After the EU imposed sanctions on Chinese officials over the plight of the Uighurs in the Chinese province of Xinjiang, China has responded by imposing counter-sanctions, hitting not only European politicians but also the European Council’s Political and Security Committee, as well as European scholars.
Hereunder, BrusselsReport.eu highlights two conflicting approaches the EU and EU member states could take towards China. This in order to stimulate thinking on how those favoring trade and a strong defense while at the same time opposing militarism ought to position themselves in this key debate on China’s increasing power.
***
VIEWPOINT 1: “Biden’s China policy won’t be Europe’s China policy”
By Iveta Cherneva (Amazon best-selling author and political commentator covering foreign policy, security and human rights)
***
What the first weeks of US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken’s geostrategic toe-dipping has shown is that EU countries won’t replicate new U.S. President Joe Biden’s China policy, unlike what the Biden Administration probably expected. That is not because EU countries or the EU are weak, but because they simply do not see what’s in it for them.
The US does not even manage to get the EU to play along on its confrontational China policy line when it comes to non-military issues, such as the 5G network and trade, let alone on escalating militarily in the Indian Ocean, something which seems to be the American foreign policy strategy.
Moreover, Europeans have their own issues with the new Biden administration, for example when it comes to its continued opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline, which connects Russian natural gas with European markets, something reflecting a bipartisan consensus in the US.
An analysis by Reuters notes that the EU “charts a third way in ties with the U.S. and China”.
Therefore, both when it comes to Russia and China, the proverbial “transatlantic partnership” seems more like a romantic, nostalgic thing of the past, rather than an actual indication of where geostrategic interests and priorities lie today for the EU and the US, something which I also argue in Austria’s Kurier.
“We are charting a third way between Washington and Beijing,” an EU envoy in Asia told Reuters.
French President Emmanuel Macron has been somewhat less diplomatic, when stating last month that “a situation to join all together against China, this is a scenario of the highest possible conflictuality. This one, for me, is counterproductive.”
European NATO partners should be wary to mindlessly go along with the military build-up in the Indo-Pacific the US is advocating and preparing for, with some recent moves, such as the arrangement called the “Quad”, which is an informal strategic dialogue between the United States, Japan, Australia and India.
This loose coalition saw the organization of its first-ever summit this month and its purpose – to put it bluntly – is simply to encircle and pressure China from all sides. This Summit came just before the US-China Alaska Summit on 18 March, which involved a public spat between U.S. and Chinese top diplomats. Still more important, however is what is actually happening in terms of bilateral relations and the coalitions that are being formed to surround China.
In a bid to to rebuild its international standing, following Brexit, the UK is eager to follow the US in this new venture, mirroring the American “pivot” to Asia with a British “tilt”, as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson puts it. The British position seems to be coordinated with the US, in parallel to Blinken’s Asia tour and the Alaska Summit.
Whatever Europe does, it should stay well clear of any new American risky military venture in the Indian Ocean. Such a military build-up would open up the NATO alliance to a risky and unnecessary defense race. It would signify brinkmanship in a far-away region where Europe has no defense interest– whether immediate or in the longer term. Any US “folly” in the region could ultimately drag European NATO partners into a catastrophic military conflict with China, something which Europe would never ask or choose for.
The “third-way on China” which European diplomats have been pushing as a concept really signifies for Europe to stay well clear of any military confrontation on the other side of the world. As NATO partners, European countries would need to join the US in this. As I have argued, also the US have no business in the Indo-Pacific, given the lack of any threat to its vital defense and security interests or to its secondary non-vital interests, such as treaty commitments or military bases.
The US has greatly played up the suffering of the Uighurs in labor and internment camps in the Chinese province of Xinjiang. If the US really wanted to help this ethnic minority, it could set up an asylum program to save these people from persecution in the same way other minorities suffering from persecution are being helped, instead of using their suffering as a human rights pretext to escalate the military race and push for Chinese encirclement in the Indo-Pacific. Any military build-up would have nothing to do with the Uighurs, and would not benefit them in any way. It may only increase their suffering, as a militarily encircled China may turn more inward.
Europe’s “third-way on China” approach involves considering the emerging power as a partner, a competitor, and an adversary. At the same time, it also involves looking at China in a largely neutral manner, especially when it comes to vital defense and security concerns.
Even if Chinese policemen and drones patrol across Serbia, in the EU’s back yard, China does not pose any defense threat to the European Union. China does not finance terrorism. There is no need for Europe, which is still facing up to both the Covid crisis and the economic crisis, to artificially create a new “boogie man”, only to humor the United States. If the US wants to go ahead with this, Europe will and should sit this one out.
Disclaimer: www.BrusselsReport.eu will under no circumstance be held legally responsible or liable for the content of any article appearing on the website, as only the author of an article is legally responsible for that, also in accordance with the terms of use.
