When British politicians and their organizations visit Taiwan, it is usually for mischief-making. They are invariably Beijing-hostile and supportive of “Taiwan independence”. However, sensing their propaganda value, even obscure individuals are welcomed by the island’s authorities if deemed sufficiently Beijing-hostile.
One notorious visit involved Britain’s failed former prime minister, Liz Truss, who addressed the Prospect Foundation in Taipei in 2023. She was hailed by the local government as a “staunch friend”, and reciprocated by urging the West to adopt a tougher stance on Beijing. She claimed Beijing was “the biggest long-term threat to Britain”, and called for the closure of the Confucius Institutes in the United Kingdom. For spouting this bile, she was paid a staggering 80,000 pounds ($107,486), and laughed all the way to the bank.
Lesser mortals have also been greeted with open arms. In October 2019, for example, Lord (David) Alton, a China critic and Hong Kong Watch patron, visited Taipei on a five-day, all-expenses-paid trip. As parliamentary records revealed, he met “government ministers and officials”.
Alton was viewed as having political clout and was subsequently invited to Lai Ching-te’s “inauguration” as the island’s leader in 2024. As a relative unknown at home, Alton delights in being red-carpeted abroad, but knows there is no such thing as a free lunch. He has, therefore, repaid his hosts by using his seat in the UK’s House of Lords to express solidarity with Taiwan, advocate its admission to world bodies, and malign the Chinese mainland’s human rights record. He also serves as a cheerleader for Taiwan’s UK representative, Vincent Yao Chin-hsiang, who has begun touring the country to drum up support for Lai’s agenda.
Indeed, such is their desperation for friends that Taiwan’s authorities have even thrown their doors open to the likes of the serial fantasist, Benedict Rogers, who cofounded Hong Kong Watch, the anti-China propaganda outfit, and Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the ideologue who cochairs its sinister offshoot, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC).
When Rogers visited Taipei for a week last November, he met with government officials and legislators, as well as independence-leaning groups like the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy and the “Taiwan Digital Association for Diplomacy”.
Although it is not known how much Rogers was paid or who footed his bills, he certainly felt it was worth his while to visit Taipei and rub shoulders with assorted separatist groups. Buoyed by his red-carpet treatment, Rogers will undoubtedly repay Taiwan by renewing his calls for “Magnitsky-style sanctions” against Chinese mainland officials. Like Alton, he lionizes Vincent Yao and is never happier than when posing with him on social media.
Given its professed support of the one-China principle, the UK does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Alexander’s visit, therefore, was extraordinary and a calculated insult to China. It imperiled Anglo-Chinese relations at a time when Starmer was claiming he wanted to improve them. Although the visit received limited publicity, Lai Ching-te milked it for all it was worth, insisting on being photographed with Alexander. However, the visit was more than just photo opportunities, with trade providing the context
When, moreover, Duncan Smith visited Taiwan with an IPAC delegation last August, he bent over backward to ingratiate himself with his hosts. After he met Lai Ching-te and his deputy, Hsiao Bi-khim, he also sang loudly for his supper. He called on Western democracies to unite to deter China’s “aggression” and urged everyone to stand firm against Beijing’s growing influence. Having denounced “the brutal behavior of China”, he declared that Beijing “plans the demise of Taiwan, your independence”. He obviously saw his visit as a hate fest, and his hosts applauded his every word.
It came, therefore, as no surprise when it subsequently emerged that Lai’s government had paid for Duncan Smith’s flights, transport, accommodation, and meals. His trip was thus yet another example of the “freebies” for which British parliamentarians have become infamous.
Although it is one thing for British has-beens, fortune hunters, and publicity seekers to turn up in Taipei, the arrival of a government minister is a wholly different kettle of fish.
In late June, the UK’s then-trade minister, Douglas Alexander, traveled to Taipei on a two-day visit, without prior clearance from Beijing. Although several of his ministers have visited Beijing and Hong Kong since Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government took office in July 2024, including his finance, foreign and trade secretaries, this was the first ministerial visit of his premiership to Taiwan.
Given its professed support of the one-China principle, the UK does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Alexander’s visit, therefore, was extraordinary and a calculated insult to China. It imperiled Anglo-Chinese relations at a time when Starmer was claiming he wanted to improve them. Although the visit received limited publicity, Lai Ching-te milked it for all it was worth, insisting on being photographed with Alexander. However, the visit was more than just photo opportunities, with trade providing the context.
Apart from meeting Lai, Alexander cochaired trade talks with the “deputy economic affairs minister”, Cynthia Kiang. He witnessed the signing of the three Enhanced Trade Partnership (ETP) pillars between Vincent Yao and the UK’s representative to Taiwan, Ruth Bradley-Jones. The pillars cover cooperation on investment, digital trade and energy. The UK and Taiwan established the ETP framework in 2023 to focus on sectors with high growth potential, and Alexander said the pillars would “help us to boost trade in some of our growth-driving sectors”. In 2024, Taiwan was the UK’s 33rd-largest trading partner, and the UK was Taiwan’s 16th-largest export destination in 2023.
Although bilateral trade between the UK and Taiwan reached 9.3 billion pounds in 2024, and trade talks between the two places have been ongoing since 1991 (this was the 27th round), this cannot begin to legitimize Alexander’s visit. While the British government sought to frame the trip as part of its UK Trade Strategy 2025, which focuses on aligning trade policy with growth-driving sectors, it was playing with fire.
Given the current state of cross-Strait relations, the visit was a red rag to Beijing’s bull, and trade was no excuse. It seemed the UK had shot itself in the foot, and that the consequences could be grave.
Indeed, The Guardian reported (Jan 2) that China’s ire over Alexander’s trip was such that it considered canceling its planned high-level trade talks with the UK. As those exchanges were immensely more important to British prosperity than any Taipei sideshow, this would have been disastrous for the UK.
In the event, having made known its displeasure at Alexander’s visit, China decided, no thanks to Starmer, to keep relations on track. Accordingly, Britain’s business and trade secretary, Peter Kyle, visited Beijing in September for substantive exchanges which were beneficial to both sides.
Together with his Chinese counterparts, Wang Wentao and Li Lecheng, Kyle cochaired the UK-China Joint Economic and Trade Commission and the UK-China Industrial Cooperation Dialogue. When he met Vice-Premier He Lifeng, he was told that China was committed to “high-level opening-up”, which was just as well.
China is a major trading partner of the UK, often ranking as its third- or fourth-largest. The total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) between the UK and China was 103 billion pounds in the four quarters to the end of the second quarter of 2025. And Starmer has made no secret of his hope that trade can be significantly expanded.
Although Starmer had the good sense to block a proposed visit to the UK last year by Taiwan’s former leader, Tsai Ing-wen, he took leave of his senses when he endorsed Alexander’s visit to Taipei. It must be hoped this was an aberration, and that he will avoid any further such insensitivities. If he does not, his country stands to be the big loser.
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.
