OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier
European Union-China relations
https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0123
Editorial – Cátia Miriam Costa, Daniel Cardoso and Yichao Li – pp. 1-9
ARTICLES
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese Partnerships Boost Cooperation
Results? – Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li – pp. 10-43
Eu-China Relations: Exploring the Possibility of Cognitive Dissonance – Carlos Rodrigues
– pp. 44-60
Perspectives on The Suspension of the Eu-China Comprehensive Agreement on
Investment – Carmen Amado Mendes – pp. 61-79
It’s Not Venus, But Minerva: The European Quest for Relevance vis-à-vis the China
Challenge – Pablo A. Sánchez-Ródriguez – pp. 80-95
Ukraine Geopolitical European Flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China: From Ambivalence
to Strategic Engagement – Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi – pp. 96-116
OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023
1
EDITORIAL
EU RELATIONS WITH CHINA: SEEKING STRATEGIC AUTONOMY AMID
GROWING SUPERPOWERS COMPETITION | AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE
DANIEL CARDOSO
dcardoso@autonoma.pt
Assistant Professor at the Autónoma University of Lisbon (Portugal), where he coordinates the BA
program on International Relations. He is an Integrated researcher at the Portuguese Institute of
International Relations at the NOVA University of Lisbon (IPRI-NOVA) and an OBSERVARE-UAL
researcher.
CÁTIA MIRIAM COSTA
catia.miriam.costa@iscte-iul.pt
Researcher at the Centre for International Studies (ISCTE-IUL, Portugal) and invited professor at
the same university. She is also Director of the Global Iberoamerica Chair of the European
Institute of International Studies (Stockholm, Salamanca). She coordinates two international
Erasmus+ projects and is ISCTE’s alternate representative in UNESCO’s Academy programme.
She has numerous publications in English, Portuguese, Spanish, and French. Her main areas of
research are Chinese Foreign Policy, Macau, Sea and Globalisation, International Communication,
and Discourse Analysis. She was an advisor to the Secretary of State of Internationalization of
the Portuguese Republic until April 2022.
YICHAO LI
A18092105144@cityu.mo
Ph.D. from the Institute for Research on Portuguese-speaking Countries, City University of
Macau. She also received a master’s degree in comparative civil law (in Chinese) from the
University of Macau, and a Bachelor of Laws from Nanjing University of Information Science &
Technology, China. From 2021 to 2022, she has been a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for
International Studies (ISCTE-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal). Her current research interests are the Belt
and Road Initiative and Portuguese-speaking countries.
How to cite this editorial / Como citar este editorial
Cardoso, Daniel, Costa, Cátia Miriam, Li, Yichao (2022). Editorial. Janus.net, e-journal of
international relations. VOL14 N1, TD1 - Thematic dossier “European Union-China Relations”,
September 2023. Consulted [online] on date of last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-
7251.DT0123ED
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 1-9
Editorial
Daniel Cardoso, Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
2
EDITORIAL
1
DANIEL CARDOSO
CÁTIA MIRIAM COSTA
YICHAO LI
Since China lifted its anti-COVID 19 restrictions and reopened its doors to the world
towards the beginning of 2023, leaders of more than 20 countries and international
organizations have visited, issued joint statements and/or deepened partnerships with
the Asian country in the first half of the year. The most high-profile was French President
Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s joint visit.
The results of this joint visit to China are still to be seen, but two things are worth noting.
First, even though EU-Chinese relations — which Von der Leyen calls “one of the most
intricate and important anywhere in the world” (DW, 2023) — has experienced months
of tensions, it seems that there remains room for dialogue, and the Chinese government
welcomes the EU’s “positive desire to…grow relations” (MFA, 2023). Second, the EU is
clearly still calibrating its position vis-à-vis China, as evidenced by von der Leyen and
Macron’s somewhat differing positions: von der Leyen focused on the importance of de-
risking commercial relations with China and the need to tie economic prospects to
security considerations. Macron, on the other hand, while showing desires for continuing
a robust economic relationship with China, downplayed security concerns. On his return
from China, he further hinted that Europe should strive for strategic autonomy and
minimize its dependence on external actors. In particular, Europe must reduce its
dependency on the United States and at the same time avoid getting dragged into a
tussle between China and the U.S. over Taiwan (Anderlini and Caulcutt, 2023). A month
later, the French president reaffirmed this position by stating that “being allies does not
mean being a vassal […] doesn’t mean that we don’t have the right to think for ourselves”
(Ridgwell, 2023).
As differing as von der Leyen and Macron’s positions may be, they both point to
something integral to current EU strategic consideration — what role should the EU play
amidst a Sino-U.S. competition (i.e., a bipolar world) (Biscop, 2023)? It is in this context
1
We would like to convey our gratitude to the individual authors for their invaluable contribution, and to all
reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 1-9
Editorial
Daniel Cardoso, Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
3
that the idea of a European “strategic autonomy” gains traction. The idea itself is not
new. The debate emerged in the late 2010s after Macron called for a conscious “European
sovereignty”, before former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Europe should
take its destiny into its own hands, as it could no longer rely on protection from the U.S.
(European Parliament, 2021). By “strategic autonomy” or “European sovereignty”,
decision-makers refer to the capacity of the EU to act independently from other countries
in strategically essential policy areas, which can range from defence policies to economic
concerns and the capacity to uphold democratic values (European Parliament, 2022).
This rationale applies with respect to not only China but also the U.S. One of the lessons
that European authorities have drawn from the Trump administration is that American
domestic politics can strain bilateral relations with the EU. Between 2016 and 2020, it
became apparent that in a number of areas the U.S. was no longer a reliable partner —
trade, the environment, security, and health. Such dubious tendency of the U.S.
administration was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, as it assumed a solid
nationalistic and un-scientific position, departing from the World Health Organization
(WHO) and adopting an ambiguous stance regarding the role of vaccination. At the same
time, the pandemic also spotlighted the EU’s own over-reliance on medical supplies such
as masks and gowns produced in China (Bradsher and Alderman, 2020), therefore
accelerating the EU’s awakening of the need to become more autonomous.
Despite being impacted heavily by the pandemic, the EU remains an economic
powerhouse today: it continues to be the third-largest economy in the world and accounts
for one-sixth of global trade. However, despite having this economic might, it will require
a great deal of work on the European authorities’ part to achieve strategic autonomy vis-
à-vis China and the U.S. For China, the fact is that, after 20 years of strategic partnership,
European Union–China relations have grown into a multifaceted and complex
relationship. They are interdependent in various areas, especially in the economic sector.
In 2022, China was the third largest partner for EU exports (9%), and the most significant
partner for EU imports (20.8%) (Eurostat, 2023). The EU is also highly dependent on
China’s metals. Of the 30 raw materials classified by the EU as critical, 19 are
predominantly imported from China. These include magnesium, rare earth and bismuth,
of which China has a de facto monopoly (European Commission, 2020); these resources
are crucial to developing wind turbines, electric vehicles, solar cells and semiconductors,
and are fundamental to success in the energy transition and digitization drive (Wrede,
2022). Primarily (but not exclusively) in response to this situation, in March 2023, the
European Commission proposed a new Critical Raw Materials Act whose goal is to
diversify and enhance the resilience of EU critical raw material supply chains (European
Commission, 2023). While the details of the (implementation of the) act is still being laid
out, the proposal itself has already shown a concerted effort by the European countries
to respond to structural vulnerabilities.
Moreover, even though Chinese investments in Europe have been steadily declining since
2017, with a 77% drop between 2021 and 2016’s peak figures (Kratz et al., 2022), China
remains one of Europe’s largest investors. For instance, under the Belt and Road Initiative
(BRI), Chinese companies and authorities have invested significantly in ports and
railways, two of the most important investments being the Piraeus port in Greece and
the more recent port in Hamburg, Germany (Kijewski, 2022). On the back of this flow of
investments, the EU and China signed in 2020 a Comprehensive Agreement on
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 1-9
Editorial
Daniel Cardoso, Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
4
Investment (CAI) which aimed to overcome the hurdles in investment from the two sides.
However, the EU froze the ratification of the CAI on the grounds of human rights violations
in Xinjiang arising from China’s repression of the ethnic Uyghurs there (which the
international community accused the Chinese government of but the Chinese vehemently
denied), and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s crackdown on the dissident pan-
democracy camp in Hong Kong (Mathias, 2022). Once the EU had adopted the Global
Human Rights Sanctions Regime (GHRSR), a tool to “address serious human rights
violations and abuses worldwide”, it imposed several sanctions on Chinese officials. These
sanctions prompted the CCP to retaliate with sanctions on members of the European
Parliament (MEPs) (European External Action Service, 2021).
This shows that, despite strong economic ties, the two sides do not see eye to eye on
several political issues, namely, human rights, democratic rule, and the rule of law.
Moreover, China’s growing economic relevance under President Xi has given the country
the desire for a bigger say on international matters (Rudd, 2022), and the BRI is proof
of it. As one of the largest trade powers in the world, China expects to consolidate that
position. At the same time, China regards global governance institutions as having
disproportionally served European and American interests, and therefore makes no secret
of its intention to reform them. On this China is joined by other revisionist states such as
Russia, Brazil, India, and South Africa, who together created the BRICS forum in 2009 to
build alternative and/or complementary global governance structures to the post–Second
World War ones developed by the U.S. and Europe. Indeed, China has grown more
suspicious of Europe and the U.S. under Xi. In a recent speech (6 March 2023), Xi stated
that “Western countries headed by the United States have implemented containment
from all directions, encirclement and suppression against us, which has brought
unprecedented severe challenges to our country’s development” (Xinhua, 2023). This
followed U.S. President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address on 7 February 2023, in
which he posited that “winning the competition [against China] should unite all of us!”
(White House, 2023).
Even in strictly economic terms, it has been difficult to keep up relations; the EU, for
example, has been expressing concerns and even complaints about China’s state
subsidies, industrial policies, and lack of reciprocity in market access, particularly in
security-sensitive sectors. For this reason, in 2019 the EU put in place a Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) screening mechanism. While not exclusively directed at Chinese
companies, the significant growth of Chinese investment in Europe was one of the main
reasons to develop the instrument (Mathias, 2022). According to French President
Macron, this move also showed that the EU was not naïve regarding China and was
working towards building a “united front” against the Asian country (Gill, 2019).
In March 2019, the EU adopted a twofold definition of its relations with China —
comprising both competition and cooperation — in acknowledgment of the fact that there
were both strong economic relations as well as political tensions. This new definition
stemmed from a 2019 document entitled “EU-China Strategic Outlook: Commission and
HR/VP Contribution to the European Council”, in which China was presented in different
policy areas simultaneously as a cooperation partner (with whom the EU shares closely
aligned objectives), a negotiating partner (with whom the EU needs to find a balance of
interests), an economic competitor in the pursuit of technological leadership, as well as
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 1-9
Editorial
Daniel Cardoso, Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
5
a systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance (European Commission,
2019).
This stance is reinforced by another EU document in 2022 called “A Strategic Compass
for Security and Defence”, which aimed to improve the bloc’s common defence and
security policy by 2030. The document highlighted China as one of two critical actors of
concern after Russia (China was referenced nine times in the document, compared to 19
mentions of Russia), and while reiterating the EU’s multi-faceted approach towards
China, it presented China as a revisionist actor challenging the rules-based international
order, albeit shying away from adopting decisive language. The document also pointed
out that EU-China relations were souring, and that the trust gap between them was
widening. This mistrust grew particularly in 2020 and 2021 as a result of several events,
including the pandemic and ensuing disruptions in production and logistics chains, the
aforementioned situations in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. The more recent war in Ukraine
has exacerbated the rift: while China has publicly expressed its neutrality over the war,
it has also been strengthening relationships with Russia. In fact, even before the war, in
2021, Chinese politicians had embraced a new formula for cooperation with Russia, which
they characterized as having “no limit, no forbidden zone and no ceiling to how far [it
could] go” (Xinhua, 2021). In February 2022, the Joint Statement of the Russian
Federation and the People’s Republic of China on International Relations Entering a New
Era and Global Sustainable Development reaffirmed the no-limit friendship between the
two states, stating that the strengthening of their bilateral strategic cooperation was
neither “aimed against third countries nor affected by the changing international
environment and circumstantial changes in third countries” (Kremlin, 2022) thereby
serving to justify the maintenance of good relations between the two countries despite
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Nevertheless, despite tensions and evolving rhetoric, diplomatic relations between the
EU and China have seemed slightly more stable in recent months. Efforts have been
made from both sides to resume high-level exchanges. In late 2022, German Chancellor
Olaf Scholz visited Beijing, as did European Council President Charles Michel. China’s new
ambassador to the EU Fu Cong has also been busy with meeting key European
stakeholders in recent months (Houtari and Stec, 2023).
The recent years have therefore shown that the EU is still calibrating its China strategy.
While European authorities want to assume a more defensive yet assertive position
towards Beijing, they do not expect to compromise bilateral relations, nor to become
dependent on the U.S. What in fact will be prudent is to find a balance between
cooperation and confrontation, and to identify when and where China should be treated
as a partner, a rival, or as a threat. Portugal’s recent decision to exclude non-OECD, non-
EU and non-NATO companies from being involved in the development of its 5G network
(Almeida & Mayger, 2023), and Germany’s approval of a COSCO investment in one of its
largest ports are both signs of splintering within the EU, showing that individual EU
countries treat Chinese investment differently. What this also shows is that the definition
of what should be considered critical areas to be protected from Chinese investments is
still open for debate.
The next years will determine the future of EU-China relations. First, given the
interdependence between the two sides and significant world challenges ranging from
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 1-9
Editorial
Daniel Cardoso, Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
6
climate change to economic development and peace, it is unlikely that bilateral relations
will be driven exclusively by rivalry, even though a certain level of systematic rivalry will
remain. In addition, under the EU’s goal of achieving more strategic autonomy vis-à-vis
the world and China’s intention to focus on domestic development and innovation, it is
unlikely that economic and political relations between the two sides will be nearly as
productive as they had been until 2019. Nevertheless, how it will all impact globalization,
multilateralism and global governance remains to be seen.
This special issue is a result of the challenging times that we live in and the possibility of
a transformation of the global order, in which the EU and China will both play determinant
roles. The researchers participating in this special issue reflect on the topics mentioned
above and problematize the impact of this conjuncture on the present and future of EU-
China relations.
The inception of this special issue was the 6th edition of the International Conference
“Europe as a Global Actor”, hosted by ISCTE-IUL and OBSERVARE-UAL in May 2022,
particularly its Panel 2 — The EU and China, but we also extended our invitation to
scholars and experts from other countries and regions in the world. Therefore, as an
international special issue, the present volume consists of five articles, offering valuable
insights on China-EU relations from multiple perspectives. Since the beginning of the 21st
century, China has gradually begun to establish different types of partnerships with the
EU as a whole and with individual European countries to strengthen bilateral relations
and promote cooperation in various fields (on the premise of the one-China policy);
indeed, the year 2023 marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the
comprehensive strategic partnership between the EU and China. As of 2022, among the
27 EU countries, 19 have established different types of partnerships with China, and 18
have signed MoUs with China under the BRI.
The first article in this special issue was written by Cátia Miriam Costa and Yichao Li,
who were inspired by the interesting observation that seven of the eight countries
(Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta, Luxembourg, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) that have not yet
established partnerships with China have however signed BRI MoUs, while some
countries that have long established partnerships with China (and have even
deepened/strengthened those partnerships) have not signed BRI MoUs for the time being
(e.g., Germany, France). Based on different types of Chinese partnerships, the authors
divided all EU member states into four groups. They gather data on the outcome of the
cooperations on trade and investment between China and EU member states, and find
that there is no immediate positive impact or definite correlation between the type of
partnership and trade in goods, the total value of trade in services and FDI. They
therefore conclude that Chinese partnerships contribute to boosting cooperation results,
but it has a political framework beyond economics.
In the past few years, China-EU relations have deteriorated due to bilateral and
international issues. In the second article, using the theory of cognitive dissonance
proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger, Carlos Rodrigues evaluates possible
attributes of China-EU relations’ current state of affairs. Rodrigues concludes that the
manner in which dissonance is being reduced does not fit with the theoretical predictions
— rather than being based on changing dynamics in terms of behaviour, value and belief
systems, and environmental conditions, the reduction seems to rely on a strategy of
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 1-9
Editorial
Daniel Cardoso, Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
7
hedging: the EU has seen China simultaneously as a partner, competitor, and rival, which
is the precise notion of hedging — to separate the economic and political dimensions.
The first round of negotiations of EU-China investment agreement was initiated in
January 2014, and after 35 negotiations in seven years, in December 2020, the two sides
announced that the negotiations had in principle concluded in a Comprehensive
Agreement on Investment (CAI) (European Commission, n.d.). Soon after, however, in
May 2021, the European Parliament passed a motion to formally freeze the CAI. Seeing
the CAI as a relevant international event affecting international relations, the third
article — penned by Carmen Mendes, analyzes China’s reaction to this unexpected
cessation and whether or not the EU Parliament’s vote could have foreshadowed the
debacle. Moreover, Mendes expects little chance of the CAI to be brought back to the
table in 2023, as, for the EU, it is impossible to separate trade and investments from
other policy areas and fundamental values, and the reality of Chinese assertiveness will
remain a matter of urgent concern both for the present and the future.
Moreover, recent U.S.-China competition and the Ukraine war are important factors
affecting EU-China relations. Emphasizing the concept of strategic autonomy, Pablo A.
Sánchez-Rodríguez argues in the fourth article that the EU should play the role of a
balancer and overcome internal and external barriers to pursue its global affairs agenda
amidst U.S.-China competition. Specifically, this means exercising cautious discretion
over its military, economic and political alliance with the U.S., and strengthening mutual
trust with China in areas beyond the economic domain.
The fifth article, written by Francisco José Leandro and Roopinder Oberoi, illuminates
how India and China’s involvement may impact the EU’s security in the context of the
Ukraine war. The authors see the war as having a real possibility of inducing a new
international order, and, through comparing how India and China approach the war and
impact their relations with the EU, they identify six major security challenges. They
suggest that the EU should not expect to rely on India as an extended partner, and, more
importantly, the EU, India, and China should come together and cooperate to engineer a
peaceful resolution to the conflict.
References
Almeida, H. & Mayger (2023). Portugal Effectively Bans Chinese Companies From 5G
Network. Bloomberg. [20 June 2023]. Available at
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-26/portugal-effectively-bans-
chinese-companies-from-5g-network#xj4y7vzkg
Anderlini, J. & Caulcutt, C. (2023). Europe must resist pressure to become ‘America’s
followers,’ says Macron. Politico. [15 April 2023]. Available at
https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-china-america-pressure-interview/
Biscop, S. (2023). EU-China: we have to talk about (not Macron but) strategy. Egmont
Institute. [15 April 2023]. Available at https://www.egmontinstitute.be/eu-china-we-
have-to-talk-about-not-macron-but-strategy/
Bradsher, K. & Alderman, L. (2020). The World Needs Masks. China Makes Them, but
Has Been Hoarding Them. New York Times. [20 June 2023]. Available at
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 1-9
Editorial
Daniel Cardoso, Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
8
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/business/masks-china-coronavirus.html
DW (2023). Von der Leyen outlines EU's position on China. DW. [10 April 2023]. Available
at https://www.dw.com/en/von-der-leyen-outlines-eus-position-on-china/a-65178308
European Commission (2019). EU-China Strategic Outlook: Commission and HR/VP
contribution to the European Council. [12 April 2023]. Available at
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/eu-china-strategic-outlook-commission-
and-hrvp-contribution-european-council-21-22-march-2019_en
European Commission (2020). Critical Raw Materials Resilience: Charting a Path towards
greater Security and Sustainability. [16 June 2023]. Available at https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0474
European Commission (2023). Critical Raw Materials: ensuring secure and sustainable
supply chains for EU's green and digital future. [19 June 2023]. Available at
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_1661
European Commission (n.d.). EU-China agreement: Milestones and documents. [14 April
2023]. Available at https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-
and-region/countries-and-regions/china/eu-china-agreement/milestones-and-
documents_en
European External Action Service (2021). European Union Sanctions. [14 June 2023].
