The Guardian View on UK-China Relaces: a Dilmma made more clear than Brexit | Editorial

EWhere when the Atlantic alliance was more functional than it is now, there was no unified vision of China. There has always been a common caution from Beijing as a commercial competitor and a potential security threat. But for the hawks in Washington, the idea of ​​a superpower alternative force closes on economic and technological parity feels existential. More Europeans have been closer to being careful not to participate.

Britain deviated between the two poles. In 2015, David Cameron promised a “golden age” of open trade with China. In 2020, under pressure from the United States, Boris Johnson Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications company, banned from UK 5G infrastructure.

In the opposition, the conservatives became increasingly believed against Beijing. The government of the Labor Party in Kiir Starmer has been incorporated towards cooperation. Many ministers visited China, including the advisor. Jonathan Reynolds, the Minister of Business, will go there later this year, as he revived a commercial committee that has been asleep since 2018. Mr. Reynolds was clearly frustrated with the Chinese Steel of the British Steel during the rush period to preserve the melting ovens in Scunthorpe last week, but the government retreated from pools of theatrical individuals.

At some point, the endeavor to achieve economic growth and investment with the National Security Authority in preserving China in the length of the arm contrast. The question is where to draw the line. The official answer is that the verdict is postponed pending the “Whitehall” relations with Beijing. This is due in June.

An imminent decision to put China under Foreign Impact Record scheme A system to maintain tabs on international organizations and companies practicing political influence in Britain. China is not expected to be named in the “improved class” of risky countries, along with Russia and Iran, but some Chinese institutions may have this appointment.

Calibration of these provisions – choosing a time to define security priorities on trade – is much more difficult with Donald Trump at the White House. What was a difference in focusing between the United States and Europe seemed as an irreplaceable fracture in the West.

Mr. Trump began a fierce trade war with Beijing without a convincing strategy. Officials tell his European administration that they will have to choose an aspect when it comes to biological communication technology. But the US President is routinely aggressive in his speech towards the European Union, and NATO rejected reliably towards Russia, Vladimir Putin.

From this style, it is clear in Brussels and other continental capitals that Washington is no longer a reliable ally and the path should be a “strategic independence” for Europe. Inevitably, this is to change the calculus account and integration of risks and potential benefit from the most pragmatic China policy. The authoritarian figure of the Xi Jinping regime has not changed, but it shows itself as a more predictable power in international affairs, while American democracy fell in violent cramps.

These changes illuminate the international trend of Britain, which has been built since Britain’s exit from the European Union. Economic separation from Europe was drawn on a model of the United Kingdom as a single sovereign agent in the world of open trade globalization. This was an old concept at the time. I was affected by a very bad year. Britain is not alone in struggle to move in relations with China in the turbulent new geopolitical climate, but the choice of unity in a world of competing continental blocs makes the conflict more difficult.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you want to provide a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered to be published in our messages section, please click here.