UK foreign secretary breaks with US in keynote China speech
Tom Rogan
The United States has a problem. As China threatens war on democratic Taiwan (a war the U.S. may well lose if it joins), steals vast quantities of intellectual property, and provides Russia political cover for its war on Ukraine, the U.S. needs allies willing to act boldly to defend democratic security and prosperity.
Unfortunately, the foreign minister of America’s closest ally strongly signaled on Monday that any U.K. support for that effort will be limited. James Cleverly did so via his Mansion House address in London. The speech is the U.K. foreign secretary’s keynote address to foreign ambassadors. U.S. Ambassador Jane Hartley surely did not enjoy it.
CHINA TELLINGLY FAILS TO RETRACT DAMAGING COMMENTS BY ITS AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE
True, on paper, Cleverly’s speech appeared pragmatic and even at times forceful. He condemned China’s breach of its treaty commitments to maintain Hong Kong’s democratic character until at least 2047. He called out China’s repression of the Uyghur people. He lamented Chinese intellectual property theft and espionage. He pledged that the United Kingdom would always defend its interests and values.
Still, these words were very carefully sculpted. They illustrate the U.K. foreign office’s ability to broadcast one message on the surface and a very different message below it. In that regard, this was a speech designed to mitigate Washington’s anger while ultimately avoiding China’s red lines and offering Beijing an outstretched hand for new cooperation. As America’s closest ally, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government knows Beijing will pay big for the privilege of U.K. kowtowing.
It’s sad but shouldn’t be surprising. Cleverly has already shown himself deferential to Beijing even when its diplomats attack British residents on U.K. soil. Sunak’s impulse is to view China through the prism of trade engagement rather than security threat. But what this speech didn’t say tells us far more than what it did say.
On Taiwan, there was no explicit condemnation of the People’s Liberation Army’s escalating intimidation around the island. Intimidation designed to practice an encirclement, invasion, and blocking force to keep the U.S. Navy at bay. On the Uyghurs, there was no explicit identification of what those people are suffering: a 21st-century genocide. There was certainly no pledge that Britain would take military action in defense of free navigation and alongside allies like Japan, the U.S., and Australia. There was, however, the familiar European political cover for expansive trade dealings with Beijing. Here, Cleverly’s rhetoric bears close similarity to French President Emmanuel Macron’s words in preparation for his recent visit to Beijing. A visit in which he essentially told the world that France’s interests with China begin and end with trade.
As Cleverly put it, “we must face the inescapable reality that no significant global problem from climate change to pandemic prevention, from economic instability to nuclear proliferation, can be solved without China.” Then came the frequent references to business engagement. When it came to U.K. business interests in China, Cleverly said he was “pushing for a level playing field and fairer competition.” He continued, “We have an interest in continuing to benefit from Chinese investment.”
The U.K. foreign office knows that China knows that the U.K. knows that Beijing regards trade as an inherent extension of power politics by other means. Cleverly knows this more than most, being that he is the government minister in charge of the U.K.’s elite GCHQ signal intelligence and SIS human intelligence services. The U.S. shares an unmatched level of the most valuable intelligence material with those services and vice versa. Yet, by highlighting trade interests and the need for what China would call “win-win cooperation” in other areas, such as climate change, Cleverly is sending Beijing a clear message — namely that the U.K. is not on the same page as the U.S. when it comes to China relations.
Don’t take my word for it; take China’s.
Editorializing on Cleverly’s speech, Beijing’s Global Times state newspaper observed that “to strengthen engagement with China, is what Cleverly wants to express most.” It added that recent visits to Beijing by Macron and other European leaders are “believed” to have “had a positive impact on the UK.” And vindicating the foreign secretary’s clever caution on Taiwan, the newspaper reminded him to “strictly adhere to the one-China principle and never interfere in the Taiwan question that is purely China’s internal affairs. This importance cannot be overstated.”
Of course, there’s an utter contradiction in U.K. foreign policy on display here.
Cleverly speaks of strategic sense. He speaks of defending values. He noted that the response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine “shows that when Britain and America and Europe and our other partners across the world stand united, we are a match for anything.” The U.K. has been at the forefront of supporting Ukraine, especially on the most politically sensitive of actions, such as those involving special operations. But this speech was cleverly designed not to show unity with the U.S. on the preeminent China concerns but to hint at Beijing that London wants a separate engagement track. This speech was the antithesis of the Western cooperation that the U.K. has helped shape on Ukraine.
This speech was also in stark contrast with the one delivered at last year’s Mansion House address. Then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss observed that a unified West had vast trade leverage with which to extract concessions from China. As she put it, “by talking about the rise of China as inevitable, we are doing China’s work for it. In fact, their rise isn’t inevitable. They will not continue to rise if they don’t play by the rules. China needs trade with the G-7. We represent half of the global economy. And we have choices.”
The U.K. still has choices. A sovereign democracy, it has the absolute choice to continue on the policy path Cleverly has outlined. But American policymakers should be under no illusions: This speech does not portend U.K. policies in favor of international democratic security or rule-of-law-based trade. At least not where China comes into play. And coming from America’s closest ally, that makes this speech something to lament deeply.