Available at https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/sanctions-policy/423/european-union-
sanctions_en
European Parliament (2021). The EU strategic autonomy debate. [11 April 2023]
Available at
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/690532/EPRS_BRI(2021)
690532_EN.pdf
European Parliament (2022). EU strategic autonomy 2013-2023: From concept to
capacity. [12 April 2023]. Available at
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733589/EPRS_BRI(2022)
733589_EN.pdf
Eurostat (2023). China-EU - international trade in goods statistics. [16 June 2023].
Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=China-
EU_-_international_trade_in_goods_statistics
Gill, J. (2019). “L’unité affichée à l’issue du sommet de l’UE. Euronews. [14 June 2023].
Available at https://fr.euronews.com/2019/03/22/l-unite¬-affichee-a-l-issue-du-
sommet-de-l-ue.
Kratz, A., Max, Z.; Sebastian, G.; and Witzke, M. (2022). Chinese FDI in Europe: 2021
Update. Merics. [12 June 2023]. Available at https://merics.org/en/report/chinese-fdi-
europe-2021-update
Kremlin (2022). Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of
China on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable
Development. [3 July 2023]. Available at http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5770
Kijewski, L. (2023). Germany reaches compromise on China’s Hamburg port investment,
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 1-9
Editorial
Daniel Cardoso, Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
9
reports say. Politico. [11 June 2023]. Available at https://www.politico.eu/article/report-
germany-deal-china-hamburg-port-investment-cosco/
Houtari, M. & Stec, G. (2023). Six Priorities for “De-risking” EU Relations with China. IP
Quarterly. [14 April 2023]. Available at https://ip-quarterly.com/en/six-priorities-de-
risking-eu-relations-china
Mathias, D. S. (2022). Cohesion through regulation: Assessing the European Union’s
response to China’s Foreign Direct Investment, in Mendes, C.A. & Cardoso, D. (eds),
Narratives and Perceptions: Chinese Soft Power in the 21st Century. Lisboa: CCCM, 105-
123.
MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC) (2023). President Xi Jinping Holds China-
France-EU Trilateral Meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron and European
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. [15 April 2023]. Available at
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/202304/t20230406_11055596.html
Ridgwell, H. (2023). France Seeks to Calm Diplomatic Storm Over Macron’s China-Taiwan
Comments. VOANews. [12 June 2023]. Available at https://www.voanews.com/a/france-
seeks-to-calm-diplomatic-storm-over-macron-s-china-taiwan-comments-
/7059463.html
Rudd, K. (2022). The World According to Xi Jinping. What China’s Ideologue in Chief
Really Believes”, Foreign Affairs [online]. [12 June 2023]. Available at
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/world-according-xi-jinping-china-ideologue-
kevin-rudd
White House (2023). Remarks by President Biden in State of the Union Address. [3 July
2023]. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-
remarks/2023/02/07/remarks-by-president-biden-in-state-of-the-union-address-2/
Wrede, I. (2022). Can the EU do without metals from China?. DW. [14 April 2023].
Available at https://www.dw.com/en/the-eus-risky-dependency-on-critical-chinese-
metals/a-61462687
Xinhua (2021). China, Russia to continue to be example of good-neighborly ties between
major countries: FM. [3 July 2023]. Available at
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-01/02/c_139636135.htm
Xinhua (2023). Xi calls for guiding healthy, high-quality development of private sector.
[3 July 2023]. Available at
https://english.news.cn/20230307/0544c3082cbc4da2aa015ec242a844a2/c.html
OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023
10
CHINA AND EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES: DO CHINESE PARTNERSHIPS
BOOST COOPERATION RESULTS?
CÁTIA MIRIAM COSTA
catia.miriam.costa@iscte-iul.pt
Researcher at the Centre for International Studies (ISCTE-IUL, Portugal) and invited professor at
the same university. She is also Director of the Global Iberoamerica Chair of the European
Institute of International Studies, Stockholm, Salamanca. She coordinates two international
Erasmus+ projects and is ISCTE’s alternate representative in UNESCO’s Academy programme.
She has numerous publications in English, Portuguese, Spanish, and French. Her main areas of
research are Chinese Foreign Policy, Macau, Sea and Globalisation, International Communication,
and Discourse Analysis. She was an advisor to the Secretary of State of Internationalization of
the Portuguese Republic until April 2022.
YICHAO LI
A18092105144@cityu.mo
Ph.D. from the Institute for Research on Portuguese-speaking Countries, City University of
Macau. She also received a master’s degree in comparative civil law (in Chinese) from the
University of Macau, and a Bachelor of Laws from Nanjing University of Information Science &
Technology, China. From 2021 to 2022, she has been a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for
International Studies (ISCTE-IUL, Portugal). Her current research interests are the Belt and Road
Initiative and Portuguese-speaking countries.
Abstract
The People’s Republic of China and countries of the European Union (EU) have signed multiple
diplomatic documents for cooperation under different types of conception. France was the first
EU country to start a comprehensive partnership with China in 1997, and, by 2021, among
the 27 EU member countries, 19 had already established partnerships with China (the
exceptions were Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia, and
Sweden). Since the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was announced in 2013, 18 EU member
states (except Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, and
Sweden) have signed MoUs with China. What this study investigates, however, is why some
of the countries have opted to sign a BRI MoU but not establish partnerships with China. On
the other hand, some countries that have long had partnerships with China have deepened or
strengthened those partnerships, yet have not signed a BRI MoU. The current study is
therefore motivated to pose this main research question: To what extent does the Chinese
partnership framework facilitate practical cooperation between EU countries and China? The
study also poses these secondary questions: What are the main differences between these
cooperation documents? Do such differences in documentation result in discrepancies in the
nature of cooperation? From a bilateral state-to-state perspective, the study compares joint
statements pertaining to Chinese partnerships with different EU countries, analyzing how
closely they are tailored to each European country’s specificity. Through reviewing the
literature, the authors gather data concerning the outcomes of cooperations on trade and
investment between China and EU member states, and analyze any official diplomatic
documents available.
Keywords
Belt and Road Initiative, Chinese Partnerships, EU, FDI, Trade, Investment.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
11
Resumo
A República Popular da China e os países da União Europeia (UE) assinaram vários acordos
diplomáticos para cooperação sob diferentes tipos de concepção. A França foi o primeiro país
da UE a iniciar uma parceria abrangente com a China em 1997 e, até 2021, entre os 27 países
membros da UE, 19 já haviam estabelecido parcerias com a China (as exceções foram Estónia,
Letónia, Lituânia, Luxemburgo, Malta, Eslováquia , Eslovénia e Suécia). Desde que a Nova
Rota da Seda (NRS) foi anunciada em 2013, 18 estados membros da UE (exceto Bélgica,
Dinamarca, Finlândia, França, Alemanha, Irlanda, Holanda, Espanha e Suécia) assinaram
Memorandos de Entedimento (MdE) com a China. Este estudo investiga, no entanto, porque
razão alguns dos países optaram por assinar um MdE da NRS, mas não estabelecer parcerias
com a China. Por outro lado, alguns países que há muito mantêm parcerias com a China
aprofundaram ou fortaleceram essas parcerias, mas ainda não assinaram um MdE da NRS. O
presente estudo coloca como principal questão de investigação: até que ponto o quadro de
parceria chinês facilita a cooperação prática entre os países da UE e a China? O estudo também
coloca as seguintes questões secundárias: Quais são as principais diferenças entre estes
documentos de cooperação? Essas diferenças na documentação resultam em discrepâncias
na natureza da cooperação? Numa perspetiva bilateral entre estados, o artigo compara
declarações conjuntas relativas a parcerias chinesas com diferentes países da UE, analisando
até que ponto estão adaptadas à especificidade de cada país europeu. Através da revisão da
literatura, as autoras coletam dados sobre os resultados da cooperação nas áreas do comércio
e do investimento entre a China e os estados membros da UE e analisam os documentos
diplomáticos oficiais disponíveis.
Palavras-chave
Nova Rota da Seda, Parcerias Chinesas, União Europeia, Investimento Direto Estrangeiro,
Comércio, Investimento
How to cite this article
Costa, Cátia Miriam, Li, Yichao (2023). China and European Union countries: Do Chinese
partnerships boost cooperation results?. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. VOL14
N1, TD1 – Thematic dossier “European Union-China relations”, September 2023. Consulted
[online] in date of last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0123.1
Article received on November 26, 2022 and accepted for publication on January 16, 2023
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
12
CHINA AND EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES: DO CHINESE
PARTNERSHIPS BOOST COOPERATION RESULTS?
CÁTIA MIRIAM COSTA
YICHAO LI
1. Introduction
In post-1990s international relations, as the international order underwent gradual
reconfiguration, partnerships, especially strategic partnerships, became a fashionable
means for states to seek dialogue and cooperation with other states and/or with
regional/international organizations (Tyushka & Czechowska, 2019: 8 & 11). China
established its first strategic partnership in 1993 with Brazil
1
, and the European Union
(EU) established its first strategic partnership with Russia in 1998 (Pałłasz, 2015: 4).
Being two of the most important economies in the world, the EU and China held their
first summit in April 1998 during which they issued a joint statement
2
, declaring that
both sides hope to build and develop a 21st century–oriented long-term and stable
constructive partnership
3
. This description of the partnership between China and the EU
was expressed in the 4th summit in 2001 as “a comprehensive partnership”
4
and in the
6th summit in 2003 as “an overall [comprehensive] strategic partnership”
5
. As of 2022,
the China-EU Summit has been held 23 times, mostly annually, but with some
exceptions
6
. In addition, in December 2003, the EU adopted the European Security
1
Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/ziliao_665539/3602_665543/3604_665547/200011/t20001117_697
843.html
2
In March 1998, according to a communication from the Commission of European Communities, Brussels
expressed wishes to build a comprehensive partnership with China. Retrieved on 13 July 2022, from
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:1998:0181:FIN:EN:PDF
3
Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/ziliao_665539/3602_665543/3604_665547/200011/t20001117_697
888.html
4
Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from
https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwie58bnlt34AhV
FxYUKHV3RCf8QFnoECBAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fcommission%2Fpresscorner%2Fa
pi%2Ffiles%2Fdocument%2Fprint%2Fen%2Fpres_01_312%2FPRES_01_312_EN.pdf&usg=AOvVaw08ACC
33L7c6Msr_-VBPyrt
5
Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/er/77802.pdf
6
China-EU summits were held in neither the 2008 nor 2011, but took place in both in 2009 and 2012. In
2014, although the China-EU summit was not held, President Xi Jinping visited the EU’s headquarters in
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
13
Strategy, in which particular emphasis was placed on developing a strategic partnership
with China (European Council, 2003: 16).
Till now, China has established various types (e.g., strategic) of partnerships with more
than 100 countries in the world (Li & Vicente, 2020: 207), while the EU has formed only
strategic partnerships with merely ten countries
7
. China and the EU also differ in their
choices of strategic partners and definitions of partnership. As explained by Stumbaum
and Xiong (2012: 163), China and the EU’s conceptual gap regarding signing a
partnership lies within their difference in the timeline and pace of implementing a
partnership: China pays more attention to keeping the flow of the partnership over the
long term, a point which is often reflected through positive, promotional language in the
partnership’s joint statement, in a view to achieving better cooperation and development
in the future (Brown, 2021: 14). For the EU, the immediacy of its strategic thinking
prompts it to place more emphasis on solving bilateral challenges that they face both
presently and in the short term (Stumbaum & Xiong, 2012: 164).
One aspect, however, is consistent between China and the EU’s understanding of a
partnership: whether in terms of quality or quantity, a partnership has to be (further)
developed through a dynamic and variable process. A partnership should therefore be
regarded as a “soft law” (i.e., it is not legally binding) (Li, 2021: 46; Cihelková, et al.,
2020: 1729 & 1737). This, however, to some extent, causes concern for the effectiveness
of partnerships. For example, this has led to the term “strategic partner(ship)” being
viewed as “ill-defined in EU usage”8. China does not have a clear, standardized way to
classify partnerships either. When assessing China-EU strategic partnerships, many
scholars find the concept of partnership either unclear (Sautenet, 2008: 11), imperfect
(Pałłasz, 2015: 7), or elusive (Maher, 2016), such that people may doubt whether the
two sides in fact regard each other as a strategic partner9. In regard to areas of
cooperation, indeed, the coverage has been widening, but no real strategy has formed
(Wouters & Burnay, 2012: 330). Yue (2018: 5) also believes that the Chinese partnership
network “is still an aspiration rather than a realistic blueprint.” Nevertheless, it is
undeniable that a partnership provides a platform for dialogue between the two sides. It
is therefore considered a diplomatic and relational approach, and, has, to a certain
extent, led to positive results (Hu & Pelkmans, 2020: 2–3).
The foremost premise of establishing a partnership with China is adherence to the “one-
China” policy and respect for Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity. Such is always
reiterated in the joint statement every time a Chinese partnership is established,
deepened, or upgraded. Generally speaking, a partnership is reached through dialogue
and provides a framework for bilateral cooperation, covering various cooperation areas,
such as politics, economy, culture, people-to-people exchanges, health, sustainability,
Brussels, and the two issued a joint statement to deepen their comprehensive strategic partnership for
attaining further mutual benefits. A China-EU summit did not take place in 2021 either.
7
The EU’s strategic partners are, namely, the U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada, China, India, Brazil, South Africa,
Mexico, and South Korea. Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from https://www.etiasvisa.com/etias-news/eu-
strategic-partnerships
8
Retrieved on 15 June 2022, from https://euobserver.com/eu-political/30828
9
Retrieved on 15 June 2022, from https://euobserver.com/eu-political/30828
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
14
and other regional or global affairs (Men & Jiang, 2020: 394). In 1997, France became
the first EU country to establish a comprehensive partnership with China
10
, and by 2021,
19 of the 27 EU member countries had established partnerships with China (except
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden).
Christiansen, Kirchner, and Wissenbach (2019: 73) argue that the fact that China has
established separate bilateral partnerships with some EU countries affects coordination
between the EU and its member states and weakens the EU’s overall solidarity as it
engages China. Although this situation may happen to some extent, it needs to be
emphasized that all joint statements on the establishment of partnerships between China
and any EU countries reinforce that the two sides should continue to deepen bilateral
relations within the framework of comprehensive China-EU strategic partnership
complemented by partnerships between China and individual EU countries. This two-tier
framework shows that China is interested in using partnerships with each EU country to
advance its overall relations with the EU. There certainly is no direct, specific intention
of weakening Europe’s integration on the Chinese part.
As of March 2022, 146 countries in the world have signed memoranda of understanding
(MoUs) with China to become part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
11
. Among them
are 18 EU member states (EU countries that have not signed BRI MoUs with China are:
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, and
Sweden). Overall, the expansive network comprising these partnerships is an important
foothold for China to advance the BRI (Men & Jiang, 2020: 390).
Interestingly, however, it is notable that some EU countries that have not yet established
partnerships with China have instead signed BRI MoUs (e.g., Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta,
Luxembourg, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia). On the contrary, some countries that have long
established partnerships with China (and have even deepened or strengthened those
partnerships) have not signed BRI MoUs for the time being (e.g., Germany, France).
Furthermore, Garcia-Herrero and Xu (2019: 18) searched a global database of media
articles to quantitatively analyze the perceptions of BRI in different countries and regions.
Among the EU countries, the results are rather extreme: the Netherlands, which ranks
first in the tone of coverage related to BRI, has not signed an MoU, while Poland, who
ranks last in the tone of coverage related to BRI, was the second EU country to sign an
MoU (after Hungary) in 2015. Such paradoxical statuses motivate this main research
question of the paper: To what extent does the Chinese partnership framework facilitate
practical cooperation between EU countries and China? Further secondary questions have
also been proposed: What are the main differences between these cooperation
documents? Do such differences in documentation result in discrepancies in the nature
of cooperation? To offer answers to these questions, we gather data concerning
cooperations between China and EU member states on trade and investment, analyzing
them based on the timeline of the partnerships concerned — when they were established,
deepened/strengthened, and specific circumstances of the various countries involved.
10
Retrieved on 13 April 2022, from https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/shuju/1997/gwyb199717.pdf
11
Retrieved on 13 April 2022, from https://greenfdc.org/countries-of-the-belt-and-road-initiative-bri/
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
15
2. Grouping EU Countries by Types of Chinese Partnerships
Though all Chinese partnerships may be established on an equal basis, they likely differ
in terms of depth and breadth of cooperation. This is reflected through prepending
various descriptors — “strategic,” “comprehensive,” “all-round,” “reciprocal,” “friendly,”
and “innovative” — to the word “partnership.” The different descriptors express the
variability in the partnerships’ conceptualizations and characteristics, as well as show
that “China’s relations with different countries are developing at varying speeds” (Men &
Jiang, 2020: 392).
Generally speaking, a strategic partnership is of a higher level than a non-strategic
partnership (Li & Vicente, 2020: 210). As cooperation between two countries deepens,
their partnership agreement can be strengthened or upgraded, and the partnership may
therefore be re-described accordingly to reflect such change in the nature of cooperation.
Accordingly, we classify the 27 EU member states into four groups based on the type of
their current partnerships with China (with particular focus on whether the descriptor
“strategic” is present) (Table 1).
Table 1. Chinese Partnerships and BRI MoUs with EU Countries
Country
Current Types of Chinese Partnerships
(E – year of establishment, U – year of update)
Group 1
Germany
All-round strategic partnership (U - 2014)12
France
Comprehensive strategic partnership (U - 2004)13
Italy
Comprehensive strategic partnership (E - 2004)
Spain
Comprehensive strategic partnership (E - 2005)
Poland
Comprehensive strategic partnership (U - 2016)14
Hungary
Comprehensive strategic partnership (U - 2017)15
Denmark
Comprehensive strategic partnership (E - 2008)
Greece
Comprehensive strategic partnership (E - 2006)
Portugal
Comprehensive strategic partnership (E - 2005)
Group 2
Austria
Friendly strategic partnership (E - 2018)
2018.04.08
Ireland
Reciprocal strategic partnership (E - 2012)
Not signed
Czechia
Strategic partnership (E - 2016)
2015.11.26
Bulgaria
Strategic partnership (U - 2019)16
2015.11.26
Cyprus
Strategic partnership (E - 2021)
2019.04.25
Group 3
Belgium
All-round partnership of friendship and cooperation (E - 2014)
Finland
Future-oriented new-type cooperative partnership (E - 2017)
Netherlands
Comprehensive cooperative partnership (E - 2014)
Croatia
Comprehensive cooperative partnership (E - 2005)
Romania
Comprehensive friendly partnership of cooperation (E - 2004)
12
China and Germany established a partnership with global responsibility within the framework of the China-
EU comprehensive strategic partnership in 2004.
13
China and France established a comprehensive partnership in 1997.
14
China and Poland established a friendly partnership of cooperation in 2004.
15
China and Hungary established a friendly partnership of cooperation in 2004.
16
China and Bulgaria established a comprehensive friendly partnership of cooperation in 2014.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
16
Table 1. Chinese Partnerships and BRI MoUs with EU Countries
Country
Current Types of Chinese Partnerships
(E – year of establishment, U – year of update)
Group 4
Sweden
Non-partnerships
Not signed
Slovakia
2015.11.26
Slovenia
2017.11.29
Malta
2018.11.05
Luxembourg
2019.03.23
Estonia
2017.11.29
Lithuania
2017.11.29
Latvia
2016.11
Source: Authors’ compilation. Retrieved on 13 April 2022,
from https://www.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/xwzx/roll/77298.htm and
https://www.mfa.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/gj_676203/oz_678770/
All of the countries in Group 1 except Germany have established with China
comprehensive strategic partnerships that cover many cooperation areas, including
horizontal areas such as politics (e.g., bilateral dialogue, frequent reciprocal visits
between leaders, rule of law and human rights, security and military issues), economics
(e.g., reform global economic governance, investment and trade, technological
cooperation, development of small and medium-sized enterprises, intellectual property
protection), culture (e.g., establishment of cultural centres, Chinese year of cultural
activities, promotion of cultural diversity), people-to-people exchanges (e.g., tourism,
education, media, youth exchanges), health (e.g., agriculture and food security,
infectious disease prevention), environment (e.g., climate change, sustainability,
biodiversity). There are also vertical (i.e., in terms of the geographical scope of
cooperation) areas of cooperation: in addition to bilateral cooperation, regional and global
cooperations are also addressed, for example international issues including conflict
resolutions, counter-terrorism, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
refugees and illegal immigrants. Views on such international issues of mutual interest are
exchanged bilaterally. China and Germany have established an all-round strategic
partnership — an “all-round” partnership has one more dimension than a
“comprehensive” one, which is consultation between the governments of the two
partners. The Sino-German government consultations were established in 2010, six
rounds of which have been held so far.
