In his annual address at London’s Guildhall on Dec 1, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer explained his China policy. He said that the failure of previous governments to engage with the world’s second-largest economy was “staggering” and a “dereliction of duty”. He placed clear blue water between his approach to Sino-British relations and that of his immediate predecessors (who took their cues from the US).

Starmer rejected the notion of a “binary choice” between the “golden age” of engagement with China under David Cameron (2010-16) and the “ice age” under Cameron’s successors, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak (2019-24). It was Johnson who took relations to a new low when he double-crossed China over Huawei. Having granted the company a 35 percent stake in Britain’s 5G network in January 2020, he then, once the US remonstrated, did a volte-face in July of that same year. Thereafter, under Truss and Sunak, things went from bad to worse, with Britain being the big loser, as Starmer recognizes.

Since his election in July 2024, Starmer has sought to forge better ties with China (including Hong Kong), albeit out of self-interest. He has dispatched a series of senior ministers to Beijing, including the foreign secretary, the chancellor of the exchequer (finance minister), and the business secretary. He has also sent several middle-ranking ministers to Hong Kong on goodwill visits. Although an official announcement is awaited, it is widely expected that Starmer will visit China early next year.

In his address, Starmer said he envisaged tremendous export opportunities for British companies in areas like “financial and professional services, creative industries, pharmaceuticals, luxury goods and more”. He pledged his government’s backing for those who seize their opportunities in the Chinese market. If, therefore, businesses are prepared to step up to the plate, there is no reason to suppose that fortune will not favor the brave.

Although assorted ideologues from, for example, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), Hong Kong Watch (HKW), and MI5 (the internal intelligence agency), have done their utmost to poison relations between the two countries, Starmer has now shown he is capable of rising above their obstructionism.

If, as expected, Starmer demonstrates his bona fides by approving the China embassy project on Jan 20 (a final decision has been repeatedly delayed), their ire will know no bounds. However, he should not shy away from treating them with the contempt they deserve. Although it is undoubtedly true that hell hath no fury like a Sinophobe scorned, he must stick to his guns and place the British national interest above all else

However, out of deference to the anti-China brigade, which is still smarting over the collapse in October of an ill-judged prosecution of two British nationals, Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, for allegedly spying for Beijing, Starmer threw them some red meat. He said that protecting national security was “our first duty”, adding that China was “a threat”. The spy trial collapsed after his national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, made clear that the government considered China a “challenge” rather than an “enemy” of the UK. This incensed, for example, IPAC’s co-chairman, Sir Iain Duncan Smith (a Cold War throwback), HKW’s patron, Lord (Chris) Patten (who branded China “an enemy” as early as May 2020), and MI5’s hatchet man, Sir Ken “reds under the beds” McCallum. However, as Starmer recognizes, political pygmies who cannot see beyond the end of their noses cannot be allowed anywhere near the shaping of British foreign policy.

Indeed, the ideologues must have been apoplectic when they learned that Starmer had sent Jonathan Powell to Beijing last month on an unannounced visit, and that while there he met China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, on Nov 28. According to informed sources, Powell said the UK was “willing to develop a coherent, lasting and strategic relationship with China”, and “promote fruitful cooperation”. In response, Wang reportedly stressed the need to “adopt a rational and friendly approach to China’s development”, and Starmer clearly agreed.

He called China “a nation of immense scale, ambition and ingenuity”, acknowledging its role as “a defining force in technology, trade and global governance”. And, instead of blowing “hot and cold”, he said, the UK needed “a China policy that reflects this reality”. In other words, he understood very clearly upon which side his country’s bread was buttered.

In an unstable world where untrustworthy partners are upending traditional alliances, Starmer has fortunately appreciated it is necessary to place the UK’s interests above the ideological hang-ups of its bigots and the prejudices of “Uncle Sam”. This, presumably, was why, with an eye on the bigger picture, he said, “internationalism is patriotism”. In the post-Brexit era, he described his approach as “a decisive move to face outward again”, which was encouraging. It would be “grounded in strength, clarity and sober realism”, and who in their right mind could disagree that this is the best way forward.

Although his policy is grounded in common sense, Starmer must not underestimate the backlash he will face from the antediluvians. For example, the Conservative Party’s shadow foreign secretary, Dame Priti Patel, lost no time in accusing him of continuing “to kowtow to China”, and of having become “Beijing’s useful idiot in Britain”. However bizarre, this was only the start, as fatuity is the stock-in-trade of Patel and her cronies.

If, as expected, Starmer demonstrates his bona fides by approving the China embassy project on Jan 20 (a final decision has been repeatedly delayed), their ire will know no bounds. However, he should not shy away from treating them with the contempt they deserve. Although it is undoubtedly true that hell hath no fury like a Sinophobe scorned, he must stick to his guns and place the British national interest above all else.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.