Starmer secured a few wins in Beijing – but given China’s ongoing threats to UK security, none justify his visit
4 min read
Following Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Beijing trip, the question remains: was it worth it? By the measure of national security, moral leadership and strategic prudence, the answer is no.
The trip brought some tangible gains. British citizens will soon be able to travel visa-free to China for trips under 30 days. Import taxes on whisky will be halved from 10 per cent to five per cent. Downing Street highlights £2.2bn in export deals and £2.3bn market access over five years, all framed as beneficial to the UK economy.
But these gains are marginal compared with the broader consequences. They don’t justify the national security risks posed by the proposed Chinese mega-embassy. Beijing only signed off on the trip after the UK had given its approval to the embassy. They don’t make up for the cross-party outrage in Parliament over prioritising trade at the expense of Britain’s national security and democratic values.
The deals also offer little reassurance to Britain’s allies.
Perhaps most important of all, none of these “wins” excuse the continued imprisonment of Jimmy Lai, a 78-year-old British citizen imprisoned for reporting the truth.
If Chinese investment in the UK is set to grow, transparency and scrutiny must grow with it.
At a minimum, China must be placed on the enhanced tier of the UK’s Foreign Influence Registration Scheme to prevent Beijing from exploiting its influence over British institutions and infrastructure.
Chinese companies don’t operate like firms in democratic systems. Under Chinese law, all companies are required to establish a party organisation within the firm to carry out Chinese Communist Party (CCP) activities. Chinese law also obliges companies and individuals to co-operate with state intelligence work, with no right to challenge such demands.
By allowing Chinese firms to build, maintain or supply critical infrastructure, democratic states risk long-term dependency. Once that dependency exists, political leverage follows. Europe has already lived this mistake. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, governments faced an impossible choice: continue buying Russian energy and indirectly fund the war, or cut ties and accept soaring costs because alternatives had not been prepared.
The UK is now repeating the very strategic failure it swore it had learnt from Russia. If Beijing moves on Taiwan, it will not limit its focus to the battlefield. It will weaponise every dependency it has patiently built inside democratic societies. The question isn’t if this leverage would be used against the UK, but how quickly.
Would Chinese-linked firms disrupt the infrastructure they build or supply? Would funding be pulled from British universities overnight, collapsing research and stranding departments? Would Britain be pressured to abandon support for Taiwan to protect its economy – with decisions driven by fear of retaliation rather than values or security?
De-risking is not hostility, it is self-defence. Reducing dependency is not anti-trade, it means ensuring that no hostile power can hold the UK’s infrastructure, economy or values hostage. The Labour government must not continue to entrench reliance on an authoritarian state preparing for war.
Starmer’s messaging in Beijing was also deeply concerning.
While he mentioned Hong Kong in general terms, he failed to name Jimmy Lai or condemn bounties on activists living in exile. Instead, he highlighted China’s status as “the second largest economy in the world” and promised “stability, clarity, and a long-term strategy”.
Most strikingly, he said he would be “mindful” of national security, rather than commit to defending it, a choice of words that risks downplaying the very real threats posed by the CCP.
Starmer shook hands with Xi Jinping, the man who breached the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the man who dismantled Hong Kong’s civil society, the man who imprisoned roughly 1,900 political prisoners, the man who placed bounties on Hong Kongers in exile, and the man who forced more than 200,000 to rebuild their lives in the UK.
There is nothing historic or admirable about this visit.
Chloe Cheung is public affairs and advocacy manager at the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation
