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.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS