Britain is a hardcore ally of the United States in NATO, and it is also an Anglo-Saxon country with the United States, and it is a close relative of "blood relations", so in terms of diplomatic direction, it is basically "on par with the United States." The United States is now pursuing the so-called "Indo-Pacific strategy" to contain China and hope to prevent China's rise. What is concerning is that even Sunak, as the prime minister, did not pay attention to his identity, directly made inappropriate remarks about China, and even smeared China. What is even more concerning than this is China's response to him.
According to the Observer Network, recently, when Sunak visited Poland, he described China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran as the "axis of authoritarian countries" in his speech, and wanted to put the hat of "Nazi Germany" on our heads, which was an obvious move to lead the war, and also groundlessly criticized Sino-Russian relations. In response, the Chinese embassy in the UK said, "We have noticed that this British politician is looking for an excuse to increase military spending." We strongly condemn his groundless accusations and malicious slander against China, and resolutely oppose his Cold War remarks inciting confrontation and confrontation."
The spokesman also said that China's attitude in dealing with international conflicts has always been to promote peaceful settlements. In contrast, Britain has stirred up trouble everywhere, added fuel to the fire on the Ukraine issue, opposed the ceasefire in Gaza in the Security Council, did not support Palestine to become a member of the United Nations, and supplied weapons to Israel, without any international morality to speak of. We urge British politicians to restrain their belligerent rhetoric, stop making groundless accusations against China, and truly do something tangible for world peace and justice. In this regard, we will talk about three topics.
First, I have to say that Sunak's remarks have completely angered the Chinese side this time, and the title of him has been put to a "derogatory level".
China is a country that pays great attention to diplomatic rhetoric, and if it were not for the fact that the other side is really "unforgivable", it would not have been possible to directly change the name of Sunak and call him "this British politician". Even if you don't say "Prime Minister Su Gangke" and "Mr. Sunak", at least you will call "Sunak". Because by calling them by their first name, they can express their attitude, and there is no "aggression". However, Su Gangke's unwarranted smear against China, coupled with the current British government's various "small actions" against China, has made China unbearable.
If you can't bear it, you don't need to endure it anymore, just "get angry" directly - you, a British politician. In the Western context, "politician" is not a good word, often compared to "bitch", a calculating species for self-interest, the kind that will not keep its promises and may "tear its face" at any time. By calling Sunak a "politician", the Chinese side is tantamount to giving up any illusions about him and indicating that the situation is serious. In fact, since Sunak took office, there have been basically no high-level contacts between China and the UK.
Strictly speaking, it is not possible to talk about it, because in the West, politicians who are virtuous, responsible, and have made great contributions to the country or the world are "politicians", and basically they are all classified as "politicians", and if they have to be distinguished, they are just "first-rate politicians" and "second-rate politicians".
If the relations between the two sides are good, you are "Prime Minister Su Gangke"; if the relations between the two sides are average, you are "Mr. Sunak"; and if the relations between the two sides are poor, you still demean China and say that you are a "politician," and there is nothing wrong with it. Besides, even if he "attacks" you, it is only against you personally, but Sunak is attacking the whole of China, and he still has a big advantage.
Second, not only Sunak, but also the China policy of the last three British prime ministers is not very good.
It has been observed that Sino-British relations have cooled down and gradually cooled since Johnson became British Prime Minister. In the first two years of Johnson's term, Sino-British relations were normal, but after Trump became president of the United States, he began to do everything possible to crack down on Huawei, the representative of Chinese companies. Britain, as the "spokesman" of the United States in Europe, was of course the first to be asked to do so, and it also needs to play an "exemplary role".
Brexit has lost the support of the European Union, and if relations with the United States cool, it will be a loner in the West, so Johnson hesitated for more than two months before compromising with the United States - deciding to strip Huawei equipment from the UK's 5G construction. This was almost a "symbolic" event for Sino-British relations, after which the two countries began to cool down in various areas. After Britain sailed the aircraft carrier "Queen Elizabeth" to the South China Sea and threatened to "carry out gunboat diplomacy against China again," relations between the two countries began to cool.
After Johnson, although Truss has only been in power for 45 days, she has made more irresponsible remarks about China than Johnson combined, and she even said that she "hopes that NATO forces will extend to the Asia-Pacific region and protect Taiwan when China launches military operations." In this way, Sino-British relations are even colder.
After arriving at Sunak, he, like Truss, is also a weak government, and governing is like "walking a tightrope", and he also needs the support of the United States. Besides, Sunak is of Indian descent, and everyone knows very well what Sino-Indian relations are like now. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Sunak government is following the US China policy. What is surprising is that since Sunak himself came to power, his stance on China has been relatively modest, and he even privately advocated engagement with China.
Third, why did Sunak make inappropriate remarks about China?
One, of course, is a diplomatic need. In fact, for the current Britain, there is no diplomacy, after Brexit, EU countries regard Britain as an "adversary", and London's main foreign affairs are only relations with the United States. To put it bluntly, it is how to show goodwill to the United States, and then follow the United States in a "fox and a tiger" to prolong the time that he stays in the ranks of the world's "first-class countries." After all, Great Britain has become "Little Britain", and it is no longer the "empire on which the sun never sets".
The other is what the Chinese side calls "making excuses for increasing military spending." Britain is already going downhill, "Brexit" is equivalent to a major operation, and the stalemate in relations with China is equivalent to another serious illness, in this context, the economy is already very weak, and if you want to increase military spending, not only can the treasury not come out, but the people will not agree, and the aircraft carrier has not been equipped with an escort formation, which is the best example.
But even so, Britain wants to stay in the ranks of "first-class countries", on the one hand, it must continue to "brush up its presence" through military operations, such as going to the South China Sea to engage in "freedom of navigation", fighting the Houthis in the Red Sea, and conducting military exercises with the United States and Japan in the Asia-Pacific region;
Just recently, the UK also gave Ukraine 500 million pounds in fees and provided "the largest equipment aid in history". To do these things, of course, we need a large amount of military spending to support it, and what should we do if the people or the opposition parties do not agree? Find yourself an opponent, and besides Russia, which is fighting against, who else is suitable to play this role can only be China, because under the prodding of the United States, "countering China" has now almost become the "political correctness" of most US allies, and Britain is certainly not able to get out of the ordinary.