The Guardian’s view on China’s spy trial: Opportunity for Labor to show it understands the threat posed by Beijing | Editorial

no One word to describe the challenge China poses to UK foreign policy. There is threat and opportunity; The necessity of engagement and the necessity of guarding. The Communist Party in Beijing suppresses dissent and pursues its interests abroad with a coercive nationalist resolve. It is not a system with which Britain can build a relationship based on shared values.

But China is also a superpower with near-monopoly control over some mineral resources and superiority in important industrial supply chains. Trust in friendship is not an option; Hostile rejection is unrealistic. It is not easy to manage relations through private diplomacy, let alone subject them to public scrutiny. But Sir Keir Starmer’s government appeared particularly embarrassed in its response to the collapse of a high-profile spying case, involving the alleged passing of secrets from within Parliament to Chinese officials.

The Public Prosecution dropped the case against two men, a parliamentary researcher and a teacher working in China. Both deny any wrongdoing. Prosecutors say a conviction cannot be guaranteed if China is not mentioned in government witness statements as a threat to national security – ostensibly a requirement of the Official Secrets Act.

The opposition parties cried out. There are plenty of policy papers and ministerial statements dating back many years attesting to the threat posed by China. Suspicions have been raised about political pressure to drop the case due to fear of offending Beijing and spoiling economic relations.

Ministers reject this claim and accuse the Conservatives of failing to fix flaws in the Official Secrets Act while they were in power. In Parliament on Wednesday, Kemi Badenoch said the whole issue “smells of a cover-up”. The Prime Minister responded that the Tory leader was “slinging mud”. He committed to publishing witness statements that, he says, support the government’s version of events.

There is clearly something wrong if prosecutors believe there is an espionage case to answer, but are unable to bring it to trial. In a climate of endemic distrust in politics, Ms Badenoch would be wise to be careful not to jump from skepticism to conspiracy theory. By the same token, if broader diplomatic and trade concerns were not truly relevant to the case, the government should have been more transparent earlier.

Partisan rhetoric has heated the debate without shedding much light on the underlying issue. There is more consensus on this issue than the tone of partisan political exchanges in recent days suggests.

In office, Conservative ministers, including Badenoch, have chosen their words carefully when describing the dangers of overexposure to Chinese espionage and reliance on Chinese technology, often to the frustration of hawkish MPs. The suppression of political freedoms in Hong Kong has not received as strong opposition as pro-democracy activists there deserve.

Managing relations with an assertive superpower is complex. Wise language does not necessarily indicate naivete about danger. But diplomatic protocol should not prevent frankness about the limits of dealing with a regime that is often hostile to core British interests.

The current Labor government is not the first to send mixed signals on this point. If Sir Keir has a clear idea of ​​how to balance trade with China with national security interests, ending the confusion over the botched spying case would be a good way to illustrate that.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to email a response of up to 300 words for consideration for publication in our letters section, please click here.