The countries in Group 2 have strategic but non-comprehensive partnerships with China.
Compared with the countries in Group 1, those in Group 2 have narrower scopes of
cooperation, both horizontally and vertically. For instance, the frequency of bilateral
dialogue in the political field has reduced, discussions on reforming global economic
governance have not taken place, and focus on global affairs has also decreased. The
Chinese partnerships pertaining to Group 3 countries have been developing relatively
slowly, with little deepening or upgrading since being established. The countries in Group
4 have yet to formally establish partnerships with China.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
17
Promoting economic development has always been the focus of both China and the EU
countries as they develop bilateral relations. The establishment, deepening and
upgrading of Chinese partnerships often happen during meetings between Chinese and
EU leaders
17
, with a view to not only building mutual trust and reaching political
consensus but also facilitating more practice in areas with potential for further or future
cooperation, especially if there is political support. In the following sections, we present
data on cooperations in trade and investment between China and EU member states. We
divide the EU countries into four groups for analysis.
3. Bilateral Trade in Goods
Since becoming a member of the WTO, China’s continuous expansion of export in the
21st century has had an impact on the EU. Of particular note is China’s capability to
maintain a trade surplus with the EU (Garcia-Herrero et al., 2020: 12–13). In 2021,
China was the EU’s biggest trading partner (total), ranking first as the EU’s import partner
and third as EU’s export partner
18
. Garcia-Herrero et al. (2020: 1) conclude that “China
is, and will continue to be, a major trade and investment partner for EU countries.” In
early 2022, the EU overtook the ASEAN to become China’s top trade partner.
19
In other
words, as Chen et al. (2021: 582) quantitatively demonstrate, the EU’s “share of trade
with China rose, while the share of trade with EU partners declined,” suggesting that “the
trade links with China weakened trade links among EU countries”. The chronic trade
imbalance between China and the EU has also raised questions about the notion of mutual
interests emphasized in Chinese partnerships. In this regard, the EU will work toward
obtaining greater reciprocity and balance, while from China’s standpoint, a “win-win”
outcome means that both sides will work hard together to periodically achieve their
respective goals, but not necessarily at a 50-50 split (Brown, 2021: 17).
The Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) provides comprehensive data on the
import and export between China and EU member states from 2000 to 2020 (Annex I).
Figure 1 is obtained by adding up and averaging the volumes of import and export of
17
For example, the first China-EU Summit was held in 1998, hosted by Zhu Rongji, then Premier of China,
Tony Blair, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and EU President, and Jacques Santer, President of
the European Commission. They issued a Joint Statement on China-EU Summit and reached a consensus
on their readiness to build and develop a 21st century–oriented long-term and stable constructive
partnership between them. Retrieved on 31 July 2022, from
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/ziliao_665539/3602_665543/3604_665547/200011/t20001117_697
888.html
The Sixth China-EU Summit was held in 2003 in Beijing, hosted by Premier of the State Council Wen Jiabao
of the People’s Republic of China. The EU was represented by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in his
capacity as President of the European Council, as well as President of the European Commission Romano
Prodi and High Representative for the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana. Chinese
President Hu Jintao met with the visiting European leaders. The leaders expressed satisfaction on the
positive outcome of this Sixth Summit meeting, particularly for promoting the development of an overall
strategic partnership between China and the EU. Retrieved on 31 July 2022, from
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/er/77802.pdf
18
Retrieved on 13 April 2022, from
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_122530.pdf
19
Retrieved on 13 April 2022, from
https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202203/18/WS6233da5ba310fd2b29e51a69.html
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
18
goods over 21 years. The following analysis is presented in conjunction with Annex I and
Figure 1:
(1) Generally speaking, the closer the partnership that an EU country has developed with
China, the larger and more frequent its trade with China will be. Figure 1 clearly
shows the difference in volume of bilateral trade in goods between countries that
have established a comprehensive strategic partnership with China (Group 1) and
Source: Authors’ compilation. Retrieved on 13 April 2022, from https://oec.world/en/rankings/eci/hs6/hs96
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
19
those in the other three groups, especially countries that have not established
partnerships (Group 4). The comparison is, however, not absolute: for example,
Sweden in Group 4, the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland in Group 3, and Czechia,
Ireland, and Austria in Group 2 all have more bilateral trade in goods with China than
Portugal and Greece in Group 1.
(2) As seen from Annex I, indeed, the bilateral trade volume between China and all EU
member states has grown considerably over the past 21 years, but fluctuations and
trade imbalances have remained. In Annex, I, the volume of trade export from most
EU member states to China (red line) has lagged behind import (blue line) for a long
time. There are two exceptions here: Germany and Ireland. From 2000 to 2012,
bilateral trade between China and Germany increased rapidly. Although China has
always had a trade surplus with Germany, the gap began to narrow significantly in
2010 (this was the onset of the Sino-German government consultation mechanism).
After that, China had several trade deficits with Germany, even though the gap, while
present, was very small. In other words, the development of bilateral trade between
China and Germany has been relatively balanced, mutually beneficial, and positive.
For Ireland, it is the only member of the EU that maintains a continuous trade surplus
with China over the recent several years, and the gap will likely continue to widen.
China and Ireland established a reciprocal strategic partnership in 2012. Integrated
circuits has always been a category accounting for a large proportion of Ireland’s
export to China. In 2020, Ireland exported in total $11.2B worth of integrated
circuits, $6.91B of which to China
20
. In the same year, integrated circuits made up
Ireland’s fourth largest export, and Ireland was the second largest exporter of
integrated circuits in Europe, after Germany.
21
(3) Another noteworthy point is that although China has always had a trade surplus with
the majority of EU countries, the larger surpluses mainly belong to Group 1 countries
(e.g., France, Italy, Poland and Spain). Czechia (Group 2) and the Netherlands
(Group 3) also have relatively large surpluses, with the Netherlands having the
largest gap among all EU countries. Conversely, for those countries in Group 4 that
are not in partnership with China, though they have trade deficits with China, the
gap is not large. Butter and Hayat (2008) did an empirical analysis and showed that
the main determinant of the Netherlands’ import growth from China was in-house
offshoring to China. Another factor has been the “Rotterdam effect,” as the port of
Rotterdam is an important entry point for products to enter into the EU (Garcia-
Herrero et al., 2020: 13–14). Suyker and Wagteveld (2019: 6) also believe that due
to its “gateway function,” the Netherlands has been accumulating deficits with China
since 2000. This means that products from China will arrive in the Netherlands first,
before being re-exported to their final destinations in the rest of Europe.
20
Retrieved on 11 July 2022, from https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/integrated-
circuits/reporter/irl?yearExportSelector=exportYear1
21
Retrieved on 11 July 2022, from https://oec.world/en/profile/hs/integrated-circuits
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
20
Table 2 contains data collected from the World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) and
lists the top three import and export trading partners of each EU member state in 2019.
In terms of major trading partners of individual EU member states, China has ranked as
Germany’s main partner in both import and export. China is also one of the main import
partners of France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Czechia, and the Netherlands, while these
countries have had relatively large trade deficits with China. These results shown in Table
2 are consistent with our previous point. Interestingly, for Group 4 countries (those that
have not established partnerships with China), China has little influence over their import
or export trade.
Table 2. Top 3 Trading Partners for EU Countries in 2019
Groups
EU
Countries
Top 3 Export Destination
Countries/Regions
Top 3 Import Origin
Countries/Regions
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
Group
1
Germany
USA
France
China
China
Netherlands
USA
France
Germany
USA
Italy
Germany
China
Italy
Italy
Germany
France
USA
Germany
France
China
Spain
France
Germany
Italy
Germany
France
China
Poland
Germany
Czechia
UK
Germany
China
Russia
Hungary
Germany
Slovakia
Italy
Germany
Austria
China
Denmark
Special
categories
Germany
Sweden
Germany
Sweden
Netherlands
Greece
Italy
Germany
Turkey
Germany
Iraq
Italy
Portugal
Spain
France
Germany
Spain
Germany
France
Group
2
Austria
Germany
USA
Italy
Germany
Italy
China
Ireland
USA
UK
Belgium
UK
USA
France
Czechia
Germany
Slovakia
Poland
Germany
China
Poland
Bulgaria
Germany
Romania
Italy
Germany
Russia
Italy
Cyprus
Netherlands
Bunkers
Libya
Greece
Italy
UK
Group
3
Belgium
Germany
France
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
France
Finland
Germany
Sweden
USA
Germany
Russia
Sweden
Netherlands
Germany
Belgium
France
Germany
Belgium
China
Croatia
Italy
Germany
Slovenia
Germany
Italy
Slovenia
Romania
Germany
Italy
France
Germany
Italy
Hungary
Group
4
Sweden
Norway
Germany
USA
Germany
Netherlands
Norway
Slovakia
Germany
Czechia
Poland
Germany
Czechia
Unspecified
Slovenia
Germany
Italy
Croatia
Germany
Italy
Switzerland
Malta
Bunkers
Germany
Italy
UK
Italy
Germany
Luxembourg
Germany
France
Belgium
Belgium
Germany
France
Estonia
Finland
Sweden
Latvia
Germany
Russia
Finland
Lithuania
Russia
Latvia
Poland
Russia
Poland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Russia
Lithuania
Germany
Poland
Source: Authors’ compilation. Retrieved on 10 July 2022, from https://wits.worldbank.org
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
21
In short, from the data of bilateral trade in goods between China and EU countries from
2000 to 2020, it can be shown that, generally speaking, the closer the partnership that
a country has established with China, the greater the trade volume between the two
sides will be, and the more influence China will have. For instance, countries in Group 1
(e.g., Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, and Hungary), which have established all-
round/comprehensive strategic partnerships with China, have relatively high trade
volumes in both directions. There are, however, exceptions: Czechia in Group 2 and the
Netherlands in Group 3 also perform well in bilateral trade in goods. If we look at each
time that a partnership was established, deepened, or upgraded (including the times
when a BRI MoU was signed) in conjunction with Annex I, we find no evidence that the
aim was to bring immediate positive impact to both parties on trade in goods. In other
words, every time a partnership is established, deepened or upgraded, it may not be
immediately reflected in bilateral trade in goods in the following year. Instead, trade in
goods is a long-term process that involves other factors as well.
4. Bilateral Trade in Services and Foreign Direct Investment
Compared with trade in goods, the scale of trade in services and foreign direct investment
(FDI) between China and the EU is relatively small. The EU is the world’s largest trader
in services. Trade in services accounts for 25% of the EU’s GDP, and 60% of all of EU’s
FDI to the rest of the world is in services (European Commission, 2021: 18). Unlike the
trade in goods situation, in which the EU has a deficit with China, in trade in services the
EU has a surplus with China
22
. Although China’s ranking among EU’s trading partners in
services is not far behind, it trails by some distance both the UK and the U.S. (top two)
in terms of volume
23
.
Table 3. Balance of Trade in Services between EU Countries and China: 2013-2020 (Million €)
Groups
EU
Countries
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Group
1
Germany
1,625.0
2,914.0
5,216.0
5,509.0
6,288.0
8,873.0
7,934.0
7,364.0
France
458.0
986.0
2,487.0
1,063.0
3,550.0
4,248.0
5,045.0
3,303.0
Italy
-457.4
-338.7
-492.6
-705.2
-729.5
-399.4
-114.9
418.9
Spain
-356.0
-493.0
-549.0
-286.0
-391.0
81.0
42.0
-526.0
Poland
-27.2
0.7
36.8
13.5
-23.5
-28.2
-88.2
-250.3
Hungary
-56.9
-25.7
-46.3
25.7
19.6
257.7
305.0
-39.9
Denmark
1,360.8
1,060.4
466.8
134.9
499.3
476.4
511.1
626.5
Greece
-177.7
-133.1
769.8
647.9
944.4
1,045.5
1,083.3
933.9
Portugal
-53.0
-107.0
-144.0
-105.0
-71.0
-46.0
-58.0
-267.0
Group
2
Austria
20.0
235.0
160.0
185.0
123.0
217.0
197.0
61.0
Ireland
1,077.0
1,061.0
3,029.0
c
1,128.0
c
2,405.0
1,978.0
Czechia
-414.2
-303.3
-498.9
-405.3
-416.2
-513.6
-586.1
-886.9
Bulgaria
-8.6
-31.6
-17.0
-26.4
-16.8
3.1
2.6
-6.7
22
Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-
region/countries-and-regions/china_en
23
Retrieved on 11 July 2022, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=International_trade_in_services#General_overview
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
22
Cyprus
8.0
34.0
42.0
12.0
3.0
-17.0
-40.0
-17.0
Group
3
Belgium
230.0
263.0
181.0
183.0
244.0
156.0
395.0
445.0
Finland
-155.0
-314.0
-110.0
375.0
476.0
487.0
739.0
468.0
Netherlands
-103.0
-565.4
-451.9
-1,661.7
-1,211.9
-857.5
575.2
1,204.3
Croatia
4.4
3.7
11.6
24.2
24.4
23.7
11.6
6.8
Romania
-16.7
-8.3
-22.5
-17.6
-33.9
-35.5
-48.7
-46.5
Group
4
Sweden
103.7
-158.5
434.3
801.0
801.3
207.6
573.3
309.0
Slovakia
-14.7
-45.8
-60.3
-61.5
-41.4
-11.1
-8.1
-53.0
Slovenia
2.5
2.3
-1.4
12.4
15.3
23.2
22.4
-11.0
Malta
-11.0
-13.0
c
c
-6.0
c
13.0
-14.3
Luxembourg
281.0
617.0
1,122.0
1,239.0
779.0
913.0
880.0
958.0
Estonia
-36.6
-32.4
-33.7
-37.1
-41.4
-32.3
15.7
-9.6
Lithuania
-10.8
18.7
c
2.7
1.5
1.8
12.1
-22.2
Latvia
-31.0
-46.0
-53.0
-49.0
-55.0
-56.0
-32.0
-49.0
Note: “c” means data is confidential.
Source: Authors’ compilation. Retrieved on 13 April 2022,
from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/bop_its6_tot/default/table?lang=en
According to data from Eurostat, from 2013 to 2020, in terms of trade in services, seven
EU countries were always in surplus, and five always in deficit with China. The other 15
countries fluctuated between surplus and deficit during those eight years. Sweden and
Greece turned from deficit to surplus with China in 2015, while Finland did so in 2016
(Table 3). Although the countries in Group 1 had more eye-catching performances, no
correlation between the types of partnership and balance in trade in services could be
identified. Taking Luxembourg in Group 4 as an example, according to data from the
OECD, in 2018, among Luxembourg’s exported services to China, transportation,
financial services, and other business services had the highest values.
24
At the same
time, among countries that were always in surplus with China in trade in services, the
largest proportions pertained to these categories: royalties and licence fees, other
business services,
25
transportation, and travel.
Table 4. Czechia Trade in Services Import to China 2013-2020 (Million €)
Year
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
TOTAL TRADE IN
SERVICES
558
627
820
770
856
1076
1210
1260
Transport
491
558
732
691
770
958
1097
1157
Sea Transport
8
7
10
11
12
12
11
11
Air Transport
42
43
47
40
42
78
91
85
24
Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/chn/partner/lux
25
According to EBOPS 2010 services components, other business services mainly included: (1) Provision of
customized and non-customized research, sale of proprietary rights arising from research and development,
other research and development services; (2) Legal services, accounting, auditing, bookkeeping, tax
consulting services, business and management consulting and public relations services, advertising, market
research, and public opinion polling; (3) Architectural services, engineering services, scientific and other
technical services, waste treatment and de-pollution, services incidental to agriculture, forestry and fishing,
operating leasing services, trade-related services, other business services. Retrieved on 13 July 2022, from
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/tradeserv/tfsits/msits2010/ebops2cpc_detailed.htm#ebops10
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
23
Other Modes of
Transport26
441
508
674
635
716
867
995
1061
……
Transport/Total Trade in
Services
87.99%
88.99%
89.27%
89.74%
89.95%
89.03%
90.66%
91.83%
Source: Authors’ compilation. Retrieved on 13 July 2022, from
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TISP_EBOPS2010#
Another outlier is Group 2’s Czechia, who has always had a deficit with China in trade in
services that seems to be expanding. The OECD provides detailed statistics on specific
categories of Czechia’s trade in services. The same can be observed from Eurostat’s
records: from 2013 to 2020, Czechia had a deficit in trade in services with China
throughout. An interesting finding is that transportation accounts for about 90% of
Czechia’s total exported services to China. Within the transportation category, railway
and road transport had the main shares, while air and sea transport accounted for only
a small proportion (Table 4). Among the EU countries, Czechia and Cyprus were the only
two that had signed a BRI MoU before formally establishing a strategic partnership with
China. In November 2015, China and Czechia signed a BRI MoU, and the two established
in March 2016 a strategic partnership. Their joint statement assured that they will
strengthen cooperation in connectivity, tapping the enormous of potential within such
fields as infrastructure construction, direct flights, logistics, and transportation.
27
In
September 2017, China Railway Express from Yiwu to Prague commenced. In addition,
China supports Czechia to become a financial centre of Central and Eastern Europe and
is willing to further strengthen financial cooperation with Czechia. In April 2016, the Bank
of China planned to officially open a branch in Prague
28
. In 2017 and 2019, the Industrial
and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
29
and Bank of Communications
30
also established
Prague branches to provide account services, corporate financing services, international
settlement and trade financing services, and treasury services.
In the 1990s, FDI from the EU to China grew rapidly, but has declined since the beginning
of the 21st century. The decline worsened due to the impact of the economic crisis, but
then in 2018 rose back to pre–economic crisis levels. Due to COVID-19, however, FDI
fell back to US$5.7 billion (a year-on-year decrease of 11.8%), accounting for 3.8% of
total trade (Figure 2). Kratz, Barkin and Dudley (2022) reviewed trends in European FDI
to China from 2000 to 2021 and found that European FDI in China in terms of countries
of origin are relatively concentrated, mainly including Germany (Group 1), Netherlands
26
According to EBOPS 2010 services components, other modes of transport mainly included: (1) Space
transport; (2) Rail transport; (3) Road transport; (4) Inland waterway transport; (5) Pipeline transport; (6)
Electricity transmission; (7) Other supporting and auxiliary services. Retrieved on 13 July 2022, from
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/tradeserv/tfsits/msits2010/ebops2cpc_detailed.htm#ebops10
27
Retrieved on 13 April 2022, from https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/cecz/chn/zjgx/zywx/t1621576.htm
28
Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2016-
03/31/content_24214014.htm
29
Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from https://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-
09/13/content_31933680.htm
30
Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from http://www.china-
ceec.org/eng/hzjl_1/glyhz/jm1/201905/t20190521_6830385.htm
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
24
(Group 3), the UK and France (Group 1). These four countries accounted for an average
of 87% of total investment value in 2018-2021 and 69% in the last decade (2012-2021).
So far, Germany is the largest investor, with German firms accounting for more than half
of all European investment in China in 2018. The auto sector stands out in terms of
sectors, which consistently represents about a third of all European direct investment in
China. As a matter of fact, in 2020, 83% of FDI in China came from ten Asian
countries/regions
31
far exceeding FDI coming from the EU (MOFCOM, 2021: 8–9).
Meanwhile, Chinese FDI in the EU amounted to a similar amount. One research shows
that China’s OFDI focuses on less technologically advanced countries that are rich in
natural resources (Liu et al., 2022: 21). Brown (2012: 83–84) also believes that in terms
of factors affecting China’s overseas investment, indeed, the EU and China are major
trading partners of one another, with a broad market and an open economic environment.
