Illustration: Liu Xiangya/GT

The British government announced on Wednesday that it is forcing a Chinese company to sell its 80.2 percent stake in a Scottish microchip manufacturer. Even though it has broken no laws, rules, regulations or sanctions, it is somehow deemed "risks to national security." An official statement claimed the Glasgow-based tech firm FTDI risked operating in a way "contrary to UK national security." Yet, instead of requiring FTDI to change its ways, the UK punished instead its largest shareholder, Beijing-based and China-registered Future Technology Devices International Holding Ltd.

Three years ago, Britain approved the same holding company's majority stake in FTDI, knowing it traded with Russia, legally and transparently. Now, however, after a single - legally sold - chip was allegedly found in a destroyed Russian tank, London has punished the firm, not by tightening up on its own sanctions regime but by ordering the Chinese owner to sell its stake. The fault seems not to have been with the sale of any chips, but with the nationality of ownership. It is just the latest example of the mixed messages emanating Downing Street about its developing relationship with China. How is this different from the approach to China of this government's inconsistent predecessors? It's a tough question to answer.

Since winning July's General Election and coming to power, Keir Starmer's administration has contradictorily pledged to reset China-UK relations, sent warships into the South China Sea and declared an intention to renew economic cooperation. Last week, chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a financial policy whose precise function is to target China's critical mineral sector, an unnecessarily confrontational action.

Other messages have seemed positive. Ahead of foreign secretary David Lammy's trip to Beijing and Shanghai in mid-October, Downing Street signaled that it was time to reset the China-UK relationship, following years of tension, anti-China sentiment and hyped allegations over human rights and spying. Starmer's official spokesman stated: "It's all about bringing a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK's position on China." 

So far, so positive.

Days later, Starmer went negative and announced plans to increase the Royal Navy's presence in the South China Sea, and to take part in more joint patrols in the region to counter what the West characterizes as "China's influence." This is a curious choice of phrase as China is operating in its own backyard and the only evidence of anyone seeking to increase influence in the area is the growing presence of foreign warships in an ocean about 6,000 miles from London. 

Then last week Britain flipped back to positive when Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said he was open to reviving the UK-China Joint Economic and Trade Commission which was suspended in 2019 by the then prime minister Theresa May's government. 

Changing back to negative within days, Reeves unveiled a budget with measures targeting Chinese interests by offering favorable state-backed loans to British companies which import lithium, cobalt and graphite into the UK for use in EV battery production, aerospace industries, electronic goods and other areas. Here, China is the major supplier of the world's critical minerals, and it is China against which this measure is aimed. 

In international relations, there should always be room to accommodate disagreements between countries. It should be possible for two nations to have profound geopolitical differences but a healthy economic relationship. It is also crucial that there is consistency. Starmer himself has recognized that previous British governments had a track record of ambiguity and capriciousness. In what both sides hope is to be a new era of beneficial association, the new government in Downing Street should take care not to repeat the foreign policy mistakes of its predecessors.

The author is a journalist and lecturer in Britain. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn