democratic partners, which will realign the country’s alliances and counteract Chinese influence. Promises of a comprehensive ‘audit’ of the United Kingdom’s China relations, signal a deliberate, evidence-based approach — away from the reactive and transactional nature of the government’s China policy. 

But a principled, values-driven stance is not without serious challenges. Disentangling intertwined economic and political ties with China will be a complex and long-term endeavour. Yet Starmer appears undeterred, confronting the realities of the United Kingdom’s precarious relationship with China.

Starmer will pursue a stringent stance on China, given anxieties over human rights and national security as part of its commitment to ethical governance. China’s technological and military activities present security challenges, prompting a need for robust policies. Coordinating with international allies will be pivotal for addressing Beijing’s actions and reinforcing UK global diplomacy. Campaigning for economic growth, Starmer repeatedly emphasised ‘wealth creation’. But UK universities still heavily rely on revenue from Chinese students, presenting both an economic boon and vulnerability. 

It remains to be seen whether the new government will yield to temptations of economic expedience by easing pathways for Chinese investments and securing immediate financial gains but risking strategic and ethical repercussions. A utilitarian approach that prioritises the maximisation of collective well-being through boosted economic growth would advocate for a relaxation of investment protocols. But Starmer’s convictions, cultivated through legal experience, will cast a long shadow when coordinating diplomacy and domestic policy. 

Needs for economic revival and treatment post-Brexit will define the United Kingdom’s foreign policy landscape. China may exploit post-Brexit trade deals to further long-term strategic goals. As Labour commits to fixing economic disparities, China should target investment in Labour seats in northern England. Investing in cities such as Manchester and Leeds would give China a foothold in up-and-coming economic hubs. By funding major projects, China would exert influence in key constituencies, sway local political sentiments and garner support from influential leaders. 

Northern England presents lucrative opportunities for Chinese companies, with expanding markets, a skilled workforce and thriving sectors in manufacturing and digital technology. Such investments adhere to the UK government’s efforts to rebalance the economy away from London and the Southeast, enabling Chinese firms to diversify assets, mitigate risks and expand into new markets.

The United Kingdom faces a palpable loss of direction in East Asia. Starmer’s move beyond former UK prime minister Rishi Sunak’s ‘systemic threat’ rhetoric surrounding China spotlights a vital juncture. Starmer must delineate UK allies in East Asia, redefine global alliances and reclaim strategic autonomy in an increasingly multipolar world.

• About the author: Mitchell Gallagher is PhD Candidate in the Political Science Department at Wayne State University.
• Source: This article was published by East Asia Forum