The British government published a new National Security Strategy (NSS) on June 24. Before last year’s general election, the Labour Party said that it would carry out a comprehensive audit of the UK’s relationship with China within 100 days of taking office. With the publication of the NSS, a little over 350 days after taking office, the government announced that the audit had been completed. However, contrary to widespread expectations, it will not be published. Rather it is summarised in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of the NSS.
The strategy does at least draw a certain line under the more unhinged positions emanating from sections of the Conservative Party, including the short-lived Prime Minister Liz Truss in that it accepts that not engaging with China at all is simply not realistic:
“The actions taken by China, on issues from international security to the global economy, technological development or climate change, have the potential to have a significant effect on the lives of British people.”
“This work underscores the need for direct and high-level engagement and pragmatic cooperation where it is in our national interest – similar to all other members of the G7. In a more volatile world, we need to reduce the risks of misunderstanding and poor communication that have characterised the relationship in recent years. China’s global role makes it increasingly consequential in tackling the biggest global challenges, from climate change to global health to financial stability. We will seek a trade and investment relationship that supports secure and resilient growth and boosts the UK economy.”
However, it then goes on to repeat a number of slanders, false accusations and Cold War tropes, for example:
“Each pillar of the Strategic Framework contains measures that are designed to bolster our overall security with respect to China and other state actors that have the ability to undermine our security.”
“Yet there are several major areas, such as human rights and cyber security, where there are stark differences and where continued tension is likely. Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years. Our national security response will therefore continue to be threat-driven, bolstering our defences and responding with strong counter-measures.”
Other anti-China positions and statements are also scattered throughout the militaristic document. For example:
- Many of the rules which have governed the international system in the past are eroding. Global commons are being contested by major powers like China and Russia, seeking to establish control and secure resources in outer space, cyberspace, the deep sea, and at the Arctic and Antarctic poles.
- The possibility of major confrontation in the Indo-Pacific continues to grow, with dangerous and destabilising Chinese activity threatening international security.
- Authoritarian states are putting in place multi-year plans to out-compete liberal democracies in every domain, from military modernisation to science and technology development, from their economic models to the information space… As the second largest economy in the world, with strong central government control, the challenge of competition from China – which ranges from military modernisation to an assertion of state power that encompasses economic, industrial, science and technology policy – has potentially huge consequences for the lives of British citizens.
- The hard realities of our geography, security and trade necessitate a prioritisation of the Euro-Atlantic area as part of our “NATO first” approach. But evidence of countries like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea cooperating across theatres – sometimes opportunistically and sometimes by deepening strategic ties – demonstrates the interconnectedness of the Euro-Atlantic with different theatres like the Middle East and Indo-Pacific, where we already have strong partnerships.
- The UK’s bilateral relationships and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific are designed to enhance the international security on which our shared prosperity depends. Among others, these include our Global Strategic Partnership with the Republic of Korea, Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty and AUKUS agreement with the US and Australia, our Global Strategic Partnership and joint development of the next generation combat aircraft with Japan alongside Italy, and science and technology collaborations with New Zealand. We will underscore our investment in the stability of the region with the sailing of the UK Carrier Strike Group to Australia, reaffirming the UK’s commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.
- The centrality of the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait to global trade and supply chains underscores the importance to the UK of regional stability. There is a particular risk of escalation around Taiwan… We do not support any unilateral attempts to change the status quo. As part of our strong unofficial relationship with Taiwan we will continue to strengthen and grow ties in a wide range of areas, underpinned by shared democratic values.
- The AUKUS programme remains a priority project for UK defence and collective security, as part of a NATO-first, but not NATO-only, approach. The US, Australia and the UK will co-develop an advanced fleet of interoperable nuclear-powered attack submarines, which will be operated by both the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy, and other advanced capabilities that will strengthen deterrence.
Responding to Pat McFadden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who introduced the report in the House of Commons, Labour’s Emily Thornberry, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, asked:
“In the absence of the published China audit, which we have all been looking forward to so much, the national security strategy has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by many of us. On China, it states:
“‘Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years.’
“May we have some guidance on how we will address that, because that is not entirely clear? In particular, what advice is being given to the nations and regions when they are dealing with our third-biggest trading partner, with whom we need to promote but also protect ourselves?”
Continue reading British government’s new China policy: Another case of one step forward two steps back?