However, not only does the EU not have advantages in resources, its distance from China
and small number of ethnic Chinese makes it a challenge to compete with many Asian
countries. In the EY Europe Attractiveness Survey 2022 (48–49), among the top 20
European countries that receive FDI, China is the second largest investor in Germany;
31
The ten Asian countries/regions are: Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Macau, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Singapore, Republic of Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan.
Note: Statistics of EU’s investment in China from 1987 to 2019 include investment from UK investors, which
is no longer included since 2020.
Source: MOFCOM, 2021: 28.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
25
for the rest of the countries, the top three investors are almost always either the U.S. or
other European countries.
With data from the Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment,
Annex II presents the growth of China’s outward FDI stock in EU countries, showing large
increases from 2007 to 2020. Similar to trade in services (above), the types of
partnership between China and the EU countries do not correlate definitely to the size of
China’s outward FDI stock. Figure 4 presents an overview of China’s outward FDI stock
to EU countries in 2020: nearly half of the stock went to EU countries in Group 1, with
FDI exceeding US$1,000 million, with the Netherlands in Group 3 and Sweden and
Luxembourg in Group 4 being other notable receivers. Similar observations can also be
made from examining the cumulative values of transactions involving Chinese investment
in Europe from 2000 to 2021, according to data from a report by Rhodium Group &
MERICS: Overall, Group 1 EU countries have the highest cumulative value of Chinese
investment, with the Netherlands and Finland in Group 3, and Sweden and Luxembourg
in Group 4 forming a prominent part of that tally (Figure 3).
Source: Rhodium Group & MERICS, 2022: 7.
Source: 2020 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct
Investment, p. 168. https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-
09/29/5639984/files/a3015be4dc1f45458513ab39691d37dd.pdf
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
26
In 2021, the financial sector accounted for 5% of the total FDI in Europe, 20% of which
pertained to Luxembourg. Although this percentage of Luxembourg was lower than
2020’s (i.e., the figure has been decreasing), Luxembourg remains the largest
investment centre in Europe, and, globally, second only to the United States (Wintgens,
2022). At the same time, Luxembourg is the largest investment fund centre in Europe,
and is seen as a gateway between China and the EU and even other countries
32
. Six large
Chinese banks have chosen Luxembourg as a hub for their European operations,
establishing their European headquarters there (Deloitte, 2015: 3). More than 40% of
Chinese investment in Europe has passed through Luxembourg. This is mainly due to
Luxembourg’s tax policies, stable regulatory environment, and ecosystem, which mainly
means easy access to experts in relevant areas for solutions to their problems
33
. In fact,
Ireland and Luxembourg have a lot in common, not least for having the reputation for
being fund domiciles for a wide array of investment funds (Nadaud, 2022). Moreover,
Chinese greenfield investment in Europe has grown rapidly over the past two years,
reaching 3.3 billion euros in 2021, up 51% from 2020’s level, which mainly benefited
from several large deals in the automotive and information and communication
technology (ICT) sectors, including ByteDance’s data centre in Ireland (Rhodium Group
& MERICS, 2022: 10–11).
The Nordic countries of Sweden and Finland have not shown a strong interest in the BRI.
However, though their bilateral trade in goods and services as well as FDI with China are
not at the very top among EU countries, they are not far behind either. Forsby (2019: X)
believes that “Nordic expertise, technology and innovation skills are in high demand in
China, especially with respect to green growth and sustainable development solutions
that are critical to China’s overall modernization objectives.” This is clearly reflected in
the future-oriented new-type cooperative partnership that Finland established with China
in 2017. The joint statement emphasized that the two countries will expand and deepen
practical cooperation in trade and investment, innovation, environmental protection,
urbanization and other fields, including (1) developing a circular economy, improving
resource utilization efficiency, and promoting sustainable development; (2) developing
new-type urbanization and green ecological smart city construction; (3) exploring the
potential for cooperation in the fields of transport and ICT; (4) exchanging and sharing
experience related to welfare solutions; (5) cooperating in relevant Arctic areas
34
.
Overall, there is still a lot of room for improvement in cooperation between China and EU
countries in terms of bilateral trade in services and FDI. Combining the data on trade in
services and FDI from both sides shows no definite correlation between the type of
partnership and the total value of trade in services and FDI; more appears to depend on
the countries’ own development conditions, resources, and abilities to attract investment,
as well as the whole international environment. However, the establishment of Chinese
32
Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-11/30/c_139553724.htm
33
Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from https://www.bdo.lu/en-gb/insights/business-services-outsourcing-
en/new-china-eu-investment-deal-possible-implications-for-luxembourg
34
Retrieved on 13 April 2022, from
https://www.mfa.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/gj_676203/oz_678770/1206_679210/1207_679222/201704
/t20170405_9339825.shtml
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
27
partnerships has indeed played a positive role in promoting the development of trade in
services and FDI with certain EU countries (e.g., Czechia).
5. Conclusion
Considering which EU countries have established partnerships and which ones have
signed BRI MoUs with China, we have proposed this main research question: To what
extent does the Chinese partnership framework facilitate practical cooperation between
EU countries and China? We have also put forth these secondary questions: What are
the main differences between these cooperation documents? Do such differences in
documentation result in discrepancies in the nature of cooperation?
After analyzing and comparing data on bilateral trade in goods, trade in services, and
FDI between China and EU countries over the years (economic cooperation), we believe
that Chinese partnerships contribute to boosting cooperation results, but it has a political
framework that goes beyond economic results. Meanwhile, the different types and
specificities of partnerships between China and the EU countries add complexity and
difficulty to a comparative study of all partnerships, as each nation’s economy and market
have individual specificities. This process demonstrates the creativity on China’s part in
adapting models to specific situations, which we have demonstrated in a previous study
concerning the development of different types of special economic zones (SEZs) in China
(Li & Costa, 2021). Trade in goods, services and FDI between China and all EU countries
have been growing over the years, whether or not those EU countries have established
Chinese partnerships. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the growth of
economic relations with China can be achieved immediately after a Chinese partnership
has been established, upgraded, or deepened. Nevertheless, economic development
requires stable political relations, and Chinese partnerships have been playing precisely
that role, paving the way for stable, long-term development and cooperation of economic
and trade relations between China and EU countries.
All Chinese partnerships have a similar building process. Each partnership’s joint
statement signifies a consensus reached by both partners after their heads of states have
met and expressed satisfaction (on behalf of the countries) with the establishment,
deepening, or upgrading of their partnership. However, the joint statement, though
reached, is not legally binding, but its core principle and premise adhere to the “One-
China” policy. The joint statements of Chinese partnerships usually include three main
parts: (1) an affirmation of current bilateral relations and reaffirmation of historical ties
or prior relations (if any); (2) a discussion on potential areas of cooperation and
development; (3) an exchange of regional or international situations and affairs.
Within the flexible and political framework provided by Chinese partnerships, the areas
of cooperation between the two parties cover many aspects such as politics, economy,
culture, environment, and public health. These areas are not limited to bilateral
cooperation; they can also be regional or global. Therefore, the main difference in the
documentations of these cooperations is that, according to China’s interests and the
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
28
characteristics of each EU country, the areas of bilateral cooperation can be diverse.
Furthermore, the agreements result in different kinds of cooperation that are sector-
specific. For example, in maritime cooperation, China and Portugal have developed a blue
partnership and are prepared to build a STARLab to promote new aerospace cooperation
and develop a blue economy from both sides. In terms of third-party markets, China and
Austria, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands believe that there is potential
to continue seeking development in cooperation with such markets. Africa and Latin
America are in particular drawing more attention for third-market cooperation between
China and Portugal, and China and Spain.
Last but not least, countries that have established partnerships but not signed BRI MoUs
have much more frequent economic exchanges than those that have signed BRI MoUs.
In fact, half of the EU countries that have not established partnerships but signed BRI
MoUs are members of the China and Central and Eastern European Countries (China-
CEEC, the “16+1”) Cooperation. The “16+1” initiative can be regarded as part of the BRI,
and these Central and Eastern European countries provide a strategic link between Asia
and Western Europe, which can greatly impact the success of the BRI (Jaklič & Svetličič,
2019: 84). China has devised a strategic approach by adapting the BRI discourse to
diverse circumstances and audiences, thereby paving the way for cooperating with
European countries even before establishing partnerships with them (Costa, 2020: 41).
Economic relations are complex due to asymmetries and interdependence between
countries. “A fruitful and balanced co-existence should be the aim of EU-China economic
relations” (Garcia-Herrero et al., 2020: 69). Ultimately, although Chinese partnerships
are affected by the whole international environment and may be long and changeable,
they can provide a platform for bilateral dialogue, build a political framework for
cooperation, and positively impact the process towards achieving the goal.
References
Brown, K. (2012). China’s Overseas Investment in the European Union. The International
Spectator, Vol. 47, No. 2.
Brown, K. (2021). The EU and China in 2021: Separate Discourses, Similar or Different
Aims? The ASAN Forum. Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from https://theasanforum.org/the-
eu-and-china-in-2021-separate-discourses-similar-or-different-aims/
Butter, F. A. G., & Hayat, R. (2008). Trade between China and the Netherlands: A Case
Study of Globalization. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper.
Chen, H., Luo, C., Renard, M., Sun, S. (2021). EU-China Trade and Intra-EU Trade:
Substitute or Complementary? Special Issue: Globalization and Environment: The Roles
of China. Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 36, Issue 3.
Christiansen, T., Kirchner, E., & Wissenbach, U. (2019). The European Union and China.
Red Globe Press.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
29
Cihelková, E., Nguyen, H. P., Fabuš, M., & Čimová, K. (2020). The EU Concept of the
“Strategic Partnership”: Identifying the “Unifying” Criteria for the Differentiation of
Strategic Partners. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, Vol. 7, No. 3.
Costa, C. M. (2020). The Words of the Belt and Road Initiative: A Chinese Discourse for
the World? In Leandro, F. & Duarte, P. (Eds.), The Belt and Road Initiative: An Old
Archetype of a New Development Model. Palgrave Macmillan.
Deloitte. (2015). Luxembourg: The European Hub for China. Retrieved on 13 July 2022,
from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/lu/Documents/int-markets/lu-
en-european-hub-china.pdf
European Commission. (2021). Trade Policy Review — An Open, Sustainable and
Assertive Trade Policy. Retrieved on 1 July 2022, from
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/april/tradoc_159541.0270_EN_05.pdf
European Council. (2003). European Security Strategy. Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15895-2003-INIT/en/pdf
EY Europe Attractiveness Survey. (2022). Retrieved on 13 July 2022, from
https://www.ey.com/en_gl/attractiveness
Forsby, A. B. (ed.). (2019). Nordic-China Cooperation: Challenges and Opportunities.
Nordic Institute of Asian Studies Press.
Garcia-Herrero, A. & Xu, J. (2019). Countries’ Perceptions of China’s Belt and Road
Initiative: A Big Data Analysis. Bruegel, Working paper, Issue 1. Retrieved on 1 May
2022, from https://www.bruegel.org/2019/02/countries-perceptions-of-chinas-belt-
and-road-initiative-a-big-data-analysis/
Garcia-Herrero, A., Wolff, G., Xu, J., Poitiers, N., Felbermayr, G., Langhammer, R., Liu,
W. H., Sandkamp, A. (2020). EU-China Trade and Investment Relations in Challenging
Times. European Union. Retrieved on 1 May 2022, from
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EXPO_STU(2020)603492
Hu, W. & Pelkmans, J. (2020). Can Dialogues Advance EU-China Trade Relations? CEPS
Research Report. Retrieved on 13 April 2022, from https://www.ceps.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/11/RR2020-05_EU-China-Dialogues-trade-relations.pdf
Jaklič, A., Svetličič, M. (2019). China and Central and Eastern European Countries within
‘16+1’: Group or Bilateral Relations? Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review,
Vol. 7, No. 2.
Li, Y. & Vicente, M. (2020). Chinese Partnerships and the Belt and Road Initiative: A
Synergetic Affiliation. In Leandro, F., Duarte, P. (eds.). The Belt and Road Initiative: An
Old Archetype of a New Development Model. Palgrave MacMillan.
Li. Y. (2021). Threefold Contributions Delivered by the Belt and Road Initiative: The Case
of Portuguese-speaking Countries. Doctoral thesis, City University of Macau.
Li, Y. & Costa, C. (2021). International and Domestic Discourses of China’s Special
Economic Zones: An Instrument for New Projects. In Leandro, F., Figueiredo, P., Li, Y.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
30
(eds.). Handbook of Research on Special Economic Zones as Regional Development
Enablers. IGI Global.
Liu, Y., Su, M., Zhao, J., Martin, S., Yuen, K. F., Lee, C. (2022). The Determinants of
China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment: A Vector Error Correction Model Analysis of
Coastal and Landlocked Countries. Economic Change and Restructing, Springer.
Kratz, A., Barkin, N., & Dudley, L. (2022). The Chosen Few: A Fresh Look at European
FDI in China. Rhodium Group. Retrieved in January 2023, from
https://rhg.com/research/the-chosen-few/
Maher, R. (2016). The Elusive EU–China Strategic Partnership. International Affairs, Vol.
92, No. 4.
Men, H. & Jiang, P. (2020). The China-Italy Comprehensive Strategic Partnership:
Overview and Pathways to Progress. China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies,
Vol. 6, No. 4.
MOFCOM. (2021). Statistical Bulletin of FDI in China. Retrieved on 13 April 2022, from
http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/wzs/202111/20211125164038921.pdf
Nadaud, L. (2022). Luxembourg ranks first in number of foreign direct investment
projects per capita, shows first EY Attractiveness survey. Ernst & Young. Retrieved on 13
July 2022, from https://www.ey.com/en_lu/news/2022/07/luxembourg-ranks-first-in-
number-of-foreign-direct-investment-pr
Pałłasz, U. (2015). Strategic Partnership as an Instrument of EU Foreign Policy —
Workshop Report. Carleton University. Retrieved on 13 June 2022, from
https://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2015/12/Strategic-Partnership-
Workshop-Report-final.pdf?type=pdf
Rhodium Group & MERICS. (2022). Chinese FDI in Europe 2021 Update: Investments
Remain on Downward Trajectory – Focus on Venture Capital. Retrieved on 1 July 2022,
from https://merics.org/en/report/chinese-fdi-europe-2021-update
Sautenet, A. (2008). Europe and China: Cooperation with Complex Legal Dimensions.
Tous droits réservés, Ifri.
Stumbaum, M. U. & Xiong, W. (2012). Conceptual Differences of Strategic Partnership in
EU–China Relations. In Pan, Z. (ed.). Conceptual Gaps in China–EU Relations: Global
Governance, Human Rights and Strategic Partnerships. Palgrave Macmillan.
Suyker, W., & Wagteveld, S. (2019). A Fresh Look at the Dutch Current Account Surplus
and Its Driving Forces. CPB Background document.
Tyushka, A., & Czechowska, L. (2019). Strategic Partnerships, International Politics and
IR Theory. In Czechowska, L., Tyushka, A., Domachowska, A., Gawron-Tabor, K., &
Lamparska, J. P. (eds.), States, International Organizations and Strategic Partnerships.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wintgens, C. (2022). Think Tank: Consolidating Luxembourg’s Position as an Asset
Management Centre. Ernst & Young. Retrieved on 13 July 2022, from
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
31
https://www.ey.com/en_lu/wealth-asset-management/luxembourg-market-
pulse/think-tank--consolidating-luxembourg-s-position-as-an-asset-mana
Wouters, J., & Burnay, M. (2012). Concluding Remarks: China–EU Relations in Turbulent
Times: Which Way Forward? In Wouters, J., Wilde d’Estmael, T., Defraigne, P., Defraigne,
J. C. (eds.). China, The European Union and Global Governance. Edward Elgar.
Yue, S. (2018). Towards A Global Partnership Network: Implications, Evolution and
Prospects of China’s Partnership Diplomacy. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies,
Vol. 36, No. 2.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
32
Annex I. Bilateral Trade in Goods 2000–2020 between China and EU Countries
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
33
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
34
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
35
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
36
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
37
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
38
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
39
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
40
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
41
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
42
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 10-43
China and European Union countries: Do Chinese partnerships boost cooperation results?
Cátia Miriam Costa, Yichao Li
43
Annex II
Groups
EU
Countries
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Germany 845.41 845.5 1082.24 1502.29 2401.44 3104.35 3979.38 5785.50 5881.76 7841.75 12163.20 13688.61 14233.99 14549.58
France 126.81 167.13 221.03 243.62 3723.89 3 950.77 4 447.94 8 444.88 5 723.55 5 116.17 5 702.71 6 598.79 5 954.34 4 860.95
Italy 127.13 133.6 191.68 223.8 449.09 573.93 607.75 719.69 931.97 1 554.84 1 903.79 2 145.35 2 570.17 2 847.81
Spain 142.85 145.01 205.23 247.76 389.31 437.25 315.71 424.53 608.01 736.47 692.63 1 060.14 1 110.57 1 109.50
Poland 98.93 109.93 120.3 140.31 201.26 208.11 257.04 329.35 352.11 321.32 405.52 523.73 555.59 682.31
Hungary 78.17 88.75 97.41 465.7 475.35 507.41 532.35 556.35 571.11 313.70 327.86 320.69 427.36 341.87
Denmark 36.75 38.08 40.79 42.47 49.13 53.24 84.37 208.15 82.17 226.11 228.83 246.53 294.85 353.54
Greece 0.38 1.68 1.68 4.23 4.63 5.98 119.79 120.85 119.48 48.08 182.22 242.47 231.02 126.29
Portugal 1.71 1.71 5.02 21.37 33.13 40.38 55.32 60.69 71.42 87.74 110.23 105.93 58.57 45.78
Austria 4.04 4.04 1.55 2.01 24.54 79.46 76.66 201.70 327.99 530.51 851.49 461.63 492.18 675.23
Ireland 29.23 107.77 106.82 139.91 156.83 193.77 323.25 249.72 248.32 573.77 882.63 972.77 1 074.01 1 517.94
Czechia 19.64 32.43 49.34 52.33 66.83 202.45 204.68 242.69 224.31 227.77 164.90 279.23 287.49 1 198.43
Bulgaria 4.74 4.74 2.31 18.6 72.56 126.74 149.85 170.27 235.97 166.07 250.46 171.09 156.81 155.84
Cyprus 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 90.9 94.95 171.26 107.17 109.15 110.05 718.69 845.43 1 061.47 202.74
Belgium 33.98 33.3 56.91 101.01 140.5 230.69 315.01 493.47 519.53 544.03 479.23 326.41 470.95 500.63
Finland 0.94 3.59 9.04 27.25 31 34.03 42.55 58.99 95.07 211.70 213.07 327.54 340.38 306.62
Netherlands 138.76 234.42 335.87 486.71 664.68 1107.92 3193.09 4194.08 20067.13 20587.74 18529.00 19428.99 23854.82 26041.29
Croatia - - - - - 8.63 8.31 11.87 11.82 11.99 39.08 69.08 98.40 252.64
Romania 72.88 85.66 93.34 124.95 125.83 161.09 145.13 191.37 364.80 391.50 310.07 304.62 428.27 313.16
Sweden 146.93 157.59 111.89 1479.12 1531.22 2408.17 2737.71 3012.92 3381.96 3553.68 7307.42 6896.81 8578.69 10601.49
Slovakia 5.1 5.1 9.36 9.82 25.78 86.01 82.77 127.79 127.79 82.77 83.45 99.29 82.74 82.87
Slovenia 1.4 1.4 5 5 5 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 26.86 27.25 40. 09 189.60 46.80
Malta 1.87 4.81 5.03 0.2 3.37 3.37 3.49 5.42 10.45 163.64 164.98 230.49 229.32 172.53
Luxembourg 67.02 122.83 2484.38 5786.75 7081.97 8977.89 10423.76 15666.77 7739.88 8776.60 13936.15 15388.70 13902.21 15995.45
Estonia 1.26 1.26 7.5 7.5 7.5 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.62 56.84 63.33 5.32
Lithuania 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93 6.97 12.48 12.48 12.48 15.29 17.13 12.89 9.81 12.23
Latvia 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.94 0.94 1.02 11.70 11.63 16.81
Group 4
Note: Croatia joined the EU in 2013.
