Is Sunak tough enough on China?

When it comes to policy, the area where the least is known about Rishi Sunak’s views is foreign affairs. As chancellor, the bulk of his time was spent focussing on the domestic front. During the (first) Tory leadership contest over the summer, Liz Truss’s campaign accused Sunak of being soft on Russia and China. Last night, Sunak began setting out his vision for the UK’s relationship with China at the Lord Mayor’s banquet, in his first major speech on foreign policy since entering 10 Downing Street.

Sunak defined his approach in part through the differences between himself and his predecessors. In a move away from the Osborne/Cameron era, he said the ‘so-called golden era’ of diplomacy was over. He also said that it was clear that the idea that closer trade ties with China would spark reform in the country was ‘naïve’ at best. However, on the flip side, he appeared to take a thinly veiled swipe at his most recent predecessors – Boris Johnson and Liz Truss – when he declared that his own approach would not be one of ‘grand rhetoric’ but ‘robust pragmatism’:

So we will make an evolutionary leap in our approach. This means being stronger in defending our values and the openness on which our prosperity depends. It means delivering a stronger economy at home – because it is the foundation of our strength abroad. And it means standing up to our competitors, not with grand rhetoric but with robust pragmatism.

The implication is that where some leaders have said bold statements that have grabbed headlines, Sunak will take a less showy approach. It’s clear that he views China as too important in geo-politics on both the economy and climate change to not have some form of working relations with. Sunak’s lack of experience on foreign affairs means that some in government believe he needs to delve deeper before making any key decisions on the issue. Boris Johnson hardened his position on China over his time in 10 Downing Street – led ultimately by the US as well as restive Tory MPs.

Already the phrase ‘robust pragmatism’ has rung alarm bells with some Tory MPs who worry that it suggests close economic ties at a time when China is trying to increase its dependency. However, the recent government decision to block the sale of Newport Wafer Fab, one of Britain’s biggest semiconductor plants, to a Dutch company owned by China’s Wingtech shows how national security concerns are impacting business decisions with a desire in government to avoid Beijing dominating the supply of an essential good.

The real row coming down the tracks, however, is whether China should be described as a ‘systemic threat’ or a ‘systemic challenge’. Truss had pledged to redesignate China as a ‘threat’. Last night, Sunak called China a ‘systemic challenge to our values and interests’ but stopped short of describing it as a threat.

He also confirmed that the Integrated Review, setting out the UK’s defence and security strategy for the next decade, will be updated in the coming months. This would be where any decision on a change in the structural framing will be made. In the meantime, Sunak is sticking with the established government position. That’s already come under criticism from Iain Duncan Smith, who writes in the Express: ‘I don’t know what more we need to know to reach the conclusion that China has become a clear and present threat to us and our allies’. When the update is published in the new year, it will offer the clearest sense as to where Sunak really stands.