In several new strategy documents, US President Donald Trump’s administration argues that the US needs to gear up for prolonged geopolitical competition with China. This shift in US policy is welcome — even if it so far remains mostly rhetorical — because it reflects the growing threat that a revisionist, authoritarian China poses to US interests in the Asia-Pacific and to the liberal international system more broadly. Yet, even though US-China competition is primarily a transpacific matter, a transatlantic divergence could hamper US strategy on how to handle Beijing. The US’ European allies have long been its most important partners, but today, those in Europe and the US often see the China challenge in very different ways.
Transatlantic differences over China are not new, of course. Outrage over the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre was stronger in the US than in Europe. In 2005, the EU nearly lifted its arms embargo on China, maintaining it only after last-minute intervention by former US president George W. Bush’s administration. However, in recent years, the transatlantic gap has grown larger, for several reasons.
First is geography. The US’ status as a Pacific power with numerous treaty allies in the region makes the Chinese military threat tangible for Washington in a way that it is not for most European allies. Simply put, US strategists can easily imagine scenarios in which the US and China might go to war. European strategists have a harder time seeing how a country — even a rising authoritarian power — half a world away poses a meaningful security threat.
Illustration: Yusha
Second, most European governments thus focus not on the geopolitical challenge that China poses, but on the economic opportunities that it offers. Then-British prime minister David Cameron made headlines in 2015 by proclaiming a “golden era” in Sino-UK relations and taking Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) out for a pint at a pub (later purchased by a Chinese company), as part of a bid to make London a preferred destination for Chinese investment and trade. However, the phenomenon is essentially continent-wide, as European countries line up to establish profitable ties with Beijing.
Third, even if European governments wanted to play a larger role in Asia-Pacific security, they probably could not. Since the end of the Cold War, Europe’s primary security role has been riding shotgun when Washington takes action against threats to the international order, particularly in the greater Middle East. Yet, because most European countries simultaneously cut military spending so deeply, because their remaining defense capabilities are being taxed by a revanchist Russia and because of the geographical difficulties inherent in projecting power into the Asia-Pacific, most NATO allies simply cannot do much to fortify the balance of power in the Pacific. The French and the British have proclaimed the importance of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, and have carried out naval exercises with the US and Japan. However, even though these largely symbolic measures are welcome, they mostly prove just how meager the European role in Asia-Pacific security really is.
Finally, the US-Europe gap is being compounded — as are so many problems in US policy today — by Trump. His America often seems to be retreating from international leadership on issues such as trade, climate and democratic governance, and embracing a nationalistic, protectionist ethos. This shift allowed Xi to steal the show at the World Economic Forum in Davos last year, by portraying China as a new global leader on trade and climate, and it has led some European observers to see stronger ties with Beijing as a hedge against unwelcome trends in US behavior.
It has also inhibited cooperation on matters where observers in the US and Europe largely agree. As the Financial Times has reported, some European officials and business elites share US concerns about Chinese intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer. Yet, they remain wary of collaborating on retaliatory measures for fear of undermining the WTO (a favorite Trump target) or enabling the president’s protectionist impulses. To its credit, the Trump administration has supported European countries in their grievances with Chinese economic policies, most notably by backing an EU move to delay recognition of China as a market economy by the WTO. However, on China as on so many issues, Trump’s presidency has more often widened than narrowed the transatlantic gap.
Downplaying the strategic significance of this gap is tempting, because US-China competition is playing out most intensely in the Asia-Pacific. Yet, if the gap persists, it will cause US strategists no end of trouble.
For one thing, the implementation of a more American competitive economic strategy vis-a-vis China will be harder. The challenge in doing so is already severe, simply because of the size of the Chinese economy and the interdependence that exists between Beijing, on the one hand, and the US and its Asia-Pacific allies on the other. Yet, if Washington is to compete effectively with China, it must devise policies that limit opportunities for Chinese economic coercion and prevent Beijing from using the lure of trade and investment to mute diplomatic resistance to destabilizing behavior. Those policies must be multilateral to be effective, and therefore require the support of the US’ European allies, several of which remain among the world’s largest economies.
The transatlantic gap has the potential to undercut US strategy in other ways. Over time, Washington might find it more difficult to dissuade the EU from lifting its arms embargo, a step that would intensify Beijing’s challenge to US military primacy in the Western Pacific. Similarly, although China’s authoritarian form of governance represents one of its greatest ideological weaknesses, Europe’s economic embrace of Beijing is already making European countries more reticent on issues of political repression and human rights. As Chinese trade with Norway has increased, for instance, Oslo has become less vocal regarding Chinese human rights violations. For the same reason, the EU recently soft-pedaled criticism of Chinese behavior in the South China Sea. Indeed, as one think tank report said, Beijing is aggressively expanding its economic ties to Europe for just these reasons.
Not least of all, the transatlantic divergence regarding China will exacerbate the difficulty of dealing with the broader, overarching challenge Chinese behavior represents. China does not simply pose a military and geopolitical threat to US power and alliances in the Asia-Pacific. It is the leading edge of a larger challenge by illiberal, revisionist powers to the liberal international order that the US — in cooperation with its European partners — constructed after World War II.
The best response to that threat is for the world’s leading liberal powers to meet it squarely and in unison. This means getting Europe, which still constitutes the largest concentration of democracies in the world, on board. Sadly, given its own ambivalence about the liberal order, it is not yet clear whether the Trump administration is up to the task.
Hal Brands is the Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor at the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under