Since Biden took office as president, he has swept away the general impression of his pro-China stance. He not only maintained the China policy of the Trump administration but also emphasized the need to unite with allies to fight against China. Perhaps it is difficult to refuse the incentives of the Chinese market, but it is more in line with the interests of the European Union to use American power to make the Chinese government and enterprises abide by free trade regulations. The era of a joined force between the U.S. and Europe against China has dawned.

Biden’s starting approach is his speech at the Munich Security Conference on February 19, where he called on Eurasian allies to prepare for a long-term strategic competition with China, which will be severe. In contrast to Biden’s direct naming, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s attitude is much more moderate. She believes that although China is a systemic rival, its help is needed to solve global problems. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is concerned about COVID-19 and the reform of the multilateral trading system. Together with the pleasant conversation between French President Emmanuel Macron and Xi Jinping at the end of last year, it has raised doubts about the discrepancy between the U.S. and Europe.

For the EU, China is a business opportunity. After the pandemic, European companies need to advance to China and win commercial orders from the vast consumer market of 1.4 billion people. This is the background of the signing of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment at the end of last year. Under the pressure of the U.S.-China war on science and technology, China is more than ever in need of a partner in the EU, so it is willing to open up its own market, showing the strategic connotation behind the deepening of EU-China relations. Among the U.S., China, and the EU, either Washington or Beijing is unwilling to left alone. The two sides tried their best to win over the EU to gain leverage. In theory, the best strategy seems to be finding a way to go between the U.S. and China instead of choosing sides.

Restart the Dialogue Would Institutionalize the Force against China

However, if the EU turns a blind eye to China’s violations of economic order and human rights, the U.S. and Europe will encounter endless problems and frictions across the Atlantic. With this line of thought and the fact that China has surpassed the U.S. to become the largest trading partner of the EU, would the EU end up like the U.K., engaging in antagonism with China and ending up moving closer to the U.S. in a comprehensive way? We can still learn from the history to see whether the U.S. and Europe can join forces.

In 2003, the establishment of a “Comprehensive Strategic & Cooperative Partnership” between EU and China has entered is honeymoon phase. Beijing demanded that the EU lift the “arms embargo” against China. This is the joint sanction against China by EU and the U.S. after the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989, which had been regarded as a shame by Beijing. At that time, the German and French leaders wanted to use this to increase commercial orders, but it attracted serious concerns from Washington, not only the White House and the State Department, but even both chambers of Congress strongly opposed it.

For example, in February 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives, with an overwhelming result of 411 votes to 3, condemned the EU for considering lifting the arms embargo against China in a non-binding manner. Biden, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, strongly urged the EU to maintain the arms embargo and enhanced the code of conduct on arms exports, or else the U.S. congress would require the government to retaliate against the EU. In March of the same year, the Senate also unanimously passed a request for the EU to maintain the arms embargo against China.

The U.S.-China relations at the time were relatively friendly due to global war on terrorism by George W. Bush, but now, especially after the U.S.-China talks in Alaska where Yang Jiechi has sternly criticized the U.S. for not being qualified to make irresponsible remarks against China, it clearly shows a complete fallout of the U.S.-China conflicts. At this time, the U.S. would absolutely not allow the EU, which is militarily protected by the U.S., to further exploit the conflicts between the U.S. and China. However, the determining factor of the success of such a nalliance with the EU depends on whether the U.S. economic power is sufficient to support the U.S.-China conflicts.

Diplomatic measures are also a critical reason for the U.S. and Europe to join forces. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken went to Brussels to deliver a speech at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) within one week (24th) after the talks in Alaska, reiterating that China’s actions are threatening the collective security and prosperity of the West. He met with von der Leyen and the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, stating that the U.S. and Europe will initiate a mechanism of bilateral dialogue about China. In other words, the U.S. and Europe will jointly deal with China in an institutionalized manner.

However, both public and private sectors in Europe have seen a growing anti-China sentiment. Lu Shaye, the Chinese ambassador to France, sent a letter in February demanding French MP Alain Richard not to visit Taiwan and was condemned by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs for interfering with domestic affairs. On the other hand, the Chinese government and people’s crackdown on and refusal to purchase from companies supporting human rights issues in Xinjiang has provided a basis for public opinion for the U.S. and Europe to join forces in the fight against China. H&M, a well-known global clothing brand based in Sweden, announced on 24th of this month that it would no longer work with textile factors in Xinjiang or purchase raw materials and products from the area.

China has long deployed the strategy of “talking instead of fighting” and “winning by dividing” to respond to the pressure from Western democracies. The former is signing trade agreements without giving promises, while the latter is transferring commercial orders to divide opponents over profits and interests. The national strength and international image of China 16 years ago were totally different from those of today. Back in those days, Washington was able to prevent Brussels from further developing relations with Beijing, and today it can also ask European allies to stand with the U.S.

(Lin Tzu-Li, Assistant Professor, the Department of Political Science, Tunghai University.)

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play