After five years, Xi made his first visit to Europe, marking a significant diplomatic engagement between China and the European nations. However, recent discussions have suggested that the visit may exacerbate divisions within Europe. Ravi Agrawal, the editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy, wrote that China aims to ‘divide and conquer’ Europe. The Brookings Institution posted a commentary saying that Xi’s visit exposes fault lines in European unity. DW News of Germany asked ‘Why European leaders are divided over the Chinese president’s visit’?
Putin visited China on May 16th. Europe faced divisions again on issues related to the Ukraine War: How should the relationships between Russia and China be evaluated? To what extent did the ‘normal’ trade between the two countries contribute to Russia’s war efforts? Is it reasonable to sanction certain Chinese companies involved in these trades? How should China’s peace plan be reacted to?
China Needs A Unified Europe
Well, Europe is already quite divided. Why does the CPC bother to deepen these divisions further if it wants to? After all, China didn’t invent the terms “New Europe” or “Old Europe”. Twenty years ago, it was Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense of the USA at that time, who brought them into public opinion.
European nations quarreled over burden-sharing, border controls, and asylum policies in the migration crisis. China had nothing to do with the crisis in any way.
Poland fought with the European Commission over judicial reforms. Indeed, China has always emphasized the importance of national sovereignty on the international stage, but it never specifically instigated Polish politicians against the EU. In fact, China has repeatedly expressed its support for the European integration process.
Why? Is it merely diplomatic language? Theoretically, nations in a divided Europe could be influenced, manipulated, and coerced, but I’m afraid that China could not benefit from it at all.
At least since World War Two, the United States has had deep roots in Europe. If Europe is divided, the US would become the only entity capable of effectively manipulating European nations due to its overwhelming influence on media, scholars, think tanks, advisers, and politicians. Even if China attempted to employ a similar approach, the US would easily thwart China’s efforts in most European countries.
It seems that Putin’s Russia has somewhat found another approach to garner appreciation from so-called right-wing parties in Europe. However, this approach is defensive in nature. While America’s influence can be balanced in one or two election cycles, the issue cannot be fundamentally resolved. Furthermore, China lacks the resources to do so.
How about a more unified Europe? I optimistically presume that the sense of independence and autonomy in Europe will awaken further. The conflicts between the United States and Europe will become more apparent, and European countries will possess stronger willing and capabilities to resist the US interference and make more decisions independently.
When some people hype up the ‘China threat theory,’ they may talk about kowtowing to China, but that will never happen. Europe will continue to say ‘no’ to China on many issues. However, for China, a more independent Europe will offer a relatively fairer competitive environment than a divided Europe where the United States can manipulate almost freely.
Can the Ukraine War Help Europe to Unify?
There is no doubt that Putin’s visit to China has further solidified Sino-Russian bilateral relations and introduced a series of new cooperation initiatives. However, Xi Jinping’s warm reception of Putin should not be seen as a “threat” that will further tilt the scales of war in Russia’s favor, but rather as a demonstration of the proactive role that sovereign states can play on the international stage.
For Europeans, this is an opportunity for further reflection. Why has Europe lost the space for cooperation with Russia? Why has Europe lost access to cheap energy? It is right for Europe to accept large numbers of Ukrainian refugees and provide substantial aid for humanity, but all of the tragedies could have been avoided.
Putin initiated the ‘special military operation’, but was the continuous provocation represented by NATO’s eastward expansion truly in Europe’s best interest? Europe’s support for NATO’s eastward expansion has just assisted the United States in increasing pressure on Russia, weakening its own strategic buffer instead. Looking at it from the standpoint of observers, merely betraying the promises made after the end of the Cold War, is sufficient to inflict significant moral damage upon Europeans.
As a leader of a major European power, Macron has a vision and awareness of strategic autonomy, but he also has to navigate relations with politicians widely considered pro-American, such as Ursula von der Leyen. Meanwhile, Serbia and Hungary, though relatively smaller countries, occupy unique political niches within Europe.
Xi Jinping’s choice to visit these three countries undoubtedly takes into account their autonomy, which forms the basis for meaningful dialogue. However, China’s expectation is not to highlight their differences from other European countries to “divide” Europe. Instead, the long-term goal is for more European countries to align themselves with the autonomy demonstrated by these three countries.
Russia has also repeatedly emphasized this point to Europe, often praising China, India, and even Brazil or Indonesia for having more sovereignty than Europe. If Russia is not concerned that a more independent and autonomous Europe would be detrimental to its interests, then China has even less reason to worry.