Source: 2011 & 2020 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment.
http://aaa.ccpit.org/Category7/Asset/2014/Apr/22/onlineeditimages/file71398159735273.pdf & https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-
09/29/5639984/files/a3015be4dc1f45458513ab39691d37dd.pdf
China’s Outward FDI Stock in EU Countries: 2007-2020 (Millions of USD)
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023
44
EU-CHINA RELATIONS: EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY OF COGNITIVE
DISSONANCE
CARLOS RODRIGUES
cjose@ua.pt
Associate Professor at the Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences of the
University of Aveiro (Portugal). He holds the position of head of department since 2015 and the
coordination of the University of Aveiro’s Center for Asian Studies and Master in Chinese Studies
since 2011. Carlos is a member of the Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public
Policy- GOVCOPP. His research focuses on territorial innovation systems, particularly on the role
science, technology and innovation policy and practice play in systemic, territorially-based
development processes, and Asian studies, particularly in the domains of EU-China relations, and
sports, power and development.
Abstract
This paper takes stock of the idea of cognitive dissonance as a possible attribute of the current
EU-China relations state of affairs. It goes far beyond the simplistic approach to the term that
became quite frequent in politicians and analysts’ discourses, because delving into the theory
pioneered by the psychologist Leon Festinger in the late 50s, which, in brief terms, assumes
that in a psychologically unpleasant situation characterised by conflicting beliefs, opinions,
feelings, behaviors, or attitudes, there is a tendency to attempt to reduce dissonance and
avoid information likely to increase conflict. Under this theoretical framework, the article
explores the tensions, contradictions and dilemmas that are shaping EU-China relations in a
complex, fast-changing, geopolitical and geostrategic context. Accordingly, it takes advantage
of insights provided by the theory of cognitive dissonance to frame a discussion on
dependencies and interests, as well as efforts to keep up appearances and manageable
balances within conflict, which, arguably, can configure a dissonance-reducing intent. The
paper, though, concludes that this intent is bearing on a hedging strategy, rather than on
changes in behavior, values and beliefs, or environmental conditions, as advocated by
Festinger’s theory.
Keywords
Cognitive Dissonance, Systemic Rivalry, Contradiction, Dilemmas, China, European Union.
Resumo
Este artigo faz um balanço da ideia de dissonância cognitiva como um possível atributo do
atual estado das relações UE-China. Vai para além da abordagem simplista do termo, que se
tornou bastante frequente nos discursos de políticos e analistas, pois aprofunda a teoria
lançada pelo psicólogo Leon Festinger no final dos anos 50, que, em poucas palavras, assume
que numa situação psicologicamente desagradável caracterizada por crenças, opiniões,
sentimentos, comportamentos ou atitudes conflituantes, há uma tendência para tentar reduzir
a dissonância e evitar informações que possam aumentar o conflito. Sob esta estrutura
teórica, o artigo explora as tensões, contradições e dilemas que estão a moldar as relações
UE-China num contexto geopolítico e geoestratégico complexo e em rápida mudança. Assim,
aproveita as intuições fornecidas pela teoria da dissonância cognitiva para enquadrar uma
discussão sobre dependências e interesses, bem como esforços para manter as aparências e
equilíbrios admiistráveis dentro do conflito, o que, sem dúvida, pode configurar uma intenção
de redução da dissonância. O artigo, no entanto, conclui que essa intenção está relacionada
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
45
a uma estratégia de cobertura, e não a mudanças de comportamento, valores e crenças ou
condições ambientais, conforme defendido pela teoria de Festinger.
Palavras-chave
Dissonância Cognitiva, Rivalidade Sistémica, Contradição, Dilemas, China, União Europeia
How to cite this article
Rodrigues, Carlos (2023). EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance.
Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. VOL14 N1, TD1 – Thematic dossier “European Union-
China relations”, September 2023. Consulted [online] in date of last visit,
https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0123.2
Article received on December 9, 2022 and accepted for publication on January 9, 2023
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
46
EU-CHINA RELATIONS: EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY OF
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
CARLOS RODRIGUES
Introduction
The Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs and State Councillor, Wang Yi, talking about the
international situation in a 2021 interview given to Xinhua agency, has classified the
European Union (EU) recent positioning towards China as suffering from “cognitive
dissonance”. Wang’s argumentative line that it is “hard to imagine that on one hand,
Europe seeks to build a comprehensive strategic partnership with China, and on the other
hand, it defines China as a systemic rival” and “difference in systems does not mean
China and Europe have to be rivals” seem to prompt the somehow weird wording (at
least in terms of political discourse) he used. Cognitive dissonance is, notwithstanding, a
prestigious theory in the psychology field, pioneered by Leon Festinger in the late 50s
(Festinger, 1957), which, taking it simply and shortly, revolves around the idea that in a
situation characterised by conflicting beliefs, opinions, feelings, behaviours, or attitudes,
being psychologically unpleasant, there is a tendency to attempt to reduce dissonance
and avoid information likely to increase conflict (Harmon-Jones and Mills, 2019).
Moreover, as Harmon-Jones and Mills (2019:3) claim, “the greater the magnitude of the
dissonance, the greater is the pressure to reduce dissonance”.
Is that so in the realm of EU-China relations? This is the issue at stake in this paper.
Accordingly, it seeks to know whether Wang’s words mirror the theoretical concerns, that
is, the inevitability of a decrease in dissonance due to a variety of ‘discomforts’, or, rather,
a moment of (theory-free) rhetoric. The endeavour requires tackling the tensions,
contradictions and dilemmas marking the recent evolution of EU-China relations, in a
context of fast and complex geopolitical and geostrategic change. Accordingly, it implies
to bear in mind the crescendo in dissonance that corresponds to a strategic leap that led
the EU approach on China from a quite optimistic overall stance to the 'systemic rivalry'
status of 2019 (EC, 2019). This, in turn, cannot be detached from a reaction to the far-
reaching policy transformation that led China from Deng’s policy of “keeping a low profile
and get something done” to the one of “work hard for achieving”, Xi’s motto to materialise
the ‘Chinese dream’ and the “two centenary goals”.
Notwithstanding, there is a consensus that the costs of an eventual EU-China decoupling,
be it total or partial, would be a serious blow both for Europe and China. Felbermayr et
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
47
al. (2021:17), for instance, consider that such a decoupling “would considerably worsen
the standard of living for people inside the EU as well as for its trading partners outside,
and should thus be avoided by all means”. Accordingly, there is scope to mull over the
possibility of an endeavour to lessen dissonance and conflict, and thus the risk of a
harmful breaking off. The crux of the matter, under the light of cognitive dissonance
theory, seems to be whether the strong mutual dependence between the EU and China
may display the ground needed to bear the basic postulate put forward by Festinger
(1962: 3): “In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting
relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in its own right”.
Hence, this paper takes stock of the insights provided by the theory of cognitive
dissonance in order to frame a discussion on dependencies and interests, as well as
efforts to find manageable balances within dissonance and conflictual cognitions. It starts
by briefly sketching the basics of Festinger’s theory and contextualising the current
dissonant dynamics marking EU-China relations. After a snapshot of the current situation,
which allows for discerning dissonant cognitions, the paper discusses the prospects
concerning motivations to reduce dissonance, taking stock of the well-known problem of
dependence that engulfs the relations between the two parties.
About cognitive dissonance
This first section does not aim to detail the theory of cognitive distance, let alone to
explore the academic debate it fuelled over almost seven decades (e.g., Cooper, 2007;
Vaidis and Bran, 2019). Rather, it grasps the basics of Festinger’s theoretical
contributions that, in short and in the author’s own words (Festinger, 1962: 102), “[I]in
addition to throwing light on one's own behavior, it would seem to carry useful lessons
for everyone concerned with understanding human behavior in a world where everything
is not black and white”.
The main assumption, as put by the theory’s proponent (Festinger, 1962: 93), is that
“cognitive dissonance is a motivating state of affairs”, in the sense that “[J]just as hunger
impels a person to eat, so does dissonance impel a person to change his opinions or his
behaviour”. As such, the central idea is that an individual who knows several things that
are dissonant with one another will endeavour to make them more consonant (ibid.). In
the same vein, two elements of knowledge, -two cognitions
1
-, whether relevant to each
other, are consonant, if one follows from the other, or dissonant, if the opposite follows
from the other. Psychological discomfort caused by dissonance triggers the motivation to
reduce it. As put by Cooper (2007: 2): “we do not like inconsistency. It upsets us and it
drives us to action to reduce our inconsistency”. Festinger (1957) suggests that, when
dissonance is present, there will be an active attempt to avoid situations and information
that could potentially increase it.
1
According to Festinger (1957), the term cognition means any knowledge, opinion or belief about the
environment, oneself, or one’s behaviour.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
48
According to Festinger’s theory, dissonance can be the result of logical inconsistency,
cultural mores, the inclusion of a specific opinion in a more general opinion, or
inconsistency with past experiences. For those who are not familiar with the theory, and
for the sake of clarity, it is worth to bring over the examples provided by Festinger himself
(Festinger, 1957) to illustrate each of these sources of dissonance between two cognitive
elements. On logical inconsistency, the author gives the example of a person who
believed that man would reach the moon in a near future, but also believed that man
would not be able to build up a device able to leave Earth’s atmosphere. The use of hands
to pick up a “recalcitrant chicken bone” (Festinger, 1957:14) in a formal dinner gives rise
to dissonance between the knowledge of the action and the knowledge of formal dinner
etiquette, or, in other words, between the action and what cultural mores establish as
consonant with the prevailing norms. Dissonance caused by specific opinions inserted
into a general opinion, following the author, occurs when a Democrat, in a given election,
prefers a Republican candidate and vote accordingly, thus undermining the notion that
‘being a Democrat’ brings with it, as part of the concept, favouring Democratic
candidates. Finally, inconsistencies stemming from past experiences are illustrated by
the case of a person who stands in the rain and yet cannot see any evidence that he or
she getting wet, although knowing from experience that getting wet follows from being
out in the rain.
The theory also deals with the problem of dissonance magnitude, looking at it as “an
important variable in determining the pressure to reduce dissonance” (Festinger, 1957:
18). It states that the relation between two (relevant) cognitions is either dissonant or
consonant and that the magnitude of dissonance or consonance increases in line with
increments in value or importance of cognitions. As mentioned above, the bigger the
dissonance, the bigger the pressure to reduce dissonance. The total amount of
dissonance existing between two clusters of cognitions, following the theoretical
reference, depends on the weighted proportion of all relevant dissonant relations in those
two clusters, meaning that the weight of each relevant relation would be determined by
the importance of the involved cognitive elements.
Festinger (1957:18) points out that, in general, “if dissonance exists between two
elements, this dissonance can be eliminated by changing one of those elements”. The
ways to reduce dissonance depend, primarily, upon the type of cognitive elements and
the overall cognitive context. As such, the author, on the one hand, refers to changes in
a behaviour cognitive element in order to make it consonant with the environmental
element with which it relates. On the other hand, he puts forward the “much more
difficult” (ibid.: 20) possibility of introducing changes in an environmental cognitive
element as a means to reduce dissonance, implying the existence of sufficient control
over the environment. Bearing in mind that the full elimination of a dissonance requires
that some cognitive element should be changed and that change is not always possible,
the author (ibid.:21) argues that “even if it is impossible to eliminate a dissonance, it is
possible to reduce the total magnitude of dissonance by adding new cognitive elements”.
The reduction effect of new information holds by means of decreasing the proportion of
dissonant relations as compared with consonant ones or by the ‘reconciliation’ of two
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
49
dissonant elements. In short, the pressure to reduce dissonance includes behavioural
changes, changes of cognition and what Festinger (ibid: 31) calls “circumspect exposure
to new information and new opinions”.
The extent to which this theoretical frame of reference can be useful to the scientific
endeavour in the field of international relations is a first and most important
interrogation. Auerbach (1986:534) seems to have no doubts about the “rich source of
conceptual and analytical tools to be used in explaining foreign policy processes and their
outcomes” that cognitive social psychology can provide. Moreover, the same author
(ibid.) emphatically considers the field as an effective way to overcome the idea of
“peoples and states trapped in self-perpetuating conflicts, moving eternally in close
circles of hatred and enmity which they seem powerless to break”, as in the cognitive
approach to foreign policy decision-making processes that prevailed during the 1970s
and the early 1980s. Goldgeier and Tetlock (2001) also look at psychology as useful in
international relations analysis, namely because (ibid.:81) its contribution “to delineate
the conditions under which decision makers are especially likely to change their
underlying attitudes to bring them into line with counterattitudinal behaviour”. The same
authors (ibid.: 88) highlight “psychology’s help in refining ideas in key debates regarding
power, institutions, and norms”, as well as “to consider how environment and cognition
interact in systematic and identifiable patterns to produce the variation we find in world
politics”.
Aligning with the endorsement of those scholars, the challenge, thus, is to turn the
conceptual ground put forward by the theory of cognitive dissonance into a frame of
reference amenable to a sound analysis of the current state of affairs in EU-China
relations. Accordingly, a number of theory-laden assumptions are set forth, namely:
- The present status of EU-China relations is the result of a set of decision-making
processes influenced by what Auerbach (1986) calls a cognitive system that includes
beliefs, attitudes and values;
- In the system, there exist clusters of dissonant cognitions which are configuring the
developments in EU-China relations;
- Dissonance between cognitions can be traced both in terms of type and magnitude,
implying that judgements on the ‘discomfort’ that triggers efforts to reduce it can be
brought into light;
- Change in the balance of beliefs, attitudes or values, as well as in terms of the
‘environment’ in which EU-China relations evolve, is possible and crucial to respond
the pressures to reduce dissonance;
- Motivation to reduce dissonance cannot be detached from the struggle between
passions and interests, to use a Smithian wording wrap.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
50
About the deterioration of EU-China relations
It is widely accepted that EU-China relations have deteriorated in recent times (Umbach,
2021). European perceptions and judgements about the alleged violations of human
rights in Xinjiang, the Hong Kong situation, and, particularly, China’s approach to the
COVID-19 pandemic and to the war in Ukraine prompted a new relational baseline that,
in tandem with the interests inherent to the transatlantic alliance with the United States,
was a (pretextual) part of a reactive stance towards the rise of China as a global power
and the inherent geopolitical challenge, seen by the Biden administration as a “most
consequential” one (The White House, 2022: 11). Differences in values, political system
and world views seem to have emerged as a dissonance driver, bringing to the surface
contrasts that, to a certain extent, were veiled before. Charles Michel, the current
president of the European Council, attests it: “we have to recognise that we do not share
the same values, political systems, or approach to multilateralism. We will engage in a
clear-eyed and confident way, robustly defending EU interests and standing firm on our
values”. (Council of the European Union, 2020).
The ‘strategic outlook’ Joint Communication (EC, 2019:1) made explicit a ‘systemic’
divide, under the scope of, as written in the document, “a growing appreciation in Europe
that the balance of challenges and opportunities presented by China has shifted”.
Accordingly, China has become “simultaneously, in different policy areas, a cooperation
partner with whom the EU has closely aligned objectives, a negotiating partner with
whom the EU needs to find a balance of interests, an economic competitor in the pursuit
of technological leadership, and a systemic rival promoting alternative models of
governance” (ibid). A straightforward interpretation of the new outlook would convey the
idea that, albeit competition exists in economic and technological terms, the clashing
dimension of EU-China relations lies on differences in ideological, political and
government systems. The placing of China in different relational categories, following
Silva (2022: 5), underpins a compartmentalisation of different policy areas “in order to
maintain operational autonomy of specific domains even when other policy areas might
be at risk (e.g., continuing economic cooperation in spite of irreconcilable political
divergences)”. This compartmentalisation did not appease the discomfort of Chinese
authorities in relation to the rivalry issue. Wang Yi, for instance, averred that the rivalry
logic “has not only undermined China-Europe relations but also brought confusion to
European friends themselves”. According to the Chinese State Councillor and Minister for
Foreign Affairs, “difference in systems does not mean China and Europe have to be
rivals”
2
.
In 2021, rivalry was raised up to unprecedent harshness, under the pretext of a
significant number of issues, from the National Security Law aimed at Hong Kong to the
allegations of forced labour and repression of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang province,
without neglecting the pressure to bring the EU positioning closer to the US openly
conflictual approach to China. Mutual sanctions on individuals and organisations followed,
2
Interview to Xinhua News Agency and China Media Group on the International Situation and China’s
Diplomacy in December 2021.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
51
strengthening the confrontational dynamics. The wording of a letter outlining an internal
EU report on China, undersigned by Ursula van der Leyen and Josep Borrel and sent to
the members of the European Council (see Lau, 2021), set forth the new, further
deteriorated, relational environment: “The reality is that the EU and China have
fundamental divergences, be it about their economic systems and managing
globalization, democracy and human rights, or on how to deal with third countries. These
differences are set to remain for the foreseeable future and must not be brushed under
the carpet”. The war in Ukraine has intensified the divide, as made clear in the EU
Strategic Compass for Security and Defence, in which the trust gap between the two
parties seems to be further broadened.
Meanwhile, a manifold number of agreements, commitments, joint strategies and
statements proceeded way despite harshened rivalry. The case of the Comprehensive
Agreement on Investment (approved in December 2020, but still pending approval from
the European Parliament) emerges as a good example, to which one can add the
agreement on geographical indications. Moreover, whereas the EU has confirmed its
position as main overall trading partner of China, statistics also reveal that China, in
2021, for the first time in recent history, had outweighed the US as main supplier of the
EU. It seems obvious that there is an apparent contradiction between a stout affirmation
of dividing elements and a prolific momentum of comprehensive cooperation. This is in
line with Geeraerts’ (2019: 281) argument that looks at EU-China relations as “residing
somewhere along a spectrum that extends from pure cooperation at one extreme to
unrestrained competition at the other”. Perhaps this contradictory ground can find
explanation in Li and He (2022), who characterise the new relational baseline as the
outcome of a movement from engagement and cooperation to engagement and rivalry.
Resuming the set of assumptions built upon the insights of cognitive dissonance theory,
one can argue that:
- The cognitive systems configuring EU and China’s decision-making processes in
foreign policy rely on different beliefs, attitudes and values;
- There is a mismatch between the confrontational values-driven approach and the more
‘amicable’ stance adopted by the EU when striving for the pragmatic view of China as
a “negotiating partner with whom the EU needs to find a balance of interests” (EU,
2019: 1), fleshing out dissonance between cognitions.
- Cultural mores, namely in the form of ideology and prevalent values, seem to play a
role in dissonance production.
One can easily speculate about the discomfort that the cognitive dissonance stemming
from the mismatch mentioned above may provoke. However, to make extended
judgements about the type and magnitude, and, accordingly, about the motivation to
engage in reducing dissonance, requires further efforts. The endeavour claims for a
discussion on interconnectedness and dependence, which brings forward the struggle
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
52
between interests and passions and its driving effect on the motivation for dissonance
reduction.
Interconnectedness and dependence…
China’s transformation process triggered by Deng’s openness and reform policies,
leveraged by an economic global integration, led the Middle Kingdom to a stellar
socioeconomic development trajectory, deemed as unprecedented in recent history. The
production and, more recently, technological innovation capacities drove China to a
prominent position in global trade, supply chains and investment, causing a shift in terms
of the balance of economic power. As expected, increased interconnectedness between
the EU and China’s economies is part of this changing balance, as well as a rise in mutual
dependences, as evidenced by trade and investment statistics.
As in Figure 1, China, in 2021, was the EU’s leading partner for imports (22,4%), followed
by the US (11.0%), Russia (7.5%) and the UK (6.9%), and the third largest partner for
exports (10.2%), after the United States (18.3%) and the United Kingdom (13.0%).
While dissonance was increasing, so did EU-China trade. In fact, between 2011 and 2021,
EU imports from and exports to China rose ca. 97% and 76%, respectively. For the same
period, the EU trade deficit increased in 93%. China, in 2021, has become the main EU
trading partner, ousting the US from the top position for the very first time.
