After Sir Keir Starmer became the United Kingdom’s prime minister in July 2024, he pledged to recalibrate his country’s relationship with China. Gone was the mindless hostility of his predecessors — Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss and Boris Johnson — and a more enlightened policy was promised. As a trading nation and financial entrepot, it made sense for the UK to set aside its political hang-ups and engage seriously with the world’s second-largest economy.

When Starmer met President Xi Jinping last November, he stressed the importance of a “strong UK-China relationship”. Although his government would always prioritize the British national interest, the UK would be “a predictable and pragmatic partner” to China. 

This sounded positive enough, and in the following months Starmer began turning his words into action. A succession of ministers visited China to promote closer ties, notably his foreign minister, David Lammy, and his finance minister, Rachel Reeves, as well as his trade minister, Douglas Alexander (who visited Hong Kong). Their visits were the first high-level meetings in some years, suggesting that Starmer was serious about improving Anglo-Chinese relations.

However, the waters have since become muddied.

Starmer’s overtures to Beijing incensed the UK’s China hawks and were not well received in the United States. They insisted China was a threat to British interests, although it seemed until very recently that he would stick to his guns. However, once Donald Trump was inaugurated as US President, concerns arose.

Indeed, the way in which Starmer groveled before Trump, firstly, at the Oval Office (when he shamelessly pulled out of his pocket an invitation to Trump from King Charles to visit the UK on a state visit), and, secondly, when he crawled around on the ground at the G7 summit in Canada picking up the papers Trump had accidentally dropped, raised fears it could be a metaphor for his wider foreign policy.

On June 2, however, when the UK government issued its Strategic Defence Review (SDR), the China hawks were initially furious. Although Russia was labeled “an immediate and pressing threat”, China was described merely as a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”. Despite the noisy campaigning of anti-China politicians, including former prime minister Liz Truss and Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China co-chairman Iain Duncan Smith, the SDR avoided describing China as a “threat” to the UK. 

If it had been so described, it could, as they hoped, have imperiled bilateral relations, harmed burgeoning ties, affected domestic policies, and influenced societal perceptions. 

However, although this designation was avoided, it was not for long.

On June 24, the British government published its National Security Strategy 2025 (NSS 2025), and its priorities became clear. Although Trump had sought to destabilize relations not only with the UK but also with the broader world, the British strategy was nonetheless to pursue “a deeper trade, technology and security deal with the US”. In other words, the UK would, as in the past, tie its development ever more closely to Washington. Turning to the Indo-Pacific, the strategy paper condemned “dangerous and destabilizing Chinese activity threatening international security”, which, although nonsensical, must have delighted Truss and Duncan Smith, not to mention Washington.

However, even before the NSS 2025, there were disturbing signs that Starmer’s foreign policy focus was reverting to type.

In May, after it was announced that the UK and the US had reached a trade agreement that would lower steel and car tariffs for British companies and boost trade, it emerged that the US would be given the right to object to Chinese companies investing in the UK.

At some point, very shortly, Starmer must make his position clear. He cannot expect to have his cake and eat it. If, like Johnson, Truss, and Sunak, he wants the UK to be just another US lackey, he should say so and stop wasting China’s time

If the US flagged its concern over Chinese companies acquiring British infrastructure, it would trigger the UK’s National Security and Investment Act 2021. This would enable ministers to intervene in a takeover on the grounds of national security. It was, therefore, unsurprising that Priti Patel, the Conservative Party’s foreign affairs spokesperson (and no friend of China), condemned Starmer for having “effectively handed America a veto over investment decisions in the UK”. 

Indeed, Patel could also have mentioned how Starmer’s concession was reminiscent of the cave-in by his predecessor, Boris Johnson, in 2020, when, pressured by Trump, he reversed his decision to grant Huawei a 35-percent stake in the UK’s 5G technology.

If this development was worrying, worse was to follow.

On June 24, Lammy briefed parliamentarians on the China audit, which had been commissioned by Starmer. Although he said parts were too sensitive to be disclosed, he acknowledged that China’s power was “an inescapable fact”, and that not engaging with it was not an option. 

The approach to China would be based on “pragmatic realism”, and the UK “would be a predictable and pragmatic partner to China”. Although this sounded encouraging, Lammy added, “We will cooperate where we can and challenge where we must”. It was at this point that the mask began to slip.

Lammy, who has reportedly become very close to the US vice-president, JD Vance, disclosed that “In completing the audit, it has been important to remain consistent with the Five Eyes partners”. This meant it was drafted, at least in part, to suit others, which was only too apparent.

Strangely, he accused the previous hardline Conservative government of “being found wanting on the question of threats from China”. Warming to his theme,  he claimed that the SDR had “made it clear that we, of course, understand that China is a ‘sophisticated and persistent’ threat” (whereas the SDR had carefully used the word “challenge”, Lammy replaced it with “threat” for reasons that soon became clear).

Resorting to the Cold War rhetoric of yesteryear, Lammy announced that the audit “described a full spectrum of threats, from espionage and cyber-attacks to the repression of Hongkongers and attacks on the rules-based order”. He even bizarrely called for the repeal of Hong Kong’s National Security Law (NSL) and the release from detention of the convicted fraudster and national security suspect, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, whose trial on charges of collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security is concluding in the High Court.

As Lammy knew, his calls were impossible to fulfill and could only be seen as irritants, designed to harm relations between the UK and China. Just as there can be no question of the UK’s National Security Act 2023 being repealed, notwithstanding its draconian nature, there is no possibility of repealing Hong Kong’s NSL, which has been the city’s salvation. In both places, moreover, criminal suspects undergoing trial cannot arbitrarily be released, as Lammy, a qualified barrister, knew full well.

If, moreover, Lammy was genuinely concerned about the “rules-based order”, he should be putting his own house in order, not criticizing others. On July 2, for example, his government, in response to two aircraft being spray-painted by Palestine Action, which campaigns for Palestinian rights, proscribed the body under the Terrorism Act 2000. As a result, over 170 peaceful protesters have been arrested on terrorism charges, which triggered a public outcry.

On July 25, the United Nations high commissioner, Volker Turk, deplored the UK government’s “disturbing” use of counter-terrorism legislation, which was “disproportionate and unnecessary”. It was an “impermissible restriction” on people’s “rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association”. It was also “at odds with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law”. 

Lammy’s hypocrisy, therefore, was breathtaking. Despite his being a party to legislation which has been roundly condemned on human rights grounds by the UN, he had the gall to accuse China of contravening the “rules-based order”. If he still has any self-respect, he must now urge Starmer to restore national honor by repealing the repressive, un-British law Turk has so unequivocally — and correctly — condemned. 

At some point, very shortly, Starmer must make his position clear. He cannot expect to have his cake and eat it. If, like Johnson, Truss, and Sunak, he wants the UK to be just another US lackey, he should say so and stop wasting China’s time. If, however, he wants to have a mature relationship with Beijing, he should demonstrate his sincerity and then stand by his convictions.

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.