With an ailing UK economy, can Liz Truss afford to be hawkish on China?

Despite her campaign rhetoric, the new prime minister understands that crisis-hit Britain cannot just blindly follow US policy on China
With the UK outside the EU and facing a recession, she can ill afford to dismiss the economic benefits of more pragmatic ties with Beijing

Thomas O. Falk

Published: 1:30am, 15 Sep 2022

Why you can trust SCMP

During the Conservative leadership contest to succeed Boris Johnson as British prime minister, Liz Truss indicated that she would adopt a tougher stance on China.

However, in light of Britain’s growing economic crisis, and doubts in London about whether the US’ hardline approach to China or the European Union’s more pragmatic dealings is the right one, it remains to be seen whether Truss will follow through on her rhetoric.

If one were to take Truss at her word during her campaign, her tenure would now mark a staunch shift in the UK’s China policy. Under David Cameron, prime minister from 2010 to 2016, Britain declared itself China’s “best partner” in the West. In 2015, it became a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and lobbied for an EU-China trade agreement, testament to Sino-British cooperation back then.

Ironically, as Cameron’s education minister, in June 2014, Truss praised the establishment of Confucius Institutes in Britain. Eight years later, she is now prime minister and must define her own path in dealing with China.

The consensus is that Beijing has long ceased to be a partner. In fact, under Johnson’s “Global Britain” initiative, China was declared a “systemic challenge … to our security, prosperity and values”.

Truss, according to reports, is inclined to take this one step further and declare China a threat to national security for the first time, joining the likes of Russia. There are also reports that Truss is determined to describe the Chinese actions in Xinjiang as “genocide”, something the United Nations avoided in its recently published report.

If Truss were to go down that route, the implications could be far-reaching: international obligations would come into effect including, for example, imposing sanctions against China, which would restrict Truss’ options in any future dealings with Beijing.

So far, London has taken a fairly consistent line in its policy towards Beijing, balancing security concerns with economic opportunities.

Britain became the first European country to formally exclude the Chinese telecommunications group Huawei from its 5G network. And after Beijing brought in a national security law for Hong Kong, restricting freedoms in the city, London offered millions of people easier access to British citizenship.

Huawei founder’s bleak memo about the future strikes a chord in China

Both issues, coupled with Brexit, help to explain why relations between London and Beijing have steadily deteriorated. Brexit, in particular, has played a pivotal role.

After the referendum on EU membership in 2016, Theresa May, a security-conscious China hawk, took over from Cameron. With Britain severing its close ties to its primary economic partner by leaving the European Union, it was necessary to strengthen relations with the US to balance the loss.

03:02

Liz Truss named Britain’s new Prime Minister and Conservative leader

Meanwhile, since the Obama years, the US had begun to realise that China was increasingly capable of challenging American supremacy, culminating in Donald Trump’s trade war – and one of the last agendas able to produce bipartisanship in a profoundly divided nation: demanding a united front from Washington’s partners against Beijing.

In the post-Covid-19 economy, Johnson had already indicated that this united front could crumble. And, earlier this year, he moved to resume trade talks with China and approved the sale of a British microchip factory to a Chinese-owned company – although the deal may now be in doubt.

While the US sees China as the primary challenger to its hegemony, Europe has shown a greater degree of pragmatism and realises that it is necessary to deal with Beijing to maintain economic prosperity.

Britain is still defining its post-Brexit position. What is certain, however, is that it will lie somewhere between the US and Europe, and not just in line with Washington’s demands. The UK’s ailing economy simply doesn’t allow for that, and Truss’ solution of tax cuts and trickle-down economics is unlikely to bring sufficient relief.

Moreover, despite its unique friendship with the US, Britain has not always seen eye to eye with the Biden administration. President Joe Biden’s remarks on the Northern Ireland protocol, for example, have not been received well in London.

India tops UK as world’s 5th-largest economy, but is a ‘reality check’ needed?

Furthermore, although Britain is arguably the US’ most reliable partner across the Atlantic (hawkish on Russia, critical of China, meeting Nato’s 2 per cent defence spending target), Washington has treated London like just one of many allies.

So, the question arises: why not forge a more independent China policy, focusing on core national interests?

Truss, despite her rhetoric, must realise Britain has little to lose by pursuing deeper economic ties with China. The fact that the Biden administration has been reluctant to negotiate a trade deal with the UK is exhibit A. Moreover, why should Britain suffer economically for loyalty towards the US while EU states benefit from their dealings with China?

Truss has shown she is more of a political opportunist than an ideologue who would jeopardise her position by blindly sticking by Washington on the China issue – particularly considering that no one yet knows what effect the 2024 presidential elections will have on the US’ international responsibilities.

Instead, the logic that has long driven Britain’s China policy could thus be reaffirmed under Truss. With Britain outside the EU, facing a recession, and with high levels of debt, can Truss afford to dismiss what China brings to the table? I think not.

Thomas O. Falk is an independent journalist and political analyst