The fact that the relative distance between the US and Europe under Trump is increasing does not yet mean that the absolute distance between Europe and China has been reduced.
…
In recent years […] China changed internally, with an increasing concentration of power around Xi, and because China was externally more assertive, if not more aggressive. In Brussels and the capitals […] there was dialogue [on Europe-China cooperation] about anything and everything, but the effect, in the sense of policy adjustments or actual cooperation, was difficult to see.
As a result, the number of disagreements increased to an impressive laundry list. Europe complained about Chinese support to Russia in the war against Ukraine and repeatedly said that this seriously burdened relations with the EU. China responded with vague language that it was neutral and used commonplaces about the importance of territorial integrity. Meanwhile, exports of dual-use goods, which are used for both civilian and military purposes, increased, and Moscow can continue its aggression in part.
…
In Beijing, there is growing fear over a stagnant economy with sky-high debts in a country struggling with poor demographics …
[Europe] must now tell China that it wants to do business and will not follow Trump and his unilateral trade tariffs. But something really needs to change in China’s behaviour. We don’t want another charm offensive, but real steps – and Beijing knows very well what this entails.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the EU and China. A great opportunity to celebrate with a new summit. It is already a big deal that EU leaders will probably travel to Beijing for this, while it is actually Chinese leaders’ turn to come to Brussels. But this summit should yield more than a photo opportunity. That is why the message to China must now be: European leaders will only board the plane if China is ready to finally tackle the laundry list of problems. Not with empty words, but with tangible deeds. If China is not prepared to do so, we can better postpone that summit.
Good piece, don’t disagree with anything.
We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be pressured into taking a side unless we ourselves want to take a side.
And you’re big enough to be a side yourselves, which other countries like mine can look to for non-insanity.
In Dutch there is a saying ‘when two dogs fight over a bone, a third one will walk away with it’. Might be an English equivalent for it, but in this case I totally see a large amount of small countries that do not want to pick a side, and Europe benefitting more from trading with those countries than siding with the US or China.
That’s a good saying. Closest I can think of is “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”, but that’s not really the same.
Never heard that, it’s good.
While i like the idea, i don’t think this will play out like this easily.
First of all the EU is resource dependent whereas the US and China do have access to a lot of resources domestically.
Then many EU countries have a huge baggage of colonial and post colonial crimes and structures that drove countries in Africa, Asia and South America away or keep them at arms length.
Finally many EU countries also have a huge Racism/Fascism problem and delusions of supremacy are on the rise rather than falling. So governments advocating for and making deals that are consistent with the real power dynamics and making up for some of the crimes they committed is likely not going to happen easily. Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands… All these countries are on a very bad track of Racist delusions that will get in the way of diplomacy and economic beneficial dealings. They already are shooting themselves in the internal and the external foot.
Meanwhile China has the BRICS going on and stronger than ever. The US still has military bases all over the world. The EU will need to change their way of dealing with other countries tremendously if it wants to form a third bloc.
I didn’t say Europe as a third block would be equal in power or military strength. I believe they might benefit more if they don’t pick a side compared to if they do pick a side. But time will tell.
Do a lot of countries have a problem with the colonial past? Speaking for Asia, it’s not really a thing that I’ve noticed there.
All of the “Middle East” is in Asia and people are neither fond of the former colonizing nor of the onslaughts and meddling since.
Algeria and France are escalating diplomatic tensions with recent withdrawals and expulsions of diplomats.
Multiple Subsaharan countries kicked out the French over the past two years.
Germany keeps antagonizing Namibia instead of properly owning up to the genocide it committed there
India is asserting itself more and more on the world stage. While it has good trade relationships and the current government loves Racism against Muslims, India also helps Russia circumvent EU sanctions.
For South America and South Asia i dont know enough details. The EU countries mostly siding with Israel in its war crimes and crimes against humanity is definvtely not helping ties with South American countries except for maybe Argentina
As far as I know most South American countries are quite ok with their former colonizers, politically speaking. More than the people who descended from slaves and the surviving natives, but they aren’t a large group. Most people just want to get by with their day to day lives. Unlike Africa where there is a lot more hatred towards western countries / white people, most of all in the former french colonies, also because France decolonised much less then other European colonisers. In south-east Asia there is as far as I know not really hate, but more distrust and a feeling of not being treated fairly right now (instead of how they were treated in the past). If anyone feels I’m wrong please correct me, I don’t follow local news in these places and just talk to people from time to time about this stuff.