What the China-EU ties say about the US-EU alliance
In Western countries in general and the United States in particular, China is increasingly portrayed as a voracious and irrepressible geopolitical giant that is stifling the development of the rest of the world, undermining the developed world’s technological security, and endangering the Western ideal of democracy. To any careful observer, the outraged reactions of the U.S. and G7 countries to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Memorandum of Understanding signed in March 2019 between China and Italy, along with Germany’s newly published Strategy on China, or France’s contradictory statements regarding the EU’s strategic autonomy, are all indicative of Washington’s growing fear of China’s global ambitions.
In line with these facts, the US administration is pushing the EU to adopt a united front on China, that is, to impede any strategic bilateral relations between China and EU member states. Indeed, whether in the political, economic or “national security” field, the EU has been experiencing increasing pressure from its U.S. ally to thwart the challenges posed by China’s development in order to contain the so-called “Chinese threat” and, thereby, consolidate the United States’ global leadership. In this process, while Italy and Germany seem to be the EU’s weak links, France on the other hand seems to be the dissident voice – at least in appearance.
Italy’s date with history
Since the inception of China’s BRI, Washington has been quite vocal on the issue, calling it, among other things, “China’s debt-trap diplomacy”, in an attempt to prevent its allies from joining the BRI project. Washington’s main concern is to ensure that Italy, which enjoys a strategic geographic position on the Mediterranean, making it both a trade hub with access to Central and Eastern Europe and NATO’s southern flank, does not escape its control by joining China’s global geopolitical architecture. It is worth mentioning that China’s BRI also enshrines the weakening of international financial institutions such as the IMF, and thus the reduction of developing countries’ indebtedness towards the US-led financial institutions (hence the implementation by the EU of the Global Gateway geopolitical project, aimed at countering China’s BRI challenge).
As a traditional U.S. ally, the European Union is expected to push its fellow member state, Italy, to backpedal and remain under the Western bloc’s control. Yet despite dozens of allegations in the media ahead of the G7 Hiroshima Summit 2023 that Italy should withdraw or has already withdrawn from China’s BRI, Italy has gone silent on the issue – which seems to reflect that the embarrassed Meloni government, anxious to avoid retaliations from both China and the U.S., was granted a prolonged delay from Washington prior to announcing its final decision on whether to remain part of the BRI. It goes without saying that keeping China in the dark about Italy’s decision is part of Washington’s pressure strategy on China.
Despite PM Meloni’s claims that The president of the United States has never directly raised the BRI question with her, the U.S.’ pressure on the Italian government, as confirmed by a variety of sources, has been so intense that the Italian PM ended up saying that maintaining good ties with China doesn’t necessarily mean being part of the BRI – thereby bowing, so far only verbally, to the U.S.’ China “de-risking strategy”. Interestingly, PM Meloni has decided to submit the China-Italy BRI issue to the Italian Parliament, in what seems to be an attempt to clear herself of any responsibility in the event of harsh future judgment of history. Moreover, instead of following in the footsteps of her German and French counterparts and paying a visit to Beijing (as was expected prior to the G7 Hiroshima Summit), PM Meloni will meet Joe Biden in Washington in order to address, among other topics, the China BRI issue.
At the same time, to convince the Italian government to pull out of the BRI – and increase the pressure on China –, the US-dominated mainstream media is calling, in what appears to be a global public campaign, for the establishment of a “values-based economic NATO”, that is, a coordinated economic assistance to Italy by its allies in case of China’s economic retaliation. In the meantime, following the example of ex-PM Mario Draghi, the Meloni government has used the Golden Power regime to limit Chinese influence on what it considers to be Italy’s strategic sectors.