Figure 1- EU’s main partners for trade in goods, 2021
Source: Eurostat, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=China-EU_-
_international_trade_in_goods_statistics
Regarding investment, although a decreasing trend in the most recent years (Figure 2),
both the cumulative account and the sectors and activities involved place China as an
actor that cannot be neglected. Rather than entering in details (for a comprehensive
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
53
discussion see, for instance, Seaman et al., 2017 or Kratz et al., 2022a), the crux of the
matter here is that China, either through state-owned or private companies, has stock
and stake in a wide array of economic sectors and companies, including many with a
sensitive and strategic nature (e.g., maritime port facilities and electrical power
suppliers). Moreover, as Kratz et al. (2022a) highlight, the focus of Chinese foreign direct
investment (FDI) in Europe has significantly changed, from mergers and acquisitions to
greenfield and venture capital investment, namely in high-tech start-ups and rapidly
growing sectors.
Figure 2- Chinese FDI into Europe (2012-2021) EUR billion
Source: Kratz et al. (2022a)
Any analysis of EU investment flows into China would show a very different scenario
when compared with the opposite direction. As well established by Kratz et al. (2022b),
a striking distinctive feature concerns the concentration in terms of countries of origin.
Germany, France and the Netherlands (together with the United Kingdom) are by far the
largest sources of EU investment in China. The weight of these three countries in the
total amount of EU-China outbound investment was 61% in 2018, 88% in 2019, 65% in
2020, and 79% in 2021. In addition, over the last years, the concentration trend also
affected the investment sectoral distribution. Automotive, food processing,
pharmaceuticals, chemicals and consumer products industries, in 2021, represented ca.
70% of total European investment in China (including here the UK). Moreover, the top
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
54
ten European investors in China were also responsible for approximately 70% of the total
amount (Kratz et al., 2020).
Whereas the trade and investment statistics provide evidence of a high degree of
interconnectedness, when addressing the issue of dependence, a closer examination is
needed. For instance, the simple analysis of numbers would show that China is far more
dependent on the EU than the contrary – the head of the EU Chamber of Commerce in
China, Jörg Wuttke, said that the EU “export goods at a value of 600 million euros every
day to China […] the Chinese export 1.3 billion euros of goods daily to Europe” (in Joshi,
2022). Yet, when delving into details, any assertion on a higher or lower level of
dependence becomes difficult to substantiate. In fact, China’s dependence on the EU can
be grasped through the acknowledgement of the role played by imports and FDI in the
Chinese effort to improve the country’s R&D and innovation capacities, which has been
transforming the ‘factory of the world’ into a global technological power. On the other
hand, crucial EU policy goals, such as, for instance, the Green Deal and digital transition,
are heavily dependent on China, which has become a dominating power in the global
green supply chain (Brown, 2022). Brown (ibid.:2) refers to photovoltaics, wind-turbine
components, and rare earth elements as paradigmatic examples of how dependent
Europe is upon China when endeavouring to achieve in one of its chief objectives: “In
photovoltaics, for instance, China accounts for about 80 percent of the global production
of polysilicon, cells and modules, as well as 97 percent of wafer production. About four-
fifths of wind-turbine components are manufactured in China. Neodymium, a rare earth
element used to make permanent magnets that go into wind turbines and electric
vehicles, is also predominantly refined in China”.
In addition, despite the deterioration of EU-China relations and the recurrent and wishful
discourse on the need to diversify supply chains, large and influential European
companies are doing their best to ensure a sort of ‘business as usual’ thread. Germany
provides a very good example. The biggest EU economy is, by far, China’s main European
economic partner (17% of Germany’s exports to non-EU countries and ca. 49% of total
EU exports to China), as well as the largest source of European investment in China (43%
of total). Zeiglen (2020: 6) adds that, within the EU, “Germany has benefited most
economically from China’s rise” and “deeper political ties under the leadership of
Chancellor Angela Merkel have flanked stronger trade and investment relations since
2005”. Following Katz et al. (2022b), four German companies- the carmakers
Volkswagen, Daimler-Benz and BMW, and the chemical BASF-, made up more than 30%
of the total amount of European capital poured into China in the last four years. The case
of the German automotive sector can indeed be deemed as a paradigmatic one when
assessing how remote is the possibility of a swift and extensive process of supply chain
diversification in the near future. Besides the huge relevance of the German carmakers’
sales in the Chinese market (the Volkswagen Group, for instance, is the market leader in
China with a share of 16%), interdependencies do exist in the technological
developments that are fostering e-mobility and digitalisation. These go beyond the
widespread dependence account based on the fact that China is the main producer of
batteries for electric vehicles and the main source of essential raw materials. In practice,
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
55
German automotive companies are strengthening their R&D partnerships with Chinese
organisations (mostly companies). Mercedes-Benz, for instance, from 2015 onwards, has
established such partnerships in a variety of fields, such as autonomous driving (Tsinghua
University, Tencent, and Baidu), connectivity (Xiaomi), batteries (BJEV Beijing Electric
Vehicle, CATL- Contemporary Amperex Technology, Farasis Energy), electric vehicles
(Geely), and cybersecurity (Tencent) (Sebastian, 2022). Moreover, Mercedes-Benz, BMW
and Volkswagen maintain 16 R&D centres in 9 Chinese cities. A note to highlight is that
eight of these centres were created after the launching of the new EU strategic outlook
that brought systemic rivalry to the fore.
Katz et al. (2022b) explain these developments using three major reasons: i) the belief
that China will continue to be a lucrative market despite the economic and geopolitical
headwinds; ii) investments in China are a means to ensure increased competitiveness to
face rising domestic competition, namely in the e-mobility sector; and iii) the attempt to
insulate the companies’ operations in China from the rising global risks by means of
greater localisation.
This brief sketch of EU-China interconnectedness and dependence helps to bring back
the theory of cognitive dissonance to the discussion and supports two major propositions:
- Having in mind the soured relational environmental and the high level of
interdependence, one can suggest that logical inconsistency is a source of dissonance,
as it is inconsistent with past, cooperation-prone, experiences;
- The size and relevance of the Chinese economy and the inherent trend of EU economic
actors to behave according to a ‘business as usual’ line are indications that interests
are placating passions, thus increasing the magnitude of dissonance.
As such, accepting that increased dissonance steps up the motivation to reduce it, ground
is provided to check out whether this assumption stands. This is the task of the next
section.
Reducing dissonance?
As argued by Festinger (1962: 94), sometimes “it may be very difficult or even impossible
to change behavior or opinions that are involved in dissonant relations”, meaning that
“there are circumstances in which appreciable dissonance may persist for long periods”.
Apparently, the dissonant cognitions that configure EU-China relations are likely to hold
in the near future. The Chinese global policy shift characterised by Li and He (2022) as
a move from a ‘stimulus-response’ to an ‘actively shaping’ mode comes up against an
increased EU emphasis on strategic autonomy and a (European) values-based approach
to world politics (with a particular focus placed on China), prompting a divide that
matches the difficulties forecast by Festinger and thus makes it unrealistic to aspire for
dissonance to be easily attenuated. However, the magnitude of dissonance allows for
arguing that the motivation to engage in and the pressure to find paths aimed at its
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
56
reduction are present in the environment shaping EU-China relations. The
interdependences discussed above can be taken as major drivers in the production of
cognitive dissonance in the context of EU-China relations, as they establish a stout
dividing line between political differences and common economic interests. As such, they
emerge as a major element supporting the motivation and building pressure for a
reduction in dissonance. The problem here seems to be the identification of the kind of
changes that are necessary to ensure such a reduction.
According to Festinger (1957), in order to reduce dissonance, there is a need to change
either behavioural or environmental cognitions. A third possibility concerns the
introduction in the cognitive system of new information. Placing EU-China relations under
the spotlight, as argued before, it seems hard to devise a great opportunity to foster
consequential changing dynamics, both in terms of beliefs, values and behaviour, and in
terms of the environmental element. Furthermore, it is also a remote possibility to expect
that new pieces of information will have the power to trigger those changing dynamics.
Doubts can also be cast on the effectiveness of an eventual overstating of existing
similarities (e.g., the promotion of multilateralism and non-hegemony), while
understating or ignoring any differences (Shambaugh et al., 2008).
The notion of hedging can be of utility to resolve this standoff. Goh (2005:2) avers that
hedging “refers to taking action to ensure against undesirable outcomes, usually by
betting on multiple alternative positions”, implying “a set of strategies aimed at avoiding
(or planning for contingencies in) a situation in which states cannot decide upon more
straightforward alternatives such as balancing, bandwagoning, or neutrality”. In practice,
the compartmentalisation of policy areas in the EU strategic outlook on China (EU, 2019)
meets the hedging conceptual wrapping, namely because it separates the economic and
the political dimensions, allowing for Europe to view China as simultaneously a
cooperating partner and a systemic rival. In addition, the desire rooted in the EU business
community to ensure a ‘business as usual’ path in what concerns China, taken together
with the economic concerns of governments acting in growing uncertainty and global
turbulence, can foster a hedging approach to reduce the magnitude of dissonance.
Although slightly speculative in nature, the observation of a number of events that
occurred in recent months signals an attempt to mitigate confrontation that fits the idea
of hedging. Olaf Scholz’s visit to China in November last year can be placed within this
framework. The German chancellor, the first European leader to travel to Beijing since
the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, brought with him a delegation of German
business leaders. His visit to Xi Jinping gave rise to fierce criticisms from within the
German Government (namely those coming from ministers of the Greens, SPD’s coalition
partners) and other German and EU political elements, criticisms that intensified when
Germany gave the green light to the acquisition of a minority stake in the Port of
Hamburg by the Chinese state-owned company COSCO. In a guest article published in
Politico (Scholz, 2022), the chancellor stated that “even in changed circumstances, China
remains an important business and trading partner for Germany and Europe”, adding
that “We do not want to decouple from it”. The article ends as follows: “We will seek
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
57
cooperation where it lies in our mutual interest. We will not ignore controversies. That is
part and parcel of a candid exchange between Germany and China”.
Giorgia Meloni, the Italian prime minister, before she took office at the Palazzo Chigi, did
not mince words but stoutly criticised China and announced her intention to limit China’s
expansion and influence in Europe. Yet in November 2022, while participating in the G20
summit held in Bali, Indonesia, Meloni officially met Xi Jinping. According to the Italian
Government site (www.governo.it), she had “a cordial meeting with the President of the
People’s Republic of China”, in which she “expressed the Italian Government’s interest in
promoting mutual economic interests, also with a view to increasing Italian exports to
China”, and touched upon EU-China relations, “with the hope being expressed that they
will be revigorated”.
These two observations seem to legitimate the identification of a form of hedging
strategy, since they approximate, as Goh (2005:2) puts it, “a middle position that
forestalls or avoids having to choose one side at the obvious expense of another”. More
time and further observations will be needed to fully confirm the extension of this method
of diminishing cognitive dissonance affecting EU-China relations. Nevertheless, one can
already acknowledge that the European side, in particular, is matching the predictions of
Festinger’s theory. The ‘discomfort’ of clashing views of China as a (very important)
partner and, at the same time, as a (globally influential) rival is pressuring the European
settings to endeavour to attempt to reduce dissonance.
Concluding remarks
EU-China relations have deteriorated in recent years. The EU has attributed to China the
qualities of being, simultaneously, a partner, a competitor and a rival, aiming to ensure
a compartmentalisation of policy areas and thereby allowing them to operate in insulation
from each other, with low interference between them. The extent to which this
compartmentalisation has been a productive way of configuring EU-China relations is still
by no means established, given the aftermath of further deterioration in the relationship’s
dynamics prompted by a series of events that led the European authorities to adopt a
more confrontational stance. In the end, amidst turbulence provoked by a striving
balance between interests and values, and perhaps under the scope of ‘principled
pragmatism’, the two parties are attempting to mitigate the effects of a relational
baseline marked by a conflictual approach. This makes cognitive dissonance and its
theory a purposeful theoretical framework to delve into the current EU-China relation
state of affairs. In this sense, Wang Yi, while addressing the issue of systemic rivalry,
was right in bringing the concept into the light.
This paper has extended Yi’s simplistic use of the concept, taking advantage of the
pioneering work of Leon Festinger (Festinger, 1957, 1962). By conjugating the theoretical
contributions with an analytical effort of the relational ground between the two blocs,
thus exploring their configuring dissonant cognitions, it provides a number of insights
that ought to be useful in appraising EU-China relations. It highlights that the
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
58
confrontation logic coexists with a high level of interdependence and interconnectedness.
As such, in light of Festinger’s theory, one can argue that logical inconsistency, as well
as inconsistency with past experiences, are producing dissonant cognitions. Still, mutual
dependence forces a dividing line between political differences and economic advantages,
which, in the end, gives privilege to interests to the detriment of values (or passions…).
Accordingly, the motivation and pressure to reduce dissonance can be detected in the
realm of EU-China relations. The manner in which dissonance is being reduced, however,
does not fit with the theoretical predictions, because, rather than being based on
changing dynamics in behaviours, values and beliefs, or in environmental conditions, it
seems to be relying on some form of hedging strategy.
As a final conclusion, there is scope to argue that, under the current political
environment, it is not expectable any move to take us back in time, namely to the 7th
EU-China summit, held in The Hague, in December 2004, a period when the zeitgeist was
heavily focused on mutual coexistence, avoidance of any disturbing effects of differences
on the overall relationship, the mutual recognition of the importance of each side
fostering its own comparative advantages, learning from each other, and ensuring the
joint construction of prosperous societies. Revesz (2022: 95), though, alerts that “bipolar
antagonism would amount to disaster”. She (id.) adds: “This is why we believe in
facilitating discussion, dialogue and all kinds of knowledge flow to diversify the discourse
and raise it to a new, more rational and empowering level”. Hedging, dissonance-
reducing, strategies might be of value in fostering such a new, more rational and
empowering level.
References
Auerbach, Y. (1986). Turning-point decisions: A cognitive-dissonance analysis of conflict
reduction in Israel-West German relations. Political Psychology, 533-550.
bringing back, stoutly, the idea that the European ideal, as the former Commission’s
president Barroso would say, “it is about values, and I underline this word: values”
3
.
Brown, A. (2022). Net-zero Europe risks a heavy dependence on China. MERICS short
analysis, October 31, 2022.
Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive Dissonance: Fifty Years of a Classic Theory. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Council of the European Union (2020). EU-China summit via video conference, 22 June
2020.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/internationalsummit/2020/06/22/
EC (2019). EU-China – A strategic outlook. Joint Communication to the European
Parliament, the European Council and the Council, JOIN (2019) 5 final. Brussels,
European Commission
3
State of the Union address, Strasbourg, September 11, 2013
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
59
Felbermayr, G., Gans, S., Mahlkow, H., & Sandkamp, A. N. (2021). Decoupling
Europe (No. 153). Kiel Policy Brief.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson.
Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93-106.
Geeraerts, G. (2019). The EU-China partnership: balancing between divergence and
convergence. Asia Europe Journal, 17(3), 281-294.
Goh, E. 2005. Meeting the China challenge. The U.S. in Southeast Asia regional security
strategies. Policy Studies 16, East-West Center Washington.
Goldgeier, J. M., & Tetlock, P. E. (2001). Psychology and international relations
theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 67-92.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and
an overview of current perspectives on the theory. In E. Harmon-Jones (Ed.), Cognitive
dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology (pp. 3–24). American
Psychological Association.
Joshi, M. (2022). Europe distances itself from China. Observer Research Foundation,
October 2022.
Kratz, A., Barkin, N., Dudley, L. (2022b). The Chosen Few: A Fresh Look at European
FDI in China. Rhodium Group Report, September 2022.
Kratz, A., Zenglein, M. J., Sebastian, G., and Witzke, M. (2022a). Chinese FDI in Europe:
2021 update. MERICS and Rhodium Group report, April 2022.
Lau, S. (2021). EU slams China’s ‘authoritarian shift’ and broken economic promises.
Politico, April 25.
Li, Y., and He, Z. (2022). The Remaking of China–EUrope Relations in the New Era of
US–China Antagonism. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 1-17.
Oertel, J., J. Tollmann and B. Tsang (2020) ‘Climate superpowers: How the EU and China
can compete and cooperate for a green future’, Policy Brief, 3 December, European
Council on Foreign Relations.
Révesz, A. (2022). China: Strategic Partner or Systemic Rival? A collection of interviews.
Berlin: Center for Cultural Studies on Science and Technology in China, Technische
Universität Berlin.
Scholz, O. (2022). We don’t want to decouple from China, but can’t be overreliant. Guest
article of the Federal Chancellor in Politico, November 2022.
Seaman, J; Huotari, M.; Otero-Iglesias, M. (eds.) (2017). Chinese investment in Europe:
A country-level approach. European Think-Tank Network on China (ETNC), December
2017.
Sebastian, G. (2022). The Bumpy Road Ahead in China for Germany’s Carmakers.
MERICS China Monitor, October, 27.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 44-60
EU-China relations: Exploring the possibility of cognitive dissonance
Carlos Rodrigues
60
Shambaugh, D., Sandschneider, E., & Hong, Z. (2008). China-Europe
Relations. Perceptions, Policies, and Prospects, New York: Routledge.
Silva, M. (2022). The effectiveness of the EU’s China policy: The case of the
Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). Brugge: College of Europe, EU
Diplomacy Paper, 1, 2022.
The White House (2022). National Security Strategy. Washington: The White House.
Umbach, F. (2021). EU–China Relations at a Crossroads: Decoupling or a European
“Sinatra Doctrine”?. East Asian Policy, 13(01), 47-64.
Vaidis, D. C., & Bran, A. (2019). Respectable challenges to respectable theory: cognitive
dissonance theory requires conceptualization clarification and operational tools. Frontiers
in psychology, 10, 1189.
Walt, S.M. 1987. Origins of alliance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Xinhua (2021). State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi Gives Interview to Xinhua
News Agency and China Media Group on International Situation and China’s Diplomacy
in 2021.
Zenglein, M. J. (2020). Mapping and recalibrating Europe’s economic interdependence
with China. MERICS China Monitor, 11.
OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023
61
PERSPECTIVES ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE EU-CHINA
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
CARMEN AMADO MENDES
carmen.mendes@fe.uc.pt
President of the Macau Scientific and Cultural Centre (Portugal). Associate Professor of
International Relations with tenure, accredited at the School of Economics of the University of
Coimbra, where she established the course “China and the Portuguese-speaking Countries in
World Trade”. Former head of the International Relations department and coordinator of the
School of Economics International Office at the same university. Holds a Ph.D. degree from the
School of Oriental and African Studies – University of London, a Master degree from the Institute
of Higher European Studies – University of Strasbourg, and a Bachelor degree from the Institute
of Social and Political Sciences – University of Lisbon. She was a Post-doctorate scholar at the
Institute of Political Studies of the Portuguese Catholic University of Lisbon and visiting professor
at the University of Macau, the University of Salamanca and the University of Lyon. She was a
board member of the European Association for Chinese Studies, and the organizer of the 2014
EACS conference in Coimbra; and president of the International Relations Section and member of
the board of the Portuguese Political Science Association. Principal Investigator at the University
of Coimbra on a research project on the role of Macau in China´s relations with the Portuguese
speaking-countries, funded by the Portuguese national funding agency for Science, Research and
Technology; and on a project on South-South Cooperation for the Europe China Research and
Advice Network, supported by the European External Action Service. Auditor of the Portuguese
National Defense Institute. Co-founder of the consulting company ChinaLink, and of the
Observatory for China in Portugal. Author of China and the Macau Negotiations, 1986-1999
(HKUP) and China’s New Silk Road: An Emerging World Order (Routledge), as well as other
publications available for consultation at: www.uc.pt/feuc/carmen
Abstract
The decision reached by the European Parliament (EP) to suspend ratification of the
Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) introduced a new phase into EU-China
relations. This paper examines some of the events leading up to the EP decision, and considers
some of the larger consequences of the decision. When on 20 May 2021 the European
Parliament passed a motion recommending a formal freeze on the CAI, it brought an abrupt
interruption, and possible final conclusion, to seven years of negotiations. The decision
resulted in considerable comment in the EU and China. Beyond the question of how China
reacted to this unexpected block to future negotiation, and whether the EU Parliament vote
could have been foreseen, the paper considers, among other topics, the role of public opinion
in the EU. The paper reviews the changing evaluations of China in advanced economies, as
mirrored in Pew Research Center surveys. What brought about the suspension was not
investment or trade-related differences, but was directly related to human rights issues and
labour law issues, and sanctions imposed upon China on members of the European Parliament,
with the CAI being signed in the context of crackdowns in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Accepting
the view of Mario Teló that the CAI must be seen not only as a new investment regime, but
also as a relevant international event affecting international relations, this paper examines
indications of changes in Chinese attitudes towards the EU. While some of those in the EU
Parliament who voted for the motion previously might have held a positive view towards
developing a new framework, more recent events demonstrate that even were there to exist
any resolve towards future negotiations, they could not occur at the price of fundamental
European values.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
62
Keywords
EU, EU Parliament, China, EU-China Comprehensive Agreement for Investment (CAI), Public
Opinion.
