Select committee: Foreign Affairs Committee
Conclusion 20
Eighth Report - Tilting horizons: the Integrated Review and the Indo-Pacific
Published 30 Aug 2023
Paragraph 69
Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Foreign Affairs Committee Implementing the Integrated Review: Tilt to the Indo-Pacific All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
We welcome the Government’s China policy statement in general terms in the Refresh. However, this policy now needs to be fleshed out so that practitioners such as academics and businesspeople can be fully aware of the limits within which they can operate with and in China. The FCDO should explain the rationale and method by which it intends to separate issues over which there is contention with China from those on which it seeks close cooperation with China, especially in areas such as trade and educational links, where the line of demarcation is not always clear.
From: Foreign Affairs Committee, Eighth Report - Tilting horizons: the Integrated Review and the Indo-Pacific (HC 172), paragraph 69, 30 August 2023
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 22 March 2024 (deadline 30 October 2023).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition of the Indo-Pacific's strategic importance and agrees on many points, but disagrees on a China Strategy, assessments of IPEF and RCEP, and the Committee's human rights criticisms.
- It agrees the Indo-Pacific must be a "long term and enduring aspect" of UK policy, but disagrees that it has not set out its long-term objectives clearly.
- On China, it disagrees with the recommendation to publish an unclassified China Strategy, stating it "does not intend to publish an additional China Strategy" while maintaining "as much transparency as possible".
- It "partially agrees" on funding and posts, citing doubled British High Commissions in the Pacific, and says CSSF funding "is adjusted annually" given the fiscal situation.
- It disagrees that it should publish assessments of IPEF while negotiations are ongoing or of RCEP, and says it does not "currently envisage" seeking to join RCEP.