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.”
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US