It was the year that the scales fell from Europe’s eyes on China. Next year, the clarity engendered by Beijing’s stance on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is in danger of being lost.
Leaders of a continent beset by soaring energy prices and economic hardship show signs of wanting to pick up again with the world’s largest trading nation as if nothing has happened. That would be a mistake. Wishful thinking was never the basis of a sound relationship.
It is worth recapping to see how the tone has changed since Russian President Vladimir Putin’s troops crossed into Ukraine in late February. The attack came less than three weeks after Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) proclaimed a “no limits” partnership with Russia that amounted to a blueprint to remake the rules-based international order.
Illustration: Mountain People
After the invasion, Beijing professed to be neutral, and reiterated its respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty.
However, it has consistently refused to criticize Russia. Chinese officials blamed the US for the conflict and state media echoed its pro-Moscow narrative, while excluding reports of Ukrainian suffering. It is clear where the Chinese government’s sympathies lie.
The Chinese Communist Party has never hidden its hostility to the liberal values that underpin the US-led world order, though that antipathy has acquired increased openness and confidence under Xi. For Europe, witnessing the largest military conflict on its soil since the end of World War II, China’s de facto support for Russian aggression gave a new level of reality to that clash of values. Perhaps the most striking expression of the shift in consciousness that this produced came from EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell who, in a speech after April’s EU-China Summit, called it a “dialogue of the deaf.”
The 75-year-old former Spanish foreign minister said: “China wanted to set aside our difference on Ukraine — they did not want to talk about Ukraine. They did not want to talk about human rights, and other issues, and instead focus on the positive things. The European side made clear that this ‘compartmentalization’ is not feasible, not acceptable. For us, the war in Ukraine is a defining moment for whether we live in a world governed by rules or by force. That is the question.”
“We condemn the Russian aggression against Ukraine and support this country’s sovereignty and democracy — not because we ‘follow the US blindly,’ as sometimes China suggests, but because it is our own position, our genuine position, we believe in that. This was an important message for the Chinese leadership to hear,” he said.
Compare that impassioned statement of European principle with the comments of French President Emmanuel Macron after his meeting with Xi at the G20 gathering in Bali, Indonesia, last month. Macron said he was convinced China could play “a more important mediating role” in Ukraine in the coming months.
At the subsequent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Thailand, he called for engagement with Beijing, and urged Europe to take a middle path between the “two big elephants” of the US and China.
That would have given satisfaction to Xi, who also met Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in Bali. China has concentrated efforts on driving a wedge between Europe and the US, and tensions over Washington’s green energy incentives and semiconductor restrictions have given it an economic opening.
Macron intends to visit Beijing next year, following in the steps of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who took a delegation of top business executives to the Chinese capital early last month.
All this sits uneasily with those who see China’s position on Ukraine as fundamentally altering the security equation for Europe. Chinese officials, including Xi, have expressed periodic disquiet over the course of the war, but have never relinquished their pro-Russian stance.
Days before traveling to Beijing, Scholz’s government agreed to sell a stake in a Hamburg port terminal to China’s state-owned Cosco Shipping Holdings Co — a decision that put Germany’s leader at odds with his economy, foreign affairs, finance, transport and defense ministers, as well as the country’s security services.
Early this month, Scholz penned a 5,000-word article in Foreign Affairs that said the world is facing a Zeitenwende, or an epochal tectonic shift, as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The piece denounced Putin’s aggression and defiance of the principles of the UN Charter, and contained some stirring affirmations of democratic values in the face of authoritarian challenges.
Scholz devoted a section to China, saying its growing power does not justify claims to hegemony in Asia, and criticizing the country’s turn away from openness.
However, he wrote, China’s rise does not warrant isolating Beijing or curbing cooperation. Not a single sentence in this long essay places China and Russia together, or addresses Beijing’s stance on Ukraine. This looks a lot like the compartmentalization that was unacceptable to Borrell in April.
The EU and China have a US$700 billion trade relationship. Such a vast economic entanglement makes it necessary to talk and cooperate, where possible.
However, the tone of some European leaders hints at a view of Beijing that is looking distinctly outmoded: A regime that, nominally, is an ideological rival, but one that can be kept onside and coaxed through trade and investment links.
It is reminiscent of how Germany once viewed Putin’s Russia. We know how that worked out. There would be no excuses for repeating the mistake.
Matthew Brooker is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering finance and politics in Asia. A former editor and bureau chief for Bloomberg News and deputy business editor for the South China Morning Post, he is a CFA charterholder. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
Small and medium enterprises make up the backbone of Taiwan’s economy, yet large corporations such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) play a crucial role in shaping its industrial structure, economic development and global standing. The company reported a record net profit of NT$374.68 billion (US$11.41 billion) for the fourth quarter last year, a 57 percent year-on-year increase, with revenue reaching NT$868.46 billion, a 39 percent increase. Taiwan’s GDP last year was about NT$24.62 trillion, according to the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, meaning TSMC’s quarterly revenue alone accounted for about 3.5 percent of Taiwan’s GDP last year, with the company’s
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
RSS