Diplomacy is often more about symbolism than content. In the case of China, that may be especially true.
In this sense, what was significant about British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit to China at the end of January was that it actually happened. There has been a lot of tension between the two countries in recent years. These include accusations of Chinese espionage against two British nationals, delays in approving a new Chinese embassy in London, and the trial of democracy activist Jimmy Lai.
The fact that Mr Starmer visited Beijing – the first British Prime Minister in eight years – showed that the arguments in favor of the visit outweighed the negative ones. What certainly tipped the balance was the increasing momentum with which the US government attacked its traditional allies.
Although the visit did not reset relations, it made clear that the world had entered a new era of global power relations, which is already reflected in diplomacy.
On January 23, just a week before his trip to China, Mr Starmer caused a rare public outburst by criticizing US President Donald Trump’s comments about British troops in Afghanistan.
This made this visit to Beijing very different from previous visits by British Prime Ministers. In the past, there was never any question of cooperation between Britain and the United States.
The United States and Britain have been close allies for decades. They have acted in close coordination in the war in the Middle East since 2001 and in the fight against global terrorism and other threats. They shared information through the Five Eyes agreement and cooperated as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
Regarding China, the disagreement was short-lived. In 2004, Britain and its European allies sought to lift the arms embargo that they and the United States had imposed on China after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, on the grounds that all the equipment they banned was completely restricted by other laws. The Bush administration at the time strongly opposed this, and the idea was withdrawn.
More than a decade later, during the first Trump administration, Europe appeared poised to strike its own trade deal with China to offset steel and other tariffs imposed by the United States. However, in 2018, that situation was reversed when the European Union reached an agreement with the US government. Part of it was that they didn’t want to get closer to China in terms of trade.
The pandemic pushed the United States and Europe further toward cooperating against China, which they attributed part of the problem to not announcing the emergence of the virus sooner. So by 2023, the UK and US were almost competing for hawkishness, with then deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden declaring the People’s Republic the biggest “state-based threat” to the UK.
We are not in that world anymore. The actions of the US government raise fundamental questions about the alliance system centered on NATO and other security structures that the US has placed at the center of since World War II.
We do not yet know what shape the world will take. It may take years for it to fully manifest. But for Starmer, who was on a visit to Beijing, the change meant he was talking to an interlocutor who was trying to understand what the new situation meant.
Although President Xi Jinping is not a security ally of the UK, his government is probably closer to Britain when it comes to thinking about what to do about global warming or how to manage the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in the strange and fast-paced world we now live in.
Neither country likes the unpredictability of the current situation. Even if it’s a different kind of problem, they’re all connected in that we have a problem with the United States right now.
Of course, this does not mean that new kinds of strategic alliances are on the way. There were no such signs at the meeting. After all, culturally, politically and in terms of values, Britain and China are too far apart for that to happen. This has nothing to do with the UK-US relationship.
But Starmer’s ability to announce restrictions on the small engines that end up being used on ships carrying migrants illegally across British waters shows that even in a post-globalizing world, everything is still connected, and that Britain needs to talk to China in a discreet and indirect way to address some aspects of what it sees as its own security priorities.
Other announcements included a $15 billion investment by British pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, 30-day visa-free entry to China for British nationals, and the lifting of sanctions on some British members of parliament.
Several steps were also taken to improve trade and facilitate access for British businesses to the Chinese market, and the foundations were also laid for deeper economic engagement.
In the longer term, the visit could also pave the way for engagement that recognizes China’s rise as a technology powerhouse. In environmental science, AI, quantum computing, in fact, in almost every field, China outperforms not just the UK, but almost every country. It generates ideas and innovations that are important to Britain’s national interests, including healthcare and renewable energy.
A single visit of 4 days did not reset the relationship. Many issues still remain between the two countries. But at least now that political obstacles have been removed, there is now the possibility of strategizing how Britain and other European countries will navigate a new geopolitics in which there are no permanent friends or enemies, and how to respond to a world in which, for the first time in recent history, China has the innovations, technologies and ideas it may need and desire.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.
