John Kerry is the third high-level U.S. official to visit Beijing in recent weeks, and the third to accomplish precisely nothing. He went there under the auspices of his retirement gig, U.S. climate envoy, to try and beg the PRC leadership to hobble their economy by eschewing fossil fuels. Given that the Chinese economy ground down to a near halt in the second quarter, posting 0.8% growth, it seems unlikely that the Chinese Communist regime will play ball. Beyond, perhaps, some flowery rhetoric which U.S. climate envoys tend to eat up.

One hopes simply for the sake of good order that Mr. Kerry is not as naïve as he makes out to be. The PRC has never even pretended to live up to any climate-related goals or commitments, even accounting for the indulgent exceptions and extensions granted to them in the 2015 Paris climate accord, and the never will. PRC President Xi Jinping has not been opaque on that. The CCP views these visits as bargaining chips, nothing more. Kerry, for his part, gives off the earnest impression that he will do anything, anything, to get China to give up fossil fuels.

Desperation is not a profitable bargaining position. In exchange for China to strongly consider the merits of halting progress on one of it’s 306 new coal-fired electrical plants it is building, or to increase its greenhouse gas emissions by a percentage point less in the next five years (that would be cutting emissions in the same sense Congress cuts spending, after all), one worries just what the U.S. will be willing to give up. Arms shipments or security assurances to Taiwan? Trade considerations? Restrictions on access to American defense-related technology? Maui?

While the Biden Administration seems intent on making the U.S. increasingly irrelevant in the Indo-Pacific, the UK is quietly working to position itself quite well. Last weekend, Britain officially signed on to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP – say that five times fast), inclusion to which it had finalized in late March – a feat enabled, by the way, by Brexit, the country’s divorce from the EU. CPTPP is a trade agreement among Pacific Rim nations (notably not including China) – the successor to the Trans-Pacific Partnership that President Trump decided that the United States needn’t bother involving itself with, and that President Biden has likewise ignored. The UK is the first European nation to join, and stands to benefit considerably. The 11 countries in the agreement – including Japan, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Vietnam, New Zealand and a few others – have a combined GDP of $9 trillion, a population of over 500 million, and comprise one of the largest and fastest-growing economic blocks in the world; Japan is the worlds third largest economy. Britain’s inclusion gives it trade access to this block, and alongside their existing free-trade agreement with the EU, the UK now enjoys one of the best trade arrangements in the world. It also allows the UK to explore alternate supply chains, extrinsic to Communist China, and positions the Kingdom well geo-politically.

The U.S., meanwhile, did initiate its own trade agreement for the region, the Indo-Pacific Economic Partnership (IPEF), but as you might expect from the Biden administration, it accomplishes about as much as Kerry’s recent trip did. It doesn’t include any avenues for reducing or removing tariffs or increasing market access (which are kind of, you know, the pillars of a “free trade agreement”), and – unconscionably – fails to include Taiwan.

Now in fairness, that is also a stain of omission on the CPTPP; and the U.S. is in the first stages of establishing a bilateral trade agreement with Taipei. That is a very welcome development which should be encouraged. But it is of equal, or perhaps even greater importance that Taiwan be included in multilateral, regional agreements, like CPTPP. Britain, as a signatory, may be able to have some influence over that, as well as keeping China out. The U.S., not so much.

The British, whatever their faults (like sacking PM Truss, whose economic plan might just have worked if given half a chance) are posturing themselves well on the world stage, especially after having emancipated themselves from the fetters of the EU, with whom they have since forged a liberal trade relationship without the puppet strings. They are showing remarkable leadership in NATO and (aside from the cluster munitions silliness) steadfast support for Ukraine. They are now solidly embedding themselves in the Indo-Pacific. Meanwhile, the U.S. appears for all the world to be trying its damnedest to devalue its influence there. To whom should free democratic nations be looking for leadership?