Is Keir Starmer a geopolitical genius, or perhaps a touch naive? As the Labour leader prepares for what could be his first visit to China as Prime Minister – the first by a UK PM since 2018 – a recent statement has certainly raised eyebrows in foreign policy circles.
Starmer confidently declared, “I’m often invited to simply choose between countries [but] I don’t do that.” The implication? That Britain can somehow navigate the increasingly fraught relationship between the world’s two superpowers without having to pick a side. It’s a sentiment that, while perhaps diplomatically appealing on the surface, fundamentally misunderstands the brutal realities of 21st-century geopolitics.
The Illusion of Neutrality
In an ideal world, Starmer’s aspiration would be commendable. Who wouldn’t want to maintain robust trade relations with a global economic powerhouse like China, while simultaneously upholding a decades-long strategic alliance with the United States? The problem is, we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world where China’s growing authoritarianism, its actions in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, its aggressive stance towards Taiwan, and its pervasive state-sponsored industrial espionage present stark ideological and strategic challenges to democratic nations.
The United States, for its part, views China as its primary long-term strategic competitor. Its foreign policy is increasingly geared towards countering Chinese influence across military, economic, and technological domains. For a nation like the UK, deeply entwined with the US through NATO, the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, and a shared commitment to liberal democratic values, pretending that these two trajectories won’t eventually demand a strategic alignment is a dangerous delusion.
Economic Ties vs. Geopolitical Realities
Proponents of Starmer’s stance might argue that economic interdependence makes a clear choice impossible. China is a massive market and a crucial supply chain partner. Severing ties entirely would be economically crippling. This is true. However, “not choosing” doesn’t mean having no economic relations; it means clearly defining the boundaries and understanding the risks. It means making strategic decisions about critical infrastructure, sensitive technologies, and market access that reflect national security interests and values, rather than simply chasing short-term commercial gains.
The truth is, even without a formal declaration, a choice is made through actions, rhetoric, and strategic alignments. When the UK speaks out on human rights abuses, when it participates in joint naval exercises in the South China Sea, when it bans Huawei from its 5G network, or when it aligns its export controls with Washington’s, it is implicitly, if not explicitly, aligning itself. The notion that one can be a close security ally of the US while simultaneously remaining equidistant from Beijing is a tightrope walk that becomes increasingly precarious with each passing global crisis.
What Does “Not Choosing” Actually Look Like?
Historically, attempts by middle powers to avoid choosing between dominant rivals have often led to being squeezed by both, or worse, being taken for granted. For the UK, a clear strategic stance – one that prioritizes democratic values, international law, and its core alliances – provides clarity and leverage. Ambiguity, on the other hand, can be perceived as weakness, encouraging both Washington and Beijing to push harder.
Starmer’s desire to maintain dialogue and cooperation with all nations is understandable. But true leadership in foreign policy requires a clear-eyed assessment of the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. And in the complex, bifurcating world of US-China rivalry, the idea that the UK can genuinely avoid making a choice is not just wrong; it’s a strategy fraught with potential peril for Britain’s long-term security and influence.
Source: Original Article