Resumo
A decisão do Parlamento Europeu em suspender a ratificação do EU-China Comprehensive
Agreement for Investment (CAI) deu início a uma nova fase das relações entre a União
Europeia (UE) e a China. Este artigo analisa alguns dos eventos que levaram esta decisão e
considera algumas das suas consequências mais abrangentes. O congelamento formal do
Acordo, a 20 de Maio de 2021, levou a uma interrupção abrupta e, provavelmente, pôs fim a
sete anos de negociações. Para além da questão da reação chinesa a este inesperado bloqueio
de negociações e se o voto do Parlamento Europeu poderia ter sido previsto, o artigo considera
o papel da opinião pública europeia e as alterações às percepções da China nas economias
avançadas, de acordo com os inquéritos do Pew Research Center. O que levou à suspensão,
não foram dissensões na área do investimento ou comércio, mas sim sobre questões de
direitos humanos e de legislação laboral, bem como as sanções impostas pela China a
membros do Parlamento Europeu, num contexto da repressão chinesa em Xinjiang e Hong
Kong. Seguindo a visão de Mario Teló de que o CAI deve ser visto, não apenas como um novo
regime de investimento, mas também como um evento internacional relevante com impacto
nas relações internacionais, analisamos os indicadores de mudança nas atitudes chinesas em
relação à UE. Enquanto alguns dos que votaram a favor da moção podem ter tido,
inicialmente, uma visão positiva em relação ao desenvolvimento de um novo enquadramento,
os eventos mais recentes demonstram que, mesmo que se dê o reatar negociações, estas não
irão pôr em causa os valores fundamentais defendidos pela UE.
Palavras-chave
UE, Parlamento Europeu, EU-China Comprehensive Agreement for Investment, Opinião
Pública
How to cite this article
Mendes, Carmen Amado (2023). Perspectives on The Suspension of the Eu-China Comprehensive
Agreement on Investment. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. VOL14 N1, TD1 –
Thematic dossier “European Union-China relations”, September 2023. Consulted [online] in date
of last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0123.3
Article received on October 24, 2022 and accepted for publication on January 25, 2023
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
63
PERSPECTIVES ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE EU-CHINA
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
CARMEN AMADO MENDES
Introduction
The decision reached by the European Parliament (EP) to suspend ratification of the
Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) introduced a new phase into EU-China
relations. The suspension of the ratification of the agreement in 2021 has been widely
commented upon, and the literature concerning it is considerable. Several leading
Chinese researchers have published in English on the topic, providing invaluable insights
into non-western perceptions of the situation. When the two major global trading
partners could not finalize the accord, it became de facto a major IR event. As was widely
reported at the time, the average daily trade in goods in 2019 between China and the
European Union (EU) was two billion dollars. The stock Chinese direct investments to the
EU in the same year was over 93 billion dollars, and the stock of the EU’s investments in
China was over 136 billion dollars (Chen, 2022). While substantial, there nevertheless
existed a real potential for further development since EU investments in China only
amounted for about 5% of the total foreign investment, and similarly China’s investments
only reached 3.4% of the EU’s total foreign investment. The agreement that would
improve these investment figures, as well as level the playing field, and improve access
for European companies to the Chinese market was incontrovertibly impeded. However,
in 2022 China remained the third largest partner for EU exports of goods (9.0 %), and
the largest partner for EU imports of goods (20.8 %). For the period January 2021 to
December 2022 EU imports from China increased by 39%, while exports increased by
1.6% (Eurostat, 2022). Trade thus continued, and grew, despite the suspension of the
Agreement.
What brought about the suspension was not investment or trade-related differences, but
was directly related to human rights issues and labour law issues, and sanctions imposed
upon China on members of the European Parliament, and signed in the context of
crackdowns in Xinjiang and Hong Kong (Nicolas, 2022). Mario Teló has suggested that
the CAI must be seen not only as a new investment regime, but also as a relevant
international event affecting international relations (Teló, 2021). This paper examines
some of the events leading up to the EP decision, and considers the larger consequences
of the decision. Teló makes what, in my opinion, is a central, yet often insufficiently
emphasized point in discussions regarding the CAI and its fate, namely that the EU
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
64
elected assembly is under the influence not only of the general trade politicization, but
also, more specifically of multiple very vocal public opinion campaigns based on large
flows of information against the perceived authoritarian turn of the Chinese regime of Xi
Jinping (Teló, 2021).
The CAI and Public Opinion
Regarding the economic relationship between the EU and China, it is the EU that has the
formal responsibility for trade and investment (Freeman, 2022). Although the CAI was
formulated by officials from the European Commission in dialogue with representatives
of the Chinese government, over a period of seven years, it was known from the
beginning of the process that the CAI eventually to be ratified by the European Parliament
(EP). Since the members of the EP who are elected through a democratic process,
represent a variety of national and political interests, a degree of diversity of opinions
regarding issues related to trade and investment were to be expected. The leaders and
governments of non-democratic nations are well aware of the democratic process, and
know that it does not function in the same way as authoritarian regimes. Members of the
European Parliament (MEPs) are directly influenced by the opinions of their constituents
to a degree not experienced in authoritarian states. Public opinion can, and often does,
develop into a political force in authoritarian regimes, but runs the risk of being quashed
by the authorities, and is often quashed with violence. Examples of such outcomes are
too numerous and well-known to require examples here. The suppression of public
opinion is not the case in elections held in the European Union, although some EU citizens
might beg to differ, and they have the legal right to do so. Indeed, it is the legal right to
entertain and express different opinions, without threat of reprisal, which underpins the
democratic system. The point here is public opinion campaigns have an importance in
the democratic system that cannot be overlooked, and that a valid means to
understanding how political change occurs in the EU is to consider changes in public
opinion regarding specific issues.
This paper considers the changes that can be seen in public opinion regarding China, and
regarding increased and enhanced trade and investment cooperation with China,
primarily in the developed countries of the EU, that occurred over time from the years
preceding the signing of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment that was
announced on 20 December 2020, and up to the decision by the European Parliament
not to ratify the CAI on 20 May 2021. As Zhang Li notes, Europe’s view of China is
increasingly complex, and the complexity derives in part from the increasing number of
member states, and as a result of China’s developing relations with Central and Eastern
European nations (Zhang, 2022). China’s economic leverage, through the funding of
projects in Greece and Hungary, appears to have enabled China ‘to disrupt a united
European policy on China’ (Cooper, 2019). The results of three Pew Research Surveys
are taken up, and set in context, and they are followed by examples of media reactions
to the failure of the European Parliament to ratify the CAI that were published in China
and the EU.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
65
Chen Xin, Director of the Economic Division at the Institute of European Studies at the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, identifies a central problem that conditions EU
decision making processes, noting that, “Everybody knows that if Europe desires to gain
its credibility, EU countries need to speak with a single voice and take concerted action.”
Chen continues to bluntly state, “if we look at concrete cases, the reality is totally
different” (Chen, 2022). Chen raises a number of valid questions regarding the timing of
the signing of the CAI, among which the questions of the participation of President
Emanuel Macron at the video conference, the urgency to finalize the negotiations prior
to the end of the German presidency, and the haste to sign the agreement before
President Biden assumed office in January 2021. The haste was attributed to the Chinese
by former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen who stated, ‘The Chinese
saw an opportunity to split the EU and the new Biden administration. The Chinese all of
a sudden moved’ (Burnay, 2022). Regarding the presence of President Macron, it is
arguable that it was predictable since Macron had invited German Chancellor Angela
Merkel and European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker to take part in a meeting
with President Xi Jinping in Paris in 2019. The efforts that Macron and Merkel exerted to
reduce tensions between France and Germany in 2020, and their common desire to the
achieve the signing of the CAI. Placed in this light, Macron’s participation is
understandable.
At time of the signing in 2020, following the call with President Xi Jinping, at which
European Commission President von der Leyen, European Council President Charles
Michel, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on behalf of the Presidency of the EU
Council, as well as French President Emmanuel Macron were present, the President of
the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, stated among other things that:
“Today‘s agreement is an important landmark in our relationship with China and for our
values-based trade agenda,” and that, ” The agreement will rebalance our economic
relationship with China” (von der Leyen, 2020).
While it is clear that the possibility of a decision regarding non-ratification could be taken
by the European Parliament existed throughout the seven years of negotiation that
preceded the signing, the European Commission devoted considerable efforts towards
mitigating criticism and alleviating concerns. In one digital conference in July 2020, Ms
Maria Martin Prat, Director for Services and Investment, Intellectual Property and Public
Procurement, DG Trade argued that while much had been achieved in negotiations with
China, yet maintained that there existed broad support for the prioritisation of the
substance of the agreement over the speed of its conclusion (Martin Prat, 2020).
However, in responses to questions posed by several entities, Ms Martin Prat explained
that the critical situation in Hong Kong was beyond the remit of the CAI, that the CAI
does not cover cross-border trade of goods and services, and that the CAI would not
include a specific IP chapter. Regarding the question of prioritisation of substance over
speed, to which I shall return, it appears that in fact this was precisely the opposite of
what both Angela Merkel and Xi Jinping intended, with an eye on the impending
inauguration of Joe Biden as President of the United States of America on January 20,
2021. In other words, the ratification of the CAI was essentially a relevant international
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
66
event affecting international relations, and not only an agreement between two trading
parties.
Matthieu Burnay and Kolja Raube argue convincingly that “the rise and fall of the CAI
testifies to both, on the one hand, a growing (geo-) politicisation of trade policy and, on
the other hand, a growing (geo-) politicisation of trade investments in the context of EU-
China relations (Burnay & Raube, 2022)”. Burnay identifies the separation of trade and
investments from other policy areas and fundamental values (such as human rights),
and the legal and political commitment to coherence in the EU’s trade and investment
policy, as a way to understand the growing tensions between the temptation to
compartmentalize in times of (geo-) politicisation. At the same time, it is relevant to take
note of the important point that while the EU seeks equivalence with China,
simultaneously the leaders of the EU socially distance themselves from China with ethical
forms to articulate their international identity (Song & Hall 2019).
The changing perception of the relationship between the EU and China since the
establishment in 2003 of the strategic partnership between the two parties was first
made, became obvious, from the EU perspective, with the publication in 2019 of the EU-
China Strategic Outlook. In this document, four perceptibly different, and arguably
incompatible, perspectives of China in the framework of EU-China relations that the EU
entertains, were presented, namely, “a cooperation partner with whom the EU has closely
aligned objectives, a negotiating partner with whom the EU needs to find a balance of
interests, an economic competitor in the pursuit of technological leadership, and a
systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance” (EU-China Strategic Outlook,
2019).
To a western reader, this statement could appear to embody challenging undertones to
China to align itself more closely with the EU’s interests, and even reconsider its supposed
rivalry. While the EU was categorical in its depiction, the official Chinese response,
penned by Yao Ling, shrugged off any acceptance of the existence of diversities in
direction, blankly avoided making any direct criticism, and took a higher moral stance.
As often occurs, China preferred ’to control the narrative’ by realigning the substance of
the EU statement according to China’s own preferred perception of EU-China relations.
Yao’s views were published in the China Daily, which is owned by the Central Propaganda
Department of the Chinese Communist Party, and is relied upon to publish official
statements. Yao Ling wrote,
‘In March, the European Commission released a document "EU-China: A
strategic outlook", which has been interpreted as the transformation of the
EU's policy toward China. Although it assertively highlighted the EU's interests
more, China-EU cooperation remains the mainstay of bilateral relations. In
fact, China and the EU both regard each other as an important partner for
strategic cooperation. In December 2018, China issued its third policy paper
on the EU, identifying the direction, principles and specific measures to
deepen the China-EU Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in the new era and
promote greater development of China-EU relations. On its part, the EU
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
67
always looks upon the strategic partnership with China from the perspective
of common development and prosperity’ (China Daily, March 2019).
Having explained to the EU that, in fact, no great differences existed between China and
the EU, and that the EU was actually in full agreement with China, this view of the
fundamentally positive nature of EU-China relations was further reinforced by an article
a few weeks later by an article titled ‘Political trust has forged strong bonds’ by Shi
Mingde, former ambassador to Germany and Austria, who made it patently clear that the
Chinese view of relations between China and Germany, specifically selected as the
representative of the EU that China prefers, were that they were excellent. Referring to
the issues raised by the EU, Shi Mingde simply stated that, “The steady progress in China-
Germany relations can serve as a role model for cooperation between countries with
different political systems” (China Daily, May 2019). In this way, China successfully
diverted attention from the European Commission’s recently formulated views on EU-
China relations. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the EU-China Strategic Outlook
statement still rankled in China more than two and a half years later, and required
criticism. The Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs and State Councilor Wang Yi stated, in
his end of year summation of Chinese diplomacy in 2021, that “Europe’s policy towards
China seems to suffer from “cognitive dissonance”. It is hard to imagine that on one
hand, Europe seeks to build a comprehensive strategic partnership with China, and on
the other hand, it defines China as a systemic rival. This logic has not only undermined
China-Europe relations but also brought confusion to European friends themselves”
(Wang Yi, 2021).
In December 2019, the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen
encouraged the DG for Trade to “step up negotiations with China” with the aim of
reaching an agreement by the end of 2020 (von der Leyen, 2019). The same month
Foreign Minister Wang Yi also supported the importance of reaching a conclusion
concerning the CAI in 2020 (MERICS China Essentials, 10 September 2020). However,
the CAI was not really ready for the EU and Chinese heads of state to sign. It lacked
relevant agreements on climate change, standards, or COVID-19 cooperation (Garcia-
Herrero, 2020). Furthermore, many of the commitments in the CAI were not novel, but
were already covered by Chinese laws (O’Reilly, 2021) Not only were the negotiations
far from completion, but during the seven years that they had taken, several EU Member
States had perceived flaws weaknesses in the proposals, some of which were related to
their own national interests (Burnay, 2022: 685), and within the European Commission
itself ‘promise fatigue’ on the part of the Chinese (Lai Suetyi, 2023). At the same time,
China urgently desired that the CAI be ratified before 20 January 2021, before Biden
became President of the USA, since a magic strategic goal of the PRC’s external policy
was, in the words of the resolute MEP Reihard Bütikofer, “to drive a wedge between the
U.S. and the EU” (Bütikofer, 2022).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
68
A Disruption of EU-China trade relations
Once on 20 May 2021 the European Parliament passed a motion recommending a formal
freeze on the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement for Investment, it brought an abrupt
interruption, and possible final conclusion, to seven years of painstaking negotiations
(van der Made, 2021). The vote of 599 in favour of the motion, 30 against and 58
abstentions signified clearly that resistance to continued discussions was fundamental,
beyond any simple alteration of a number of specific provisions, and not likely to be
reconciled for the foreseeable future. The resolution mentioned China’s deteriorating
human rights records, identifying violations in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, and denounced
Chinese sanctions on members of the European Parliament and national parliaments that
had followed shortly after the EU had imposed sanctions on Chinese officials accused of
violating human rights in Xinjiang. The motion went even further calling on the EU to
intensify cooperation with the USA in the Transatlantic Dialogue with China, and also took
up the issue of trade with Taiwan. At the time that this motion was passed, the obvious
question of ‘What comes next in EU-China trade relations?’ arose. The questions of how
China reacted to this abrupt and unexpected block to future negotiation, and whether
the EU Parliament vote could have been foreseen the debacle, are important to consider.
Answers to these questions expose the power relationship between the EU and China in
mid-2021, and whether there was any clear path by which the EU-China economic
partnership could continue as previously.
The answer to the first question could have easily been predicted. Chinese media reacted
with vehemence and indignation, at the same time as diverting readers from any
consideration of the central reasons for the motion. The Global Times, the tabloid version
of the People’s Daily, as almost always spear-heading outrage and threatened
repercussions, called the MEPs motion “preposterous”, and stated that it made use of
“groundless claims concerning human rights as an excuse to block progress on a deal
that bodes well for European businesses and consumers (Global Times, May 2021).” The
Global Times took the EU to task, stating that the EU had “displayed an accelerating
confrontational attitude toward China, … by trying to interfere in China's internal affairs”,
an accusation that is repeatedly made against any country that criticizes a point of
concern in China, but does not appear to apply to China itself when it criticizes other
countries. With the Global Times deploying its usual rhetoric of recrimination, the China
Daily repeated the opinion of foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian who denied that
China had any responsibility in the matter, stating “China is unwilling to see the current
difficulties in China-European Union (EU) relations caused by the EU's unjustified
sanctions, and the responsibility does not lie with China.” In Zhao’s opinion, “the EU
disregarded facts, twisted right and wrong, and stubbornly made a wrong decision of
unilateral sanctions based on lies and disinformation.” Taking a position of moral
superiority, Zhao diplomatically “hoped that the EU side will make serious reflections” on
its actions, and stressed “Dialogue and cooperation is the right way forward.” Zhao
concluded by stressing that the “the China-EU investment agreement is a balanced and
win-win deal.” So much for the official Chinese response which projected the EU as being
at fault, and as being confrontational and misrepresenting the situation.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
69
The South China Morning Post (SCMP), rather than castigating the EU Parliament for
failing to acquiesce to the narrow parameters demanded by China for international
cooperation, looked at how China appeared to have misread the future of Germany’s
trade relations with China. One day after a speech made by Armin Laschet, the CDU
candidate for chancellor after Angela Merkel, who had promised strong trade ties with
China, and had stated that he would vote to ratify the CAI, at the same time as informing
his listeners that Germany accounted for 50% of EU exports to China, the European
Parliament vote left the deal, to quote the SCMP “dead in the water” (Bermingham,
2021). Regarding voting in the EU Parliament, not one MEP from Merkel or Laschet’s
party voted to save the CAI. Only one of the 83 MEPs for Germany voted against the
motion, along with a small number of abstentions. In other words, attitudes that may
have been widespread in Germany in 2013 at the beginning of negotiations appear to
have changed radically, and other priorities had come to the fore. Indeed, the only EU
state whose EU parliamentarians voted en bloc to save the CAI was Hungary, which has
21 MEPs, with all twelve MEPs from the ruling party Fidesz voting against the motion.
Not only did Laschet drastically misread his own MEPs, but so too did China.
Regarding the voting of the Fidesz bloc, of all the EU states, Hungary currently has the
closest political relations with China. Hungary is the only EU member state to have issued
Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certificates to Chinese producers of Covid-19 vaccine
in 2021. The first was issued for the Sinopharm vaccine on April 5 (Pharmaceutical
Technology, 2021), prior to the vote, and the second for Convidecia vaccine on 22 May,
soon after the EU Parliament vote. As Feng Duojia, president of the China Vaccine
Industry Association, told the Global Times when Sinopharm was approved, certification
increased confidence in Chinese vaccines in “small European countries” (Liu, 2021), and
would lead to more recognition of Chinese vaccines in the EU. Whether the expected
increase in Chinese vaccines was viewed as being a proxy for increased confidence in the
CAI in smaller European countries, both within the EU and in the process of applying for
EU membership, is not beyond consideration. Nevertheless, such confidence was totally
lacking the in the MEP representatives for these countries, apart from Hungary, which
consequently made a public demonstration of its pro-China stance by approving the
Convidecia vaccine.