The unaffordable cost of Germany’s security
Likewise, since the formation of the Scholz coalition in December 2021, the differences have become subtle between Washington’s and Berlin’s lexicon, if not approach, towards China’s geopolitical expansion:
– China is an autocratic state that is jeopardizing Western democratic values
– The Chinese risk must be confronted through a collective de-risking strategy
– China’s technological advances are endangering EU member states’ National security
– By seeking to establish a new global order, China is threating the rules-based order
Despite being the industrial heart of the European Union and one of the world’s main export-reliant economies with China being a critical market for its investments and goods, Germany hasn’t escaped the pressure from its American “security umbrella”. As a result, after being cut off from Russia’s low-cost energy and after the blow to the country’s economy by the green technology subsidies under the US Inflation Reduction Act, not to mention the sabotage of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline or the cancelling of the Bolivia-Germany lithium agreement during the 2019 coup against Morales, Berlin has published a “Strategy on China” paper that is in line with Washington’s approach to the so-called Chinese threat. Furthermore, in a blatant showdown towards the Asian nation, the document was published after the 7th Sino-German intergovernmental consultations that were held in Berlin in June. “Our Strategy on China is firmly rooted in the common policy on China of the EU”, says the document, in an attempt to jeopardize, at least in word (which is in the interest of the US ambiguous policy towards China), the country’s bilateral relations with Beijing.
What lies behind France’s “Strategic autonomy” approach?
France’s position on China bears more nuances. The EU’s “strategic autonomy” approach, as expressed by President Macron during his Beijing visit last April, has widely been perceived as a dissident European voice on the EU’s strategic alliance with the U.S. in relation to the Taiwan Strait. Indeed, while Germany seems to be adopting Washington’s hard line on the Taiwan issue, France took a stand for the status-quo.
While this French posture, enhanced by the country’s refusal to open a NATO liaison office in Japan, may reflect disagreements in the French corridors of power over the US’ China containment strategy, it can also be seen as Washington’s negotiation tool with Beijing. This is evidenced by President Macron’s recent interview with CNN, where he clearly says: I discussed with President Biden before and after my trip [to China], and I can say that you have a President who is not pushing for an increase of conflictuality [with China]. So far, the facts on the ground have of course contradicted France’s president’s statements.
Similarly, France’s indignant reactions after the (short-lived) appointment of Fiona Scott Morton, of US nationality, as the head of the European Union’s Competition Authority are not convincing given the pro-US European Union’s policies at all levels, and should rather be seen as both a US threat and negotiation tool towards Beijing.
Impact of the Russia-China partnership on the EU
Beyond distancing Europe from China (and Russia, which is already the case), Washington’s aim is to break up the strategic partnership between China and Russia, perceived as an enhancer of the Chinese threat. Back in March 2022, former president Donald Trump admitted in a playful way that the best solution would be to bomb Russia using American F22s flanked with Chinese flags, and then we say, China did it, and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch, he joked. In the same line, the U.S.’ call on China to pressure Russia in the ongoing Ukraine conflict is perceived by Beijing as tantamount to asking China to help the US-led Western bloc maintain its global hegemony – a demand to which China will obviously keep issuing a flat refusal.
As was witnessed since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, Washington’s pressure on Beijing has produced the opposite of the desired effect, and there’s every reason to believe that the China-Russia partnership will keep strengthening as the tensions keep growing between the U.S. and its Asian rival – making the EU even more excluded than it already is from the global multipolar order underway. Thus, it may well be a historic mistake of EU leaders to believe that they can restore the golden age of US-led Western hegemony by breaking the Russia-China Eurasian partnership that stands in their way as an obstacle.
Europe at a crossroads
Washington’s vindictive behavior brings a variety of challenges to European states. With the growing expansion of emergent economies on a world scale, first and foremost China, the United States is losing both influence and attractivity, so much so that it is fearing the “loss” of its European satellite states to confront the Asian nation.
The time may have come for EU member states to ask themselves a question without taboo: To what extent is the United States’ “security umbrella” paralyzing their ability to remain a global economic pole? And how to address the issue? Because it turns out that the victim of Washington’s China containment strategy is not China itself, but rather the EU.
Even if Italy eventually decides to pull out, it would be a pity but it’s not a big deal for the whole BRI program, which has connected many countries worldwide, Cui Hongjian, Director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies, has pointed out. Indeed, whatever the outcomes of Italy’s decision, Germany’s masochism or France’s double play, they will hardly change the course of history.
The global march towards a multipolar order, rather than the regeneration of the US-based order, is welcomed in most parts of the world, and demonstrates at the very least the urgent need to take into account developing countries in the new framework of global cooperation.