After Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party won the United Kingdom’s general election on July 4, there were hopes he would recalibrate British foreign policy. Under his predecessors, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak, the United States largely dictated it, with British interests taking a back seat. This was manifested, for example, when Johnson sold Hong Kong down the river in 2019, and then succumbed to Washington’s pressure to exclude Huawei from the UK’s 5G technology plan.

When the insurrectionists, with foreign encouragement, sought to destroy Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” governing policy in 2019, Johnson failed to spring to its defense. Taking his cue from the US, he banned the export of crowd-control equipment to the Hong Kong Police Force, ended interpolice training exchanges, and provided fleeing subversives with safe haven.

As if this was not bad enough, once national security legislation was enacted to protect Hong Kong in 2020, Johnson acquiesced in US sanctions on the city. He did not bat an eyelid when America ended Hong Kong’s trading preferences with it, even though it threatened people’s livelihoods. When Washington directed that the “Made in Hong Kong” logo be removed from exports to the US, he did not protest, notwithstanding the potential economic damage.

It was a shameful betrayal of a city for which the UK was once responsible, although it delighted anti-China hard-liners. By siding with the US rather than Hong Kong, Johnson aggravated the trauma experienced by local people at the hands of the mob. He denounced the measures designed to restore peace and stability, and let the city down in its time of need, causing the UK grave reputational damage.

As neither wanted to upset the US, things did not improve under Truss or Sunak (since losing power, Truss has shamelessly made a fortune out of traducing China on various platforms).

Although all three paid lip service to wanting better relations with China, this was only because they needed to shore up trade post-Brexit. It in no way inhibited them from joining the US in trying to provoke China, notably in the Asia-Pacific region. Under Johnson, for example, the UK meekly followed the US into the AUKUS deal with Australia, agreeing to provide Canberra (in violation of its parallel French deal) with advanced nuclear submarines, regardless of the impact on regional stability.

By 2024, therefore, the question on many people’s minds was whether it was possible for anybody to undo the damage caused to Anglo-Chinese relations by Johnson, Truss, and Sunak, but there was no need for despair.

When Starmer issued his party’s election manifesto on June 13, there were signs that he realized things had to change. It said there had been a “chaotic approach to foreign affairs”, and that the UK would “once again stand strong on the world stage”. As this necessarily involved improving Anglo-Chinese relations, it announced that “after 14 years of damaging Conservative inconsistency over China, Labour will bring a long-term and strategic approach to managing our relations”.

Moreover, there would be an “audit of our bilateral relationship”, which would enhance the UK’s ability to “understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities China poses”.

It appeared, therefore, that Starmer wanted to change not only the mood music but also the substance of his country’s relationship with China, and the early signs have been promising.

Whereas Truss, while in office, wanted to declare President Xi Jinping a “threat”, and Sunak, in his election manifesto, planned to brand China a security risk on a par with Russia and Iran, Starmer has refused to play along. His junior foreign office minister, Baroness (Jenny) Chapman, told Parliament that the UK’s China policy would be “driven by the national interest”, which suggested his government knew full well upon which side its bread was buttered. She added, “We will cooperate where we can, including on global net zero, health and trade, compete where we have different interests, and challenge where we must, to protect our national security and values,” and this was not all.

At Starmer’s request, Xi held a 45-minute telephone conversation with him on Aug 23. He emphasized the UK’s adherence to the one-China principle and told Xi he wanted closer economic ties between the two countries, while being at liberty to discuss differences frankly, including over Hong Kong. They discussed areas of collaboration, including trade, the economy and education, and agreed that as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, they should liaise closely on global security and climate change.

For his part, Xi said he wanted to make “mutual benefit and win-win cooperation the main keynotes of China-UK relations”, and he urged the UK to “work together to promote world peace”. According to Xinhua News Agency, he said he hoped the UK would “look at China objectively and rationally”, which was fair enough after the inane posturing of Johnson, Truss, and, to a lesser degree, Sunak.

Xi said China attached great importance to the UK’s desire to step up engagement, and was willing to maintain exchanges at all levels to promote stable and far-reaching China-UK relations.

In separate briefings, Starmer’s aides let it be known he wanted to forge a long-term, “grown-up” relationship with China, which was a breath of fresh air.

Starmer and Xi agreed to “keep in touch”, and the next step in Starmer’s reaching-out strategy is expected to be a visit to Beijing in the coming weeks by his foreign secretary, David Lammy.

The founder of the Beijing-based Center for China and Globalization, Henry Wang Huiyao, has opined that China viewed the UK as an important political interlocutor with the US, and this is now a real challenge for Starmer.

If he dares to speak truth to power (and he may face consequences), he will show he has the guts so lacking in Johnson and Truss, who meekly obeyed Washington’s every request. If serious, he should begin by urging the US to end its provocations in the South China Sea and its environs. He should also advise it to stop trying to undermine China by using harmful export controls on technology, and to stop building aggressive military alliances that threaten the stability of the Asia-Pacific.

Starmer should also distance himself from the US’ hostility toward Hong Kong, including its threats to punish its judges and prosecutors, and do all he can to rebuild the UK’s bridges with the city that were so irresponsibly damaged by Johnson and Truss. If this means taking steps to ensure that the UK’s six-monthly reports on Hong Kong are no longer propaganda broadsheets, so be it. If it also requires a shakeup of the UK’s consulate general in Hong Kong, which feeds information to London that could be questionable, if the six-monthly reports are anything to go by, this may be no bad thing.

Time alone will tell if Starmer has the resolve to turn things around, but he has made a good start. He must stay the course, and ensure his good intentions are not mere flashes in the pan. Better relations between the UK and China are worth striving for and will advance the interests of all their people.

However, Starmer will not find it plain sailing. The China hawks in the UK’s political establishment and Foreign Office are deeply entrenched, and, together with bigots like former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten, they will try their hardest to derail his good intentions. He will need to show his mettle and face them down.

If Starmer can follow his judgment, remain true to his principles, and concentrate on the national interest, he will have the satisfaction of knowing he has made the sort of progress on China that was unimaginable under his three predecessors.       

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.