Britain’s eager courtship of China, which will reach its peak on Tuesday with the start of the state visit by the country’s president, Xi Jinping, is viewed in other western capitals with a mixture of concern and derision.

Critics argue that the Cameron government may be overestimating the economic benefits of its “golden decade” strategy on China, and grossly underestimating the strategic costs, in terms of dependence on Beijing for critical infrastructure and alienating Washington and other western allies.

“I think there is obviously going to be concern from the administration that there is too much of a gap between the US approach to China on a whole basket of issues, of which cybersecurity is the most pressing, and the messaging from the UK government during the visit,” said Heather Conley, a former US state department official now with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The contrast in the mood music of Xi’s stay in Buckingham Palace this week and his visit to US last month is marked. Just before his arrival in Washington, Barack Obama threatened to impose sanctions on China for cyber-attacks on US companies, and withheld them when Xi pledged to avoid “knowingly” hacking American firms. A report issued on Monday, however, suggested the attacks were still going on.

“What I think Washington is seeking from the UK is a balanced approach to Beijing,” Conley asaid. “We appreciate the economic importance of the relationship but if there is no balance with the values promoted by the western community, then the policy is not going to be durable. There is growing concern the UK approach doesn’t have that balance.”

Philippe Le Corre, a French expert and the author of a forthcoming book on Chinese investment strategy called China’s Offensive in Europe, said Britain was not alone in its courtship of Beijing. Germany’s Angela Merkel will be going to China next week, and France’s François Hollande will be following in her wake next month. But he said the UK was going further than other major European states in terms of opening up sensitive infrastructure such as national railways and nuclear power stations.

“It could be that expectations are too high and there will be fewer deals than expected. The financing part is always a bit more complicated than people think. Chinese banks will have to get their act together,” Le Corre, now a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said.



“The key question is infrastructure and whether the UK has given away too much of its stakes and assets to a country like China,” he added.

“In the long run David Cameron is taking a risk both in terms of the infrastructure assets and Britain’s long-term relationships by trying to be China’s best friend when China has a very different way at looking at the world. That is especially true when there is tension between the US and the China over the Pacific.”

If those Pacific tensions worsen, the UK could be forced into a situation where it has to choose between the US and China.

“The biggest threat to international security is in Asia, the rise of China and the possibility of a great power confrontation. That’s what Britain should be thinking about,” said Hans Kundnani, a fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, based in Berlin.

Germany has hitherto seen itself as China’s most important trading partner in Europe and Kundnani said “some people in Berlin see this a rather pathetic British attempt to compete”.

He said Germany had been criticised previously for downgrading human rights and political issues in its dealing with China, but added: “I find it quite shocking that Britain is not just doing the same thing but going much further. It is doing it even more dramatically and even more embarrassingly.

“I used to say that the UK is different in that its foreign policy is based on the premise that the UK is part of the security council. If you’re a permanent member of the security council you have to be provider of security not just a consumer. Britain seems to be jettisoning those responsibilities.”

