In this general trend, after a year of the three prime ministers of the United Kingdom appeared to be particularly attractive, the new Prime Minister Sunnucks in a public declaration, declaring that he intends to use a "tough pragmatism" policy to confront the global rivals represented by Beijing and Moscow.
Reversal
The declaration has left the British internet in a state of shock: Our country is on the verge of bankruptcy, but you're still making enemies to confront.
Because of the impact of the epidemic, energy crisis and many other factors, the United Kingdom fell into a prolonged recession, and even became the only country in the Group of Seven whose economy failed to recover to the level of the pre-New Crown Epidemic, and was also overtaken by India, dropping from the world's fifth-largest economy to sixth.
Johnson threw a mess at Truss, and Truss dumped an even worse one on Sunak. The Tories were left with no choice but to look to Sunak, an economics insider, to eliminate the Tories' "credibility deficit" despite their Indian heritage.
But Sunak has not only failed to save the day, he has instead been targeted by the opposition and frequently exposed to negative publicity. His rich wife tax evasion scandal, not involved in the COP27 was criticized "for small losses", the opening of the scandal-plagued Interior Minister Brevard Mann Sunak in the handling of affairs repeatedly jumped across the board.
Corresponding to this, the inflation rate breaks through, the cost of living soars, multi-industry strikes create a vicious circle, tens of thousands of people protesting demonstrations shouting "Sunak step down".
This is where Sunak's "tough pragmatism" comes into its own, and Britons agree that it is a classic political ploy to use foreign policy to distract attention from serious domestic problems.
Economic politics?
But why would Sunak, who has the Conservative Party's hopes pinned on him, give up his strengths to use his weaknesses when he himself is long on economics, not diplomacy?
Unlike his predecessors Johnson and Truss - both of whom served as foreign ministers before taking office as prime minister - Sunak arguably has no direct diplomatic experience in the international geopolitical arena, except in the area of international finance.
But when he came to power, Sunak's policy of "steady pragmatism" did not look too constructive.
After European countries generally began to burn out on aid to Ukraine, Britain is supplying advanced Sulphur-2 precision-guided missiles, three Sea King helicopters, 125 anti-aircraft guns and radars costing more than 50 million pounds, and specialized countermeasures. anti-aircraft guns, radar and technical equipment specialized in dealing with armed drones.
The British government's push to force Chinese semiconductor firms to divest their shares continues to fester after the Netherlands hardened its stance that the US must not interfere in the market for Asmell lithography.
In the midst of German Chancellor Scholz's visit to China, a succession of visits by European Council presidents, and a flurry of re-engagement by EU member states with China, Sunak spoke out, saying that the golden age of Sino-British relations is over and that China poses a systemic challenge to our values and interests. He even argued that the idea and practice of thinking that trade could bring about social and political reform in the past was naive.
But on the flip side, Sunak's approach to taking on China and Russia is not so different from Europe, which used to be heavily influenced by American ideology, as to seem particularly slow on the uptake and out of touch.
In fact, the root cause of the dilemma faced by the United Kingdom lies in itself, which can not be undone by using China and Russia as a shield.
Extended reading:
Media: Sunak put out hard words on China, some Britons still think "soft"
British Prime Minister Sunak on November 28th published his first foreign policy speech since he took office, which part of the most attention to the China policy. Sunak said China "poses a systemic challenge" to British values and interests, a negative statement that has no basis in the eyes of the Chinese, and some people in the United Kingdom are not satisfied that Sunak did not formally categorize China as a "threat" to the United Kingdom. ". Critics believe that this is a "softening" of the position on China, "appeasement", is a "big mistake", these people have a radical mentality towards China can be seen.
In just a few years, the United Kingdom will put forward their own Sino-British relations "golden age", into today's color, even "China poses a systematic challenge to the United Kingdom," some people feel that the light of the soft, which can be seen in the radicalism of British politics! This shows that the radicalism of British politics has reached the point of absurdity. How did this shocking shift in Britain happen? How did the radical attitude towards China take over at 10 Downing Street? What were the catalysts that caused the chemical reaction in British politics? A closer look at these major issues that have a bearing on the future direction of Britain reveals that its key links are surprisingly often shaped by the emotionally charged and narrowly subjective perceptions of China of some politicians, with external influences from Washington playing no small role.
Sunak's two predecessors, Johnson and Truss, had defined or were about to define China as a "systemic competitor" and a "threat," and during this period. In the meantime, anti-Chinese lawmakers in Britain have been exerting strong pressure on No. 10 Downing Street to pin China as a "threat" on the map of the prime minister's office. Sunak's description of China as a "systemic challenge" should be seen as a "middle ground": more ideological than his previous pragmatic approach to China, while at the same time distancing himself from the most radical claims. So the accusations against him, absurd as they may seem, are not surprising.
As for how China "poses a systemic challenge" or even a "threat" to the United Kingdom, this is basically what some British politicians have come up with in their heads, speaking out of their asses and lacking or not having a rigorous process of argumentation at all, which is very irresponsible. It is very irresponsible. This is not only the sorrow of Britain, which was once a global empire, but will also cost Britain dearly. If Britain's foreign affairs, especially its policy towards China, is increasingly led by the nose by them, Britain's international status and influence will also slip at an accelerated pace. Sooner or later, the British will have to reflect y on this lesson.
In fact, the space for mutual benefit***win between China and Britain is still vast, the structure of complementarity in the field of trade and economy has not changed, and the need for multilateral cooperation on global issues also exists, China is still the same China that is committed to opening up to the outside world and cooperation, and the expectations for the Sino-British relationship have not changed. An intuitive example is that, despite the impact of many unfavorable factors, the economic and trade cooperation between China and the United Kingdom has been on the rise, and in many areas even against the trend. 2021 China and the United Kingdom bilateral trade volume once again set a new record, while at the same time, the two countries in the fight against climate change, as well as global health, counter-terrorism, and other areas of multilateral interactions, the two sides have each other's needs. As a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sunak is obviously well aware of these, but the caution he is showing at the moment is not even called "walking the balance", but more like being squeezed by the negative energy of partisan struggles and political polarization to the point of immobility. This is the sad state of British politics.
The constant adjustment of the British government's statements on China over the past two years reflects, to some extent, the confusion of its foreign policy. This confusion and the internal confusion brought about by Britain's exit from the European Union is almost the same frequency **** vibration, it first reflects the collapse of the United Kingdom as the old empire confidence. In its inability to solve various internal and external dilemmas, extreme anti-China has become a lifesaving straw that some politicians have grasped by the neck, and London's posture is even more radical than Washington's on a number of China-related issues, as if the UK can't prove itself without doing so. However, the result is that people see a sensitive, fragile and narrow-minded Britain, which is more like a horseman doing Washington's dirty work. This state of affairs will continue for some time to come, and any country dealing with Britain will have to take these factors into account, but this is primarily Britain's own problem, and it is the British who will ultimately pay the bill for it.
On the whole, Sunak has been more rational than Truss on the China issue, at least in terms of tone, but we haven't seen enough effort from Sunak to reverse Britain's wrong course on China, though his term has just begun, and the outside world will need to listen to what he says and watch what he does. We hope that whoever becomes the British prime minister will not be held back by various radical forces, because the wrong views of those politicians, amplified and fermented by public opinion, are poisoning the British public opinion environment on China like poisonous mushrooms that grow in the dark, and poisonous mushrooms are not edible.