WIREDGOV

A UK trial of alleged Chinese spies has collapsed, averting a diplomatic flare-up with China but exposing the UK’s unresolved struggle to balance security with economic interdependence.

It is easy to get caught up in the finger-pointing and intrigue now consuming Westminster over the collapse of the prosecution of two alleged Chinese spies. The case has all the hallmarks of a Le Carrė novel – covert infiltration of the halls of power, sensitive information being passed to foreign handlers, and even a suitcase full of cash.

But the more revealing story is not about legal technicalities over threat designations or the extraordinary public brawl between the government, the Crown Prosecution Service and the head of MI5. On a deeper level, the failed prosecution has exposed how the UK is struggling to manage a dual imperative: to stay secure in the face of Chinese espionage and interference while remaining economically engaged with the world’s second-largest economy.

A Trial of Resolve

If the collapse of the prosecution was intended to appease China – perhaps ahead of a senior diplomatic visit – it is more likely to be interpreted as weakness than restraint. The episode demonstrates that the UK’s will to enforce its own rules remains vulnerable to commercial sensitivities. To the British public, this looks like bureaucratic dysfunction, to the Chinese intelligence services, it looks like an opportunity.

These perceptions matter. China’s foreign and intelligence policy is broadly built around testing where resistance is weak and pulling back where it is strong. When the political costs of espionage or coercion appear low, Beijing presses its advantage. When resistance is credible, it recalibrates. As the research by RUSI Senior Associate Fellow Matthew Redhead observes, ‘China’s preference is to operate like “running water, flowing into the vulnerabilities and openings left by opponents”.’

China expects espionage and influence operations to be a normal part of global politics. At home, it maintains one of the world’s most sophisticated internal intelligence states; abroad, it assumes that others will do the same. When its operations are exposed, the outrage expressed is often performative – a ritualistic display of indignation designed to intimidate rivals and project strength. The real test is whether the target stands firm.

Too often, Western democracies misread this dynamic, treating China’s staged fury as a genuine escalation rather than a managed performance. The result is overcorrection. Fear of triggering Beijing’s ire can reduce the enforcement of espionage laws or mute political language, as appears to have happened in the UK case. Yet such caution carries its own risks. It signals that intimidation works, undermining deterrence in the grey zone of state threats, where countries compete through shadowy cyber intrusions, disinformation and covert influence.

Click here for the full press release