Four foreign ministers visited the southern Chinese city of Guiyang the other day: three from Eastern Europe (Serbia, Poland, Hungary) and one from extreme western Europe (Ireland)
To this we can add the recent trip of China’s chief diplomat, Yang Jiechi, to Slovenia and Croatia. Taken together, this is a demonstration that there is not, and will not soon be, any unified European idea of what China is for Europe: a salvation and a chance for the future or a dire threat.
Beijing’s official diplomacy, of course, is relentless in saying that there is no policy to split Europe; China is cooperating with those who want it. Well, if they say so, then they really are not splitting. And why would they do that if Europeans themselves are deeply divided?
The diplomatic marathon in Guiyang is, no doubt, the response of some Europeans to the madness of others. A key point in the story is the vote in the European Parliament in mid-May to postpone indefinitely the ratification of the EU-PRC Comprehensive Agreement on Investment.
The story is instructive. The fact is that Europe is sitting under Chinese sanctions. Not all of them, but represented by its especially brazen representatives, who have neatly created a phantom of “Beijing’s repression of the Uighur population of Xinjiang” out of thin air. The Chinese love a blatant lie (that is when they lie by looking you in the eye) no more than the Russians and other nations, so they sanctioned a group of such human rights personalities. The European Parliament, on the other hand, is still populated by many MPs who believe that sanctions can only be imposed by members of the West against all others, hence their decision. The formula is: first China lifts its sanctions, then we talk about investment.
This was followed by another action of the same series. China has long collaborated with two European bodies, i.e. both the EU and the organisation of its cooperation with Central and Eastern Europe, known as “17+1”. As a matter of fact, the meetings in Guiyang proved that the European Parliament and the EU in general can say whatever they want, but the 17+1 mechanism will live its life, despite the attempts to undermine it or at least reduce these same ’17’.
Such attempts are, first of all, the outburst of the Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Gabrielius Vytautasovich Landsbergis, who declared that his country is withdrawing from “17+1” and advises others to do the same. It was, understandably, after the vote in the European Parliament. Or, if you like, in sync with it.
If Europe were one living organism, its diagnosis would be: serial suicide. There is something inside that organism that does not miss a single chance to hurt its own economy. Not only in the US, but also in Europe, there are persistent attempts to stop Nord Stream 2 by depriving it of cheap and stable gas that makes European products more competitive. The economic consequences of another blockade of Belarus may be similar. The same reflexes appear as regards integration with China, probably the world’s main economy today.
But the diagnosis is more difficult, because our suicide bomber is also suffering from split – or even split personality disorder. And the reality is that this is no single entity, but a struggle of multiple forces, some of which are really doing their best to ensure that no one gets out of the current situation, especially given the European coronavirus pogrom. Beijing commentators state that they are dealing with a seriously divided system that just needs patience.
The price tag here is this: last December, a global event occurred when China became the EU’s first trading partner, pushing back the US. We are talking about a trade volume of one billion euros a day. Obviously, the U.S. reaction to this situation is the same as in the case of Nord Stream: to regain leadership and nail Europeans to the ground by making them dependent on it. But that is America. But who are those people inside Europe who have no problem promoting solutions which are economically disadvantageous to themselves and their neighbours?
Interestingly, the very same investment agreement that was signed last December and blocked in May was seen by many as a model of Beijing’s excessive concessionality. China has given up a lot of ground. For example, the Europeans had pushed for their investment in China to go into electric car manufacturing and telecommunications, and ended up getting this. They wanted Beijing to remove preferences for its state-owned companies in joint projects, and this happened. They were upset that the Chinese were mandating technology transfer (i.e. disclosure of production secrets to local technicians) – well, the text of the agreement now allows them not to disclose anything.
And it is clear that the agreement, in general, is more of a demonstration nature. Every European country can do without it when it signs bilateral documents with China. And invest and accept investments. Which is what is happening, although it is clear that bargaining alone with the giant is not as profitable. All in all, as the saying goes, you want to hurt yourself, block the investment agreement.
And this is especially true given that time is working precisely for China. The EU has been extorting conditions from Beijing for seven years. In that time it is not just China that has become different – the situation in the world economy as a whole is now different. Seven years ago, the Europeans hoped to create a common legal framework for a scheme in which China would continue to serve as the “workshop of the world”, a production base based on Western technology.
But now things have taken a one hundred and eighty-degree turn. Today, it makes sense to talk, on the contrary, about the benefits of an innovative alliance for Europeans with a country that has pushed the U.S. from its position as the world’s technological leader. If you want the latest news on the subject, here is a speech just made by the Chinese leader Xi Jinping at a joint meeting of members of two academies of sciences and other innovators. The tasks for the nearest future are set: to turn China into a global centre of technological talents, to ensure full independence in the key areas of progress and many others. So China will definitely survive without Europe, but China, on the other hand, will not.
Dmitry Kosyrev, RIA