Changing evaluations of China
Regarding the second question of whether the result of the vote could have been
foreseen, this should not have been a surprise for anyone. In October 2020, during the
Covid-19 outbreak, the Pew Research Center published a survey of changes in attitudes
between the years 2007-2020 towards China in fourteen advanced economies (Silver,
2020). In the majority of countries surveyed a dramatic increase in negative evaluations
of China are noticeable. The only country in the EU that did not demonstrate a significant
change was Italy with an average 62% negative evaluation for the period. In the UK
there had been an increase in negative evaluation from 16% to 74%, in Germany from
37% to 71%, in Spain from 21% to 63%, in the Netherlands from 34% to 73%, and in
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
70
Sweden most dramatically from 40% to 85%. Outside the EU, in the USA the increase
had been from 35% to 73%, in South Korea from 31% to 75%, and in Japan from 42%
to 86%, an even greater shift than for Sweden. In other words, increases of
approximately 40% in negative evaluation had been widespread in the advanced
economies with which China expects to cooperate, and not infrequently on its own terms.
When it came to the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, a median of 61% of those
surveyed expressed a negative evaluation of how China had conducted itself. The Pew
Survey also found that a median of 78% of those surveyed did not have much, or any
confidence in President Xi Jinping “to do the right thing regarding world affairs.”
Specifically, 78% of those surveyed in Germany had no confidence in Xi Jinping. This was
a significant, and worrying figure, that should have alerted Chinese diplomats to a
dramatic change in EU attitudes. At the same time, a plurality or majority in every EU
country surveyed had expressed the opinion that “China is the world’s leading economic
power”. Perhaps surprisingly, but also indicatively, different income levels and
educational levels did not influence the negative perception of China. The fact that a
negative view of China has grown continually in most cases since 2007, and has become
pervasive across large sections of the EU population, must be considered as one of the
central problems for China to successfully implement its international relations within the
EU, where public opinion exerts influence on political decisions. China’s failure to succeed
in its soft-power initiatives, and to provide at least a satisfying degree of transparency
regarding its ongoing activities and planned initiatives, was and continued to remain a
stumbling block to achieving widespread acceptance for many of its singular
achievements. However, at the same time, and perhaps not unexpectedly, there clearly
existed a consensus regarding China’s economic superiority.
The future of EU-China trade relations
The third question that this paper raises is ‘What comes next in EU-China trade relations?’
Once the rhetoric has abated, there still exist strong reasons for the EU to cooperate
more closely with its prime trading partner. The business reality expressed in the
following views of a Portuguese business developer, who will remain anonymous, provide
a pragmatic perspective, prior to the freeze on negotiations. Firstly, he hoped that the
CAI could allow for the definition of more equitable rules for the EU-China relationship,
since it still remained relatively difficult for European companies to enter the Chinese
market. European health companies were an example of European companies that would
benefit from better access to the Chinese market in the developer’s opinion. The second
point that the developer made was that Chinese capital is not infinite, with the result that
China needs to guarantee a constant flow of FDI. After the election of President Biden,
China’s need for a constant flow of FDI would become even more important due to the
fact that the Biden administration was continuing to blacklist Chinese companies. This
would mean that, sooner or later, Chinese companies would be forced to leave the US
market and search for new possibilities. Consequently, this developer understood the CAI
as potentially permitting Europe to position itself as the recipient for a new wave of
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
71
Chinese investment. What the developer was pragmatically arguing for was the need for
more equitable and more transparent rules, and an adaptation to the presumed
departure of a number of Chinese companies from the USA, with a corresponding influx
to the EU, as a result of what we may call the ‘Biden effect’.
While the Global Times had predicted on 24 March, that “those holding ideological
prejudices in the European Parliament would ultimately lose ground to the prevailing
trend within the bloc that advocates for cooperation to fit into the actual development
needs” (Global Times, March 2021), this opinion was a total misunderstanding of the
underlying adherence to values, beyond simple profit margins, that exists within the EU.
The fact that the Global Times followed up its prediction with a warning that, in the case
of a failure to sign the deal, it “could deal a blow especially to EU vehicle manufacturers”,
is indicative of the Chinese negotiating strategy — considerably more stick than carrot.
It is now patently clear that the Chinese view, as expressed in the Global Times, that
there is the “utmost urgency for the EU to return to its China strategy that has proven
to be successful over the past decade”, was not the central problem. As matters stood in
June 2021, it was simply not possible to predict, with any degree of credibility, that in
the future a ‘return to the past’ would occur, or that an improvement in cooperation in
trade within the existing framework, without increased transparency, could take place.
The failure of the CAI should have hammered home the realization that sustainable global
trade would require China, as well as the EU, to make changes. While many of those in
the EU Parliament who voted for the motion remained positive towards developing a new
framework, it was now perfectly clear that there existed a resolve that it would not be at
the price of fundamental European values.
On 30 June 2021, the Pew Research Center published a follow-up survey to the one of
October 2020, that on this occasion covered results from seventeen advanced economies.
In all but one country, Singapore, favourable views regarding the US had increased
significantly. The overall median showed an average favourable view of the US being
61%, while only there was only a 27% favourable view of China, with only Greece and
Singapore having a favourable view over 50%. The negative views of China had
continued unchanged, and in some cases were even less positive than in the previous
survey. For example, broadly negative views of China were found in Japan (88%),
Sweden (80%), Australia (78%) and the US (76%). The only EU member state included
the survey to have a relatively favorable view of China was Greece (52%). As the Pew
Survey notes, “these unfavorable views are at or near historic highs”. At the same time,
confidence in President Xi Jinping remained low, with more than 50% of those surveyed
in Australia, France, Sweden and Canada saying that they had no confidence in President
Xi at all. On the other hand, confidence in President Biden at the time of the survey was
dramatically higher than the figures for President Xi.
However, views regarding the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic rated China as having
done a better job than the US with, among the EU member states surveyed, Greece,
Spain and Italy all placing China considerably higher than the US. But when it came to
choosing with which nation to have closer economic ties, the US outranked China in all
the countries surveyed, apart from Singapore. Among EU member states, Sweden was
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
72
the most positive regarding economic ties with the US (82%), followed by the
Netherlands (69%), Italy (66%), Belgium (64%), Greece (64%). The overall conclusion
must be that negative views towards China remain prevalent, confidence in President Xi
Jinping is minimal, and closer economic ties with the US, rather than China, are the public
sentiment in all EU member states surveyed, as well as in Japan, South Korea, Australia,
Taiwan, and New Zealand. This public antipathy towards China indicates that any Chinese
soft-power initiatives aimed at the world’s most advanced economies have demonstrably
failed (Silver, 2021).
Chinese Policy towards the EU
The Diplomat pointed out that there exist three serious failings in China’s policy towards
the EU. Firstly, China has failed to treat the EU “as a serious political and security actor”,
and notes that the EU “holds strong soft power”, projecting its influence globally. The
author posits that China views the EU as being “a fragile bloc with deep divides”, and
considers the US as its unique target when making policy. Secondly, that China does not
take normative concerns, embracing democracy, human rights and rule of law, as
seriously as it should. China is overtly investment-oriented, and it has attempted to solve
the problem of normative divergences with offers of investment and trade. Thirdly, China
has failed to develop “a sophisticated diplomacy” to deal with Europe. This article
provides a potential insight into Chinese thinking with the comment that “Beijing does
not have a clear idea of its influence and potential threat to others (Xue, 2021).” The
result is, for example, that China repeatedly declares that it “aims to establish a deep
cooperative partnership with the EU, regardless of the changing perception the EU has
of China”. In other words, when China increasingly has deployed diplomatic ‘wolf
warriors’, to whom compromise is weakness, it has lost any accurate perception of the
impact of its policies on its partners, and the image it is creating and promoting.
There have been recent indications that a minor change of tactic, if not of policy, may
have been attempted, focusing on national governments more positively inclined towards
Chinese overtures. At the end of October 2021 Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister,
visited Greece, and continued on to Serbia and Albania, before ending his trip in Italy.
As noted previously, Greece is the only EU member state appearing in the Pew Survey
that has a relatively favourable view of China. Wang Wenbin, a Chinese Foreign Ministry
spokesperson stated that, “Greece, Serbia, Albania and Italy are important cooperation
partners of China in Europe. China and these four countries […] share fruitful outcomes
in BRI cooperation (Shannon 2021).” When Wang Wenbin pointed out that Wang Yi was
specifically visiting three of the members of the then so-called 17+1 group, formed by
China and seventeen countries in Central and Eastern Europe, most of which are EU
member states, e.g. Greece, and Italy, the only member of the G-7 to have joined the
BRI, it was a demonstrative statement, reminding the EU that China will favour countries
that are cooperating with China, particularly in connection with the BRI. Since the vast
majority of EU member states have been unwilling to join the BRI, and Portugal which in
2019 signed an extension MoU with China regarding the BRI but has done little to
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
73
intensify its level of discussions since then (China-Lusophone Brief, May 2019), Wang
Yi’s visit may be viewed as a cautiously extended olive-branch, in hopes of resurrecting
a positive dialogue with the EU. This previously planned visit by Wang Yi came, somewhat
less than fortuitously, just a couple of weeks after a resolution passed by the European
Parliament for closer ties with Taiwan, and consideration of a possible future EU-Taiwan
bilateral investment agreement (Europa News, 2021).
Interestingly, the relative importance of the failure of the CAI, and the negative
international public opinion in the seventeen most advanced economies revealed by the
Pew Surveys, may possibly be less relevant for the direction that China’s IR, its economic
development and its economic diplomacy will take over the next five years. China’s 14th
Five Year Plan that was formally adopted in March 2021, and as researchers at MERICS
noted, “marks a shift away from the qualitative growth-focus of Beijing’s previous plans.”
China intends to prioritize a “great internal cycle (danei xunhuan 大内循环)”, with the aim
of achieving two targets, namely a strengthened domestic economy and a consolidation
of social development (Grünberg & Brussee, 2021). The idea of self-sufficiency has thus
emerged strongly. Self-sufficiency in essential resources, self-sufficiency in key
technologies, without any stipulated targets for growth of the GDP; this is a departure
from all previous plans. Ominously predicting “challenges unseen in a century”, that may
well be a reference to the sort of international negativity identified by the Pew Surveys,
the plan remained vague about how the goals stated are to be achieved.
Generally, prominence is allotted to national security, strengthening the domestic socio-
economic foundations of the country, and to supporting technology and innovation. While
digitization (including smart solutions in the economy), “opening-up” and international
economy, innovation and industrial modernization, and the economic system (including
market reforms), are prioritized, other fields appear to have been deprioritized. Less
emphasis appears to be given to agriculture and rural development, sustainability,
urbanization and regional coordination, and public services, and the absence of mention
of CO2 emission caps and a restatement of a climate policy is noticeable. The inclusion of
“opening-up” and international economy in the priorities marks the fact that de-coupling
is not a current consideration. Instead, we see the concept of resilient, efficient and
innovative domestic economy linked with a selective internationalization of the Chinese
economy, currently referred to as China’s Economic Dual Circulation. As the MERICS
analysis concludes, the lack of specificity in the plan suggest that the guiding principle
will be “upholding party leadership”, and that “where no concrete targets exist, central
party guidance will fill the voids …”.
China’s Economic Dual Circulation in practice
In the summer of 2021, a “regulatory storm” shook markets in China, and resulted in a
considerable loss of financial value, amounting to 1.5 trillion dollars, by high-tech moguls
and celebrities. The government had already announced policies that had significant
effect on high-tech companies, internet business and finance, as well as other sectors of
society, in something that Professor Bary Naughton, at the time, called an effort to
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
74
exercise “grand steerage” of the economy. In fact, according to Bloomberg, the
expression “disorderly expansion of capital” first appeared in a Politburo readout from
December last year, and in the nine years of President Xi Jinping’s leadership, it had only
appeared five times in documents connected to him — all in the previous ten months
(Bloomberg, 2021). The expression appeared at least 38 times in the same period in the
People’s Daily. As with the announcement of the OBOR, that became the BRI, an
imprecise turn of phrase used by President Xi Jinping has become a central and irresistible
force. Regulation, rather than free-markets, now became the lead policy, suggesting as
Bloomberg wrote, a move “back toward more ideologically driven centralized planning.”
While there have been comments that regulatory crackdowns will end efforts “to get rich
overnight”, there has been a calibration of Xi Jinping’s message by leading authorities,
such Vice Premier Liu He, who was quoted as saying that private business “has not
changed and will not change in the future,” and Vice Premier Hu Chunhua who stated
that China wants foreign investments in advanced manufacturing and modern services.
While President Xi Jinping may wish to promote self-sufficiency in essential resources
and in key technologies, the Pew Surveys reveal that the world’s most technologically
advanced nations appear to be disincentivized by ‘wolf warrior diplomacy’, and that will
result in increasingly difficult negotiations concerning technology transfer. Cumbersome
regulations, and uncertainties regarding future sudden restrictions in China, may curb
the sort of rapid development that President Xi Jinping looks forward to. China’s bilateral
partners in the BRI will not be able to provide the sort of assistance that China seeks to
obtain. When these problems are coupled to a renascent US administration that, despite
the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal, will probably re-assert its position as a global
economic leader. As a European Parliamentary Briefing published in December 2020
noted that “China is seeking to avoid the middle-income trap, while prerequisites for
growth are disappearing with China's rapidly aging working population and rising wage
levels, which have led to government-supported industrial offshoring to low-cost Asian
neighbouring countries”. This briefing also predicted the essence of the 14th Five-Year
Plan when it continued to state that “at 2.25 %, China's productivity growth has declined
steadily since the 2008 global financial crisis, and that against this backdrop technological
innovation and improving the efficiency of resource allocation are ideas crucial to raising
total factor productivity.”
The push towards increased self-sufficiency, and promotion of indigenous innovation, is
going to require a reform in China’s relationships with its technologically advanced
partners as sweeping as the Economic Dual Circulation policy. This reform would entail
greater transparency and an absence of arbitrary interventions, but while there is a clear
need for such a step to create a new Chinese economic diplomacy, the Pew Surveys
remind us that possible partners remain reluctant to enter any new negotiations or make
any new commitments. Nevertheless, the mutual symbiosis of China and the EU as major
trading partners means that solutions need to be reached to permit continued interaction.
The apparent trend towards a disarming tone in international diplomacy was continued
when, in a meeting with ASEAN leaders, President Xi Jinping stated that “China would
never seek hegemony nor take advantage of its size to coerce smaller countries” (CNN,
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
75
November 2021), emphasizing that China would be “a good partner of ASEAN”. This
conciliatory tone comes when China is widely asserting its sovereignty in the South China
Sea, with resulting tension between China and Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Taiwan,
and Malaysia, and a recent US warning that “an armed attack on Philippine vessels would
invoke US mutual defence commitments”, a confrontation that could have far-reaching
consequences. However, the likelihood that China will submit its disputes with ASEAN
members concerning the South China Sea to international arbitration, as requested by
President Duterte of the Philippines in 2016, remains distant.
Where the Pew Surveys consider the world’s most advanced economies, the opinions of
less advanced countries towards China have until recently been more positive,
particularly when the countries in question have benefitted from BRI infrastructural
development projects. Among the EU member states, as noted above, Hungary has
developed strong ties with China. When the Global Times highlighted the resilience of the
rail transportation sector during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, it pointed out that the
number of China-Europe cargo trains exceeded ten thousand by the end of August 2021.
This was indeed a major achievement which came, as the Global Times could not fail to
remind its readers at a time when “the EU’s increasingly hostile actions against China
pose further risks to bilateral ties” (Global Times, September 2021), perhaps a reference
to disappointment at the failure of the EU Parliament to endorse the CAI. Without more
detailed information it is difficult to be able to concur that “the China-Europe trains have
become crucial life-saving routes during the pandemic”, but the importance of the
possibility of rail transport at a time when there was substantial global shipping disruption
is understandable. The question is whether this sort of success has been widely enjoyed
elsewhere in connection with rail transport development within the BRI.
Postscript
As of October 2021, it still appeared “very likely that some EU governments will seek to
resurrect the CAI, since many industrial associations across Europe support the deal”,
(Casarini & Otero-Iglesias, 2022), since China remained Europe’s second largest trading
partner, and investment flows between the EU and China were very substantial. For
example, the EU remained China’s third largest source of FDI. However, in 2023 the
outlook is very different. Despite Ambassador Fu Cong, the new Head of the Chinese
Mission to the EU stating that he would like to resuscitate the CAI (McElwee, 2023), and
the fact that there may be some parties interested in a revival, given China’s stance in
the war being waged by Russia on Ukraine, there is little likelihood of the CAI reappearing
on the table. The compartmentalization that allowed the separation of trade and
investments from other policy areas and fundamental values is no longer a possibility for
European policy makers.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
76
References
Bermingham, Finbarr (2021). [Online]. ’Clues to China’s ties with Germany after Merkel
hint at a relationship in flux over trade, rights’, Accessed at:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3134416/clues-chinas-ties-
germany-after-merkel-hint-relationship-flux (accessed 12 March 2023)
Bloomberg (2021). ‘What Xi Means by ‘Disorderly Capital’ Is $1.5 Trillion Question’.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-09/what-xi-means-by-disorderly-
capital-is-1-5-trillion-question
Burnay, Matthieu & Kolja, Raube (2022). Obstacles, Opportunities, and Red Lines in the
European Union: Past and Future of the CAI in Times of (Geo)-Politicisation. Journal of
World Investment & Trade 23 (2022) 675–699.
Bütikofer, Reinhard (2022). CAI: Merkel’s choice. Asia Europe Journal (2022) 20:25–29.
Casarini, Nicola & Miguel Otero‐Iglesias (2022). Assessing the pros and cons of the EU‐
China comprehensive agreement on investment: an introduction to the special issue. Asia
Europe Journal (2022) 20:1–7.
Chen, Xin (2022). CAI: China is ready, how is about Europe. Asia Europe Journal (2022)
20:9–13.
China Daily (March 2019). ‘Stronger links offer brighter prospects.’
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/global/2019-03/28/content_37452592.htm
China Daily (May 2019). ‘Cooperation between China and Germany is the bellwether for
Sino-EU relations’.
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201905/13/WS5ce4b58ba3104842260bd17c.html
China-Lusophone Brief (May 2019). ‘Portugal’s underwhelming presence at the 2nd Belt
and Road Forum’. https://www.clbrief.com/portugals-underwhelming-presence-at-the-
2nd-belt-and-road-forum/ (accessed 10 March 2023)
CNN (November 2021). ‘Xi tells Southeast Asian leaders China does not seek ‘hegemony’.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/22/asia/xi-jinping-asean-leaders-summit-bullying-
intl-hnk/index.html
Cooper, Zach (2019). Bridging the transatlantic divide on China. Statement before the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, 9 May 2019.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA14/20190509/109430/HHRG-116-FA14-
Wstate-CooperZ-20190509.pdf (accessed 12 March 2023)
Duan, Xiaolin & Song, Xinning (2022). Turning pressure into opportunity: CAI and the
future of China’s structural reform. Asia Europe Journal (2022) 20:15–20.
EU-China – A Strategic Outlook (12 March 2019).
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/858891/communica
tion-eu-china-a-strategic-outlook.pdf (accessed 12 March 2023)
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
77
Europa News (2021). [Online]. ’EU-Taiwan relations: MEPs push for stronger
partnership’, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
room/20211014IPR14926/eu-taiwan-relations-meps-push-for-stronger-partnership
(accessed 12 March 2023)
Eurostat (2022). [Online] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=China-EU_-_international_trade_in_goods_statistics
(accessed 12 March 2023)
Freeman, Duncan (2022). The EU and China: Policy perceptions of economic cooperation
and competition. Asia Europe Journal (2022) 20:245–264.
Garcia-Herrero, Alicia (2020). ‘Non-Summit Shows EU-China Ties at New Low’ (Bruegel,
16 September 2020) www.bruegel.org/2020/09/non-summit-shows-eu-china-ties-at-
new-low/ (accessed 10 March 2023)
Global Times (March 2021). ’European Parliament cancels CAI meeting, threatens deal
signing delay EU businesses to take hit if deal is shelved’.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202103/1219363.shtml
Global Times (May 2021).’ European Parliament votes through motion to freeze China
investment deal, risking bloc’s economy amid political self-entertainment.’
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1224083.shtml
Global Times (September 2021). ