Chinese state media views Starmer’s visit as act of economic pragmatism

Original article by Daniel Boffey Chief reporter

Keir Starmer’s visit to Beijing has been cautiously welcomed by Chinese state media as an act of economic pragmatism by a beleaguered British prime minister.

The presence of 50 business and cultural leaders with Starmer, who is the first British prime minister to visit China in eight years, was taken as a sign that the UK was prioritising its ailing economy over political considerations.

The reported refusal of Starmer to confirm that he would be seen to pressure President Xi Jinping over his relationship with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, was seized upon by the state-owned Guancha news website.

The site reported that the prime minister did “not take the bait” of western journalists who may have wished to derail the visit.

Starmer told reporters in Beijing he wanted a “more sophisticated” relationship and announced economic agreements to make it easier for British businesses to “grow their footprints in China”.

A social media account affiliated with the state-owned Beijing Daily wrote: “If the Sino-British relationship in the past few years has been characterised by ‘politics taking precedence and economics taking a backseat’, then this time it is more like a reordering of ‘economics taking precedence and politics taking a backseat’.”

An account affiliated with the state outlet China.org.cn echoed that sentiment, framing Starmer’s visit as a functional necessity driven by current pressures, rather than a return to the “golden era” in relations heralded by David Cameron in 2015.

The account said: “Against the backdrop of heightened global economic uncertainty, strengthening pragmatic cooperation between China and the UK aligns with the practical needs of both sides.

“China is advancing high-quality development and high-level opening up, and British companies have significant opportunities in this process.

“Starmer’s visit to China is not an ideological shift, but rather a rebalancing choice under economic pressure. For the UK, it means capital, orders, and growth momentum; for China, it means stable expectations, mutually beneficial cooperation, and strategic leverage over Europe.

“Both sides understand that security and other issues will not disappear, but neither intends for them to dominate the agenda.”

The account noted that the UK was showing a level of independence from the lead of Donald Trump’s White House. It said: “What is certain is that London has begun to recalculate its relationship with China, and this calculation is not entirely based on Washington’s approach.”

Yin Zhiguang, a professor of international politics at the school of international relations and public affairs at Fudan University, was reported as commenting: “This diplomatic adjustment by Britain was forced by reality, both to hedge against the external risks brought by the Trump administration and to resolve the internal predicament of a sluggish domestic economy and weak governance.”

A former editor-in-chief of the state-owned outlet Global Times, Hu Xijin, also suggested the UK’s outreach was not a result of Chinese lobbying but a reaction to Trump’s recent behaviour on the global stage.

Research by Lillian Yang