The view from Europe
As Europe finds itself caught between rising US-China tensions, the China Research Group convened a panel of EU-China experts to take a closer look at the future of the relationship.
Dr Janka Oertel (Director of the Asia Programme at the ECFR), Pavel Fischer (Czech senator) and Dr Johann Wadephul (Deputy Chair of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group) joined the CRG for a discussion on EU-China relations, chaired by Tom Tugendhat MP.
A summary of key comments follows.
Europe’s position
Each speaker opened with a short opening statement of their views. Pavel Fischer highlighted deteriorating relations with two examples from 2020: Prague’s detwinning from Beijing and the diplomatic stand-off in the Czech Senate over official visits to Taiwan and the confrontational nature of China’s wolf warrior diplomacy in the Czech Republic.
Dr Wadephul set out Germany’s changing views on China as a partner, economic competitor and systemic rival. The third thing is a new development, Dr Wadephul noted, later adding “if you would have asked me five, six or seven years earlier, the answer would have been different.” He explained what has changed with the ‘rivalry’, citing China trying “to create a Sino-Centric world order” and to systematically weaken democracy - and that the answer must always for democratic countries to work closely together.
Dr Janka Oertel added that things have “changed across the board” in Europe, with a growing degree of scepticism and realism throughout the coronavirus crisis. “We are not witnessing perfect unity” throughout Europe, but what we do see is “wide agreement on the assessment of the challenge that China poses to future prosperity and the way of life of the European Union”.
Dr Oertel set out Europe’s key priorities as levelling the playing field when it comes to competition, being able to set global standards, and addressing China’s challenge on human rights and weaponising its economy. She argued that the emphasis should be on finding realistic areas of engagement, given the “partnership box” of Europe’s relationship with China remains undefined. “The default option is climate change, but it is also an area of competition for technology standards, markets and influence.” Dr Oertel concluded that “if we take the Biden factor and the corona factor together, we may have a new China policy in Europe.”
All emphasised the importance of unity: Mr Fischer cited the example of German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas responding in solidarity with Czech politicians in response to Wang Yi’s pressure over the Senate visit to Taiwan. “This is not about Europe and China, this is about democracies, free societies and the Chinese Communist Party.”
17 + 1
“We have to clean up old stereotypes that Eastern Europeans have been bought off by the 17+1 initiative”, Oertel said. Dr Wadephul agreed: “The 17+1 format is not helpful.” He added later that Germany seeks to fully coordinate its China policies with the European Commission and that he “cannot accept that we allow China to divide Europe.”
“17+1 is a strange format,” Mr Fischer added, and that there seem to be two options: to leave the format or “Eureopeanise the agenda of 17+1”. But he added that the second option did not seem to be bearing fruit, so his preferred option would be to leave the format behind. “It serves more Beijing and Chinese interests than it serves the West.”
Investment and screening
Dr Wadephul said “we must clearly label our red lines”, but highlighted the strong desire to conclude negotiations to the EU-China investment agreement. Dr Oertel added that a mapping exercise of understanding sectoral vulnerabilities in the economy is an important component of any investment screening mechanism. Mr Fischer added that there would be a proposal in the Czech Senate for a screening mechanism “very soon”.
Germany’s position on 5G
Dr Wadephul said the German Bundestag will come to legislation in the “next weeks” which give provide a “strong and clear answer fully aligned with the European approach.” He added, “nobody in Germany wants to become dependent on technologies from China, especially from Huawei.”
Understanding China’s coronavirus strategy
In response to a question on China’s “coronavirus strategy” from Julian Lewis MP, Dr Oertel characterised China’s behaviour around coronavirus as “opportunistic gains”, citing China-India border activity and the South China Sea. She argued that what we can see is China’s perception of its own strength and leadership, particularly visible in its policies towards Hong Kong and Taiwan.
On China’s claims that authoritarian model of governance is superior, Dr Wadephul said it was important to reiterate that democracies such as South Korea and Taiwan have also been as successful and as effective in tackling the pandemic.
US election and multilateralism
Dr Wadephul set out a clear line of demarcation over decoupling, saying “we, as Europeans, do not want any form of decoupling from the Chinese economy. This may be different to the United States. We believe we should, on the contrary, jointly motivate China to respect international rules so there can be trade and sustainability worldwide.”
He added that he believes Biden sees that working together with Europe will strengthen America, and “the difference I expect from the new administration is that they believe in a multilateral order.” And he concluded by saying it represented an opportunity for a new “reliable multilateral network” - whereas China is unable to create a balanced partnership with equals, which represents the greatest opportunity for democratic states in the next four to five years.