With President Donald Trump once again injecting unpredictability into transatlantic calculations, allies are quietly, and sometimes awkwardly, diversifying their options.
History rarely announces itself with fanfare. More often, it arrives disguised as pragmatism; with a handshake justified by trade figures, a communiqué padded with the language of “frank dialogue,” a visa waiver here and a tariff cut there.
Britain’s decision to “reset” relations with China following Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit to Beijing fits that pattern precisely. It is less a romantic reconciliation than a calculated wager: that engagement, however imperfect, is preferable to drift in a world growing more volatile by the month.
The symbolism matters. This was the first visit by a British leader to China in eight years, a gap defined by mutual suspicion, geopolitical hardening and a steady erosion of trust. That the meeting stretched to three hours, covering everything from trade and technology to Ukraine and human rights, signals intent on both sides. Starmer’s framing that improved ties can coexist with disagreement echoes an older and unfashionable doctrine of diplomacy: you talk most with those you least agree with.
The immediate deliverables are easy to list and tempting to celebrate. Thirty days of visa-free access for British citizens lowers the friction of exchange. Reduced tariffs on Chinese whisky imports offer a neat, almost quaint symbol of goodwill. AstraZeneca’s $15 billion investment is the headline grabber, a reminder that capital, unlike politics, is relentlessly unsentimental. Where markets see opportunity, they move, often faster than governments can decide how to feel about it.
Yet to read this reset as purely economic would be to miss its deeper context. The visit comes at a moment of acute Western anxiety about the reliability of the United States. With President Donald Trump once again injecting unpredictability into transatlantic calculations, allies are quietly, and sometimes awkwardly, diversifying their options. Britain’s outreach to China is not a rejection of its alliances, but a hedge against their fragility. In a multipolar world, strategic loneliness is a liability few can afford.
That reality explains why Starmer has pressed ahead despite criticism from opponents who warn of security risks and moral compromise. These concerns are not frivolous. China’s human rights record, its approach to technology and surveillance and its strategic ambitions all pose real questions for a country that still frames itself as a rules-based global actor. Engagement risks normalising behaviour Britain has previously condemned; disengagement risks irrelevance and economic self-harm. The reset is an attempt to walk that narrow ridge between principle and interest without tumbling off either side.
The language used by both leaders is revealing. Starmer speaks of growth, cooperation, and “frank dialogue”—a phrase that acknowledges disagreement without allowing it to dominate the relationship. Xi’s invocation of a partnership that can “withstand the test of history” is more expansive, even philosophical. It suggests China sees this not as a tactical thaw, but as part of a longer arc in which Western hesitation gives way to accommodation. Whether Britain shares that long view, or merely hopes to buy time and stability, remains an open question.
There is also a harder edge to the cooperation on offer. The agreement to work together against people-smuggling networks, including intelligence-sharing to curb the use of Chinese-made engines in small boats crossing the Channel, underscores how entangled global problems have become. Migration, crime, and supply chains now intersect in ways that defy neat moral binaries. Working with China on such issues may unsettle purists, but it reflects a grimly practical recognition: solutions increasingly lie beyond national or ideological comfort zones.
Starmer’s assertion that relations are now in “a strong place” should be read carefully. Strength here does not mean trust, nor alignment. It means functionality. It means channels are open, incentives are aligned, at least temporarily, and both sides see value in predictability. In an era defined by shocks, that alone has worth.
The reset, then, is neither capitulation nor conversion. It is a bet that Britain can re-engage with China without losing its voice, that economic openness can coexist with political candour, and that diplomacy can still carve out space between rivalry and retreat. Whether that bet pays off will depend less on communiques and more on what happens when interests clash, as they inevitably will.
For now, Britain has chosen to step back into the room rather than shout from the hallway. In a world unsettled by erratic allies and sharpening great-power competition, that choice may prove not bold, but necessary. The test of history, as Xi put it, is rarely kind to those who confuse disengagement with virtue, or engagement with surrender.
Lucas Dupont is a freelance writer and contributor to multiple blogs, where he covers political, economic and social developments across Europe and their impact on other regions of the world.
OpEd Column Syndication 