Chethana Janith, Jadetimes Staff
C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter covering science and geopolitics.
The relationship between China and a number of European countries and transnational organizations has witnessed a number of remarkable developments in recent months, once again testifying to the complex and contradictory nature of these relations.
To begin, it is again impossible to avoid at least pointing out that the very concepts of “Europe” and “Europeans” have little meaning when discussing the large-scale processes that are taking place on the global stage today. There is a “great mystery” in the fact that the politicians entrenched in Brussels, who are far from the most important political figures and in many cases not from the leading European countries, are trying to dictate norms of behavior to the entire continent.
But this does not mean that the voices of individual countries on the continent cannot be not heard in the political white noise that Europe generates in the foreign policy arena. On the contrary, they are quite distinguishable, and increasingly, each country’s voice is highly individual. This is especially evident in Europe’s evolving political course in relation to the number two world power. Beijing therefore is having to analyze the signals coming from Brussels as well as from individual European capitals.
The issues of tariff increases on PRC exports and the “green shift”
Nevertheless, it is the EU bodies that are the main source of almost all the negative trends in Sino-European relations. It is them that Beijing is pointing at when it accuses Europe of “blindly following Washington’s lead” in its global-anti-China policy course. By this we mean primarily (there are other instances, as we shall see below) the introduction in September of this year by Brussels of new tariff regulations, which will now be imposed on certain imported goods.
Mostly these are products used in the so-called “green shift”, including electric cars, solar panels etc. As part of this trend, China has developed gigantic production capacities in anticipation of no less gigantic revenues from the sale of these goods in what appears to be the most promising (i.e. the richest) markets. Which are primarily the United States and Europe. All of a sudden, barriers to the import of the “green” goods par excellence from the PRC have been erected in all those markets.
Very much like an ambush. Moreover, this feeling is reinforced by the strangeness, to put it mildly, of the concept of the “green shift”. It is based on a completely speculative (i.e., not supported by any evidence) postulate about the impact of certain aspects of human activity on the now genuinely alarming climate crisis.
The role of the “greenhouse” effect, caused by the increasing levels of certain gases in the upper atmosphere, was first discussed in the late 1990s. Then it was seen as necessary to rein in the German chemical industry, so the issue of the emission of “greenhouse” gases, specifically freons (widely used, for example, in refrigerators) was raised. Today, the whole thermal power industry with its emissions of greenhouse gases caused by hydrocarbon combustion and thus also internal combustion engines (hence the relevance of electric cars) and even industrial cattle farming are “under attack”.
However, the EU denies that the American factor influenced the latest restrictive measures, insisting that they are solely related to its own problems, the main source of which is considered to be the trend towards Chinese “shopping sprees” in Europe, which may result in the loss of control of a number of key manufacturing industries, especially in the high-technology sector.
All of these and other related aspects of Sino-European relations have been the subject of almost continuous negotiations between the two sides in recent years.
European participation in US military demonstrations in the Indo-Pacific region
Beijing has much more reason to accuse the Europeans of “blindly following Washington‘s lead” when it comes to defense policy. Especially after the NATO summit held in Washington in early July, one of the main outcomes of which was the decision to extend the organization’s zone of influence to the Indo-Pacific region.
And even while the final documents of the NATO summit were being prepared, groups of warships from Germany (in May this year) and Italy (a month later) went on a long tour of the waters of the Indo-Pacific region, in which they took part in a number of military demonstrations alongside their allies and closest partners. One can only guess what it cost the budgets of both countries, whose economies are going through, to put it mildly, difficult times, to mount such military exercises on the far side of the globe. This was especially true for Italy, whose ships were led by the Cavour, the flagship aircraft carrier of the Italian Air Force.
But the most interesting thing about these military demonstrations by Italy and Germany was not so much the financial costs as another unexpected problem, namely how the two fleets, which finished their tours in the Japanese ports of Yokosuka and Tokyo, would get home again. The German ships found themselves faced with the prospect of a passage through the Strait of Taiwan. Only after months of vacillation between different points of view did Berlin finally grant approval for the passage. Which took place on September 12th, accompanied by understandable commentary in the PRC.
There are varying views on the international legal status of the Strait of Taiwan. But one thing is certain: the event was an open show of defiance towards Beijing, where German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had met twice with senior Chinese leaders in less than two years, most recently just five months before the German fleet passed through the Strait. Is the German Chancellor really running his own government?
Europeans and the Taiwan Problem
Again, we note the particularly defiant stance of the Brussels-based Eurocrats and the completely unaccountable “elected representatives” of the member states in the European Parliament. For example, in connection with the so-called “problem of interpretation” of United Nations Resolution 2758, adopted in October 1971, on September 13 this year the Dutch Parliament passed its own resolution interpreting the UN Resolution in a manner that is highly favorable to the current Taiwanese authorities.
While at the governmental level, almost all European countries avoid quite unnecessary “adventures” in their relations with the number two world power in connection with this extremely painful problem. There are, however, exceptions in the form of some of the “new” Europeans, especially the Baltic rabble. But in this case we can see a well-known effect at work: in a pack of dogs, the smallest individuals are the ones who bark most often and loudest, whatever the occasion.
US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, who is particularly vocal in relation to the Taiwan problem, recently threw Lithuania a “bone from the master’s table”, and it was caught by Gabrielius Landsbergis (apparently on the fly and wagging his tail). This grandson of a perestroika-era activist is now Lithuania’s Foreign Minister.
However, even among the more established members of this “pack” there are noticeable variations in attitudes to everything related to Taiwan. The Taiwanese themselves are increasingly active in Europe. It is likely that the news of Taiwanese carrier Cathay Pacific’s plans to purchase “at least 30” planes from the (in effect, Franco-German) Airbus Group for an impressive amount of over $11 billion was greeted positively here.
It is also almost certain that Berlin’s eventual decision to approve the passage through the Strait of Taiwan was greatly aided by the announcement of the start of construction near Dresden of a chip plant by the ‘global leader’ in this field Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. If TSMC had decided to build its plant, say, near Milan, then it is likely that the Cavour would have passed through the Taiwan Strait. For now, as they say, there is no reason for this gesture.
European politicians continue with their “pilgrimages” to China
In connection with this latter trend, we should mention that in late July Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni paid a very fruitful visit to China. At a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, she made significant remarks about Italy’s disagreement with Washington’s course of decoupling from Beijing and its attempts to exclude the latter from international supply chains. She also made it clear that Italy was committed to the “one-China principle”.
In general, the results of this trip testify to the significant pragmatism in the relations between the PRC of one of the leading European countries. The “special character” of Italy’s relations with the PRC was confirmed a month and a half later, when the president of the Italian Automobile Manufacturers Association Roberto Vavassori visited China and held talks with Wang Wentao, the Chinese Minister of Commerce, on the sensitive issue of the new EU tariffs, referred to above. After that meeting Wang Wentao himself traveled to Europe to discuss these issues.
As for other high-ranking European statesmen, the Norwegian and Spanish Prime Ministers made “pilgrimages” to China in September of this year. The visits of both were praised by the Global Times as evidence of the Europeans’ desire to “stabilize” relations with the PRC. And, in the author’s opinion, China’s leading newspaper has good reason for this assessment.
In general, though, the relations of most European countries with the number two world power continue to remain zigzag-shaped.