***
VIEWPOINT 2: “Without America, the EU will be left behind”
By Robert Tyler (Political strategist, working for a European political party)
A common theme of EU Foreign Policy during the last couple of months, has been that Europe should no longer work together with the United States. This approach is difficult to justify, given that it is underpinned by a series of naïve assumptions, including the idea that Russia and China are reliable partners. The events of the past few weeks, with Chinese sanctions being imposed not only on European politicians but also on European researchers covering the plight of the Uyghurs in China, have proven that they are anything but.
The main problem is that the European External Action Service is held hostage by its own institutional mindset. The dominant foreign policy view within the EU institutions is that, first of all, America can’t be relied upon and that, secondly, the common foreign policy consensus amongst EU Member States is sufficiently strong for the EU to act independently.
Both of these premises are false.
First of all, the United States remains the superior power in the Euro-Atlantic sphere. It remains the number one contributor to NATO, which is the cornerstone of Europe’s defence. It continues to be the number one trading partner of the European Union and above all else, as the world’s leading democratic power, it continues to be ideologically aligned with Europe. Whilst the last four years have no doubt been stressful for the relationship, the Trump presidency still managed to promote several common transatlantic values, including peace in the Middle East and support for human rights in Asia.
The new US administration will in many ways be an even better partner in this area. From the outset, US President Joe Biden and his team have expressed their desire to improve relations with the European Union and have put the EU back at the centre of American objectives in Europe,also by supporting “Eastern Partnership” countries such as Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus.
Despite what many in the European Union, especially those from Western Europe and those on the political left, might want to think about America as an unreliable partner, the reality is that the transatlantic relationship is still the most important relationship Europe has.
This is certainly true when it comes to the second point, which is that the European Union as an institution does not have a geopolitical footprint of its own. Whilst the EU tends to boasts about how much it spends on development aid, many of these projects are managed on the ground by EU Member States, and as such mostly incorporate the aims and objectives of those nations.
EU Foreign Policy is mostly characterised by disjointed thinking and competing interests.
One only needs to look at the handling of the situation in Libya, where France and Italy are on competing sides of the conflict. While France and Greece support the Tobruk-based government in the East, Italy and the rest of the EU support the UN-recognised government in Tripoli.
Perhaps a better example might be that of the relationship with Russia, where the split is clearly one of East versus West, with Poland and the Baltic states opposing the creation of the Nord Stream II pipeline for strategic purposes, while Germany continues to push for the realisation of the project. Those countries in Eastern Europe that have expressed concerns about the EU’s relationship with Russia, do so because of constant Russian threats to their sovereignty. A number of recent hybrid attacks, including Kremlin propaganda and fake news, can serve as a testimony.
It is clear that the EU is unable to set out its own position on foreign policy. Therefore, it is better off linking up with more determined actors, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, South Korea, Japan and Australia.
This is especially true when it comes to the challenge posed by China. China is a power that is becoming increasingly authoritarian, but also expansionist, including in Europe. Most people are already aware of what is happening inside the country, for example the Uyghur genocide, the oppression of Chinese Christians, the destruction of Hong Kong’s autonomy and the threat of military intervention in Taiwan. However, around the world, China is also trying to influence other countries through unbalanced investment agreements, with the aim to increase their economic dependence on China. Not only Sri Lanka, but also some European countries, in the Western Balkans, have fallen into this trap.
In order to avoid being trapped in a similar way, the European Union should abandon its recently concluded “Comprehensive Agreement on Investment” (CAI) with China, which still needs to be ratified. Instead, it should look at strengthening trade relations with democratic allies, and making clear to China that it still is happy to trade, but that there cannot be any concessions when it comes to things like forced labour, which seems to be the case with the CAI investment pact, while any intimidation of European researchers in a bid to stifle debate about China is out of the question. The need for democratic countries to break away from excessive dependence on China, and to instead start to work together on key geopolitical issues has not been as important since the end of the Cold War.
The EU and its member states need to recognise that they will only stay relevant by continuing to side with the United States and with other Western powers. Otherwise, they risk simply becoming the playground for others.
Disclaimer: www.BrusselsReport.eu will under no circumstance be held legally responsible or liable for the content of any article appearing on the website, as only the author of an article is legally responsible for that, also in accordance with the terms of use.
***
FURTHERMORE: BrusselsReport.eu’s editor, Pieter Cleppe, discusses the issue on Chinese broadcaster CGTN:
Here, I discuss EU-China tit-for-tat sanctions on Chinese @CGTN TV:
"The fact that #China also sanctioned researchers, isn't a sign of confidence…If China is so convinced the situation in #Xinjiang is fine, why not allow free free debate and research?" https://t.co/mDDNU1GOoq— Pieter Cleppe (@pietercleppe) March 25, 2021
