What does China’s “espionage” row show? Starmer cannot interfere in Raphael Beer’s foreign policy
WWhen Keir Starmer met Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Rio last month, he declared that Britain should build a “practical and serious relationship” with China, which would be a meaningful ambition if anyone was advocating the opposite. Who is behind the impractical and unserious dealings with Beijing? Prince Andrew, perhaps.
The unlucky royal scandal magnet has no influence on politics, but he has enough elite connections and greed to make him worthy of attention from a Chinese businessman now banned from entering the UK for espionage. Yang Tengbo denies espionage. He says he is a victim of “sour” anti-China sentiment.
The case has heightened concern about the scale of Beijing’s covert influence operations in the UK. Or, more accurately, the royal angle is bringing to a boil a story that has been simmering for too long.
Last year, the head of MI5 warned that the Chinese state was running a “sustained campaign against Jamila Epic scale“To infiltrate UK companies, access sensitive information and steal intellectual property.
Earlier this year, the head of the National Cybersecurity Center described China’s aggressive cyber capabilities as “Extensive and sophistication“.
In 2021, the director of MI6 said efforts were being made to counter The threat of espionage from Beijing It has overtaken counter-terrorism as the top priority for the British Secret Service. The NSS’s message could not have been clearer, even if its bosses lacked Prince Andrew’s unique talent for attracting public attention.
A sharper focus on the way the Chinese Communist Party conducts its business exposes the ambiguity of Starmer’s language. What does a “practical and serious” policy actually look like?
After being pressed for answers earlier this week, the Prime Minister postponed clarification pending “Full audit“For relations with Beijing. Awkward questions are skewed by the three-P formula: cooperation, challenge, and competition – different tools for different policy terrains.
This is also a neat way of not saying anything. None of the Cs can be separated from the others. Where does business competition end and political challenge begin when your business counterparts have ties to the PLA and engage in systematic attempts to steal your business? When does the common interest in cooperating on the climate crisis trump the duty to challenge human rights violations and the use of forced labor in green technology manufacturing?
There are countless such dilemmas. They all describe an irreconcilable tension between attraction to China as a source of lucrative investment and aversion to the nature and methods of the regime that controls that resource.
In opposition, it was easy for Labor to criticize the Conservatives for pursuing an inconsistent China policy. The mood swung wildly from David Cameron’s declaration of a new “golden age” to Theresa May’s decision (made under enormous pressure from Washington) to strip Huawei of its role in developing the UK’s telecoms infrastructure.
In government, Starmer learns how much foreign policy incoherence is a natural function of different departments in Whitehall juggling conflicting priorities. What the Treasury Department sees as an opportunity for growth can look from the Interior Department more like a national security threat.
Sometimes compromise positions can be found, but not always. Some lines cannot be blurred. For example, there is the question of whether China should be included in the “enhanced tier” of countries deemed most hostile to Britain under the Foreign Influence Registration System (Firs). This requirement to declare lobbying activities on behalf of outside interests was passed into law last year but has not yet been implemented.
Tory MPs accuse Labor of dragging its feet under pressure from banks and other companies concerned about turning away customers over the duty to declare whether they are acting on instructions from foreign governments or not. The response is that the Conservatives left everything in such a state of disarray that Verse was not ready to run. Dan Jarvis, the security minister, told the House of Commons on Monday that it was all happening.At a fast pace“.
It is not yet clear how rapid this pace will be compared to the busy schedule of ministerial engagements with the Chinese government. Rachel Reeves and Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, are due to visit Beijing early next year. So is he Ed MilibandMinister of Energy, because all low-carbon technology supply chains pass through China. There is talk of Starmer hosting or traveling to a bilateral summit.
A lot of wrinkles from that red carpet need to be ironed out. There are cross-party concerns about human rights abuses, including the harassment of Chinese dissidents and refugees from Hong Kong on British soil. Prince Andrew’s involvement may be the most sensational story of alleged espionage to date, but it is unlikely to be the last. In January, Donald Trump returns to the White House, promising to impose punitive tariffs on Chinese goods. He will demand Starmer’s loyalty in the trans-Pacific trade war, and open up London’s side with Washington on a potential second front against Brussels. This will raise questions that the Prime Minister will not be able to answer with platitudes, platitudes and pending audits.
There may be a safe zone where Britain can establish profitable economic relations with China without compromising national security. But the balance was never easy. This is made more difficult by the lack of stabilizing alliances elsewhere – the ever-present chaos of Brexit and the coming hurricane named Trump.
British politics is so narrow and full of trivialities that Starmer did not need a meaningful foreign policy in his election campaign. Since assuming power, he has made many trips abroad, attended many summits, and shaken many hands. He has not yet articulated a strategic concept of Britain’s place in the world and how to reach it safely.
Perhaps the Prime Minister believes that he does not need such a thing, and that it is better for him to flounder in a practical and serious manner in the international arena. Or maybe he has a better plan, in which case the time to share it may have passed.