After more than seven years of negotiation with Beijing, the EU’s landmark deal with China landed with a thud. Ill-timed, unenforceable and naive were just some of the charges leveled at the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) concluded Dec. 30.
After a week of relative silence, governments are fighting back at criticism they see as unfair.
Interviews with government officials in Europe’s main capitals showed a common conviction that the deal not only contains real concessions by Beijing, but that it puts the EU on a stronger footing to reengage with Washington after four years of antagonism by US President Donald Trump.
Rather than a rebuke to the incoming administration of US president-elect Joe Biden, as critics have charged, the accord represents the first step back to a multilateral order after Trump’s “America First” stance, a senior official in Berlin said.
The US needs Europe as a global player, not a vassal, so it is in US interests that the bloc presents itself as a geopolitical force in its own right, another senior official in Rome said.
“Yes, it may be seen as more of a strategic, autonomous approach towards China,” and one that Biden might not like, former Germany minister of foreign affairs and vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel told Bloomberg Television. “But on the other hand there is enough room to maneuver to join hands” and forge a common stance on China.
European lawmakers and China watchers on both sides of the Atlantic argue the bloc’s leaders were naive to trust Beijing on the deal’s provisions on sustainable development, including commitments on forced labor that they say would never be met.
By signing the agreement now, EU leaders are gifting China a diplomatic coup as it quashes dissent in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, they say.
EU officials say that the deal, which commits China to provide greater market access, potentially increasing bilateral trade worth US$650 billion in 2019, was as good as it could get and significantly more than anyone else has achieved.
The investment deal is not devised to address human rights issues, but still grants Europe leverage in its discussions with China, French President Emmanuel Macron’s office said.
The Italian official said it would have been unthinkable until recently to bring China toward adherence on international standards on workers’ rights.
“This is the most ambitious outcome on market access, on the level playing field and on sustainable development that China has ever agreed with a third country,” European Commission Executive Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis told reporters on Dec. 30 in Brussels.
While “not a panacea” for all Europe’s issues with China, “it certainly helps to address a number of challenges,” he said.
Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who joined a video call with EU leaders and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Dec. 30, see the CAI as a start, with ongoing talks with China on issues outside the scope of the deal to come, the French president’s office said.
These include climate, where they want China to “green” the Belt and Road Initiative; global health, with vaccines to become a universal asset; debt relief for Africa; and human rights.
A core charge directed at the EU and Germany, as its biggest economy and the deal’s main proponent, is that the 27-member bloc is handing Beijing ammunition in its future dealings with the US. It should have held off for Biden to take office to agree on a common approach to China, the argument goes.
Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, said late last month that he would welcome “early consultation” with Europe on joint concerns about China, but the deal was done anyway.
He avoided criticism of Europe in a weekend interview with CNN, saying that “we are confident we can develop a common agenda” with partners on those concerns, from human rights to technology.
Asked this week about criticism of the deal attributed to US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying (華春瑩) dismissed his remarks as “sour grapes.”
In Europe, where the Trump administration has slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum, berated leaders over defense spending, and attempted to torpedo the nuclear deal with Iran, key governments regard the deal as a demonstration of their collective ambition to stake out a role for the EU in a world increasingly defined by great power rivalry.
While not directed against the US, it is a demonstration of Europe asserting itself, Macron’s office said.
“Obviously this has created some friction, but it’s also sent a message that when we’re talking about China, coordination with the United States cannot and will not translate into the United States telling Europeans what to do,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Institute of International Affairs in Rome. “We share notes, we agree more often than we disagree, but we don’t always have the same position. This is what a more balanced relationship means.”
For Joerg Wuttke, president of the EU Chamber of Commerce in China, who has seen the dealmaking up close over the long years of its progress, criticism of the final outcome fails to acknowledge the nature of interacting with Beijing.
He compared it to “barking at the Great Wall of China,” with the result that “nothing will happen.”
Instead, he said, “we managed to get through the door.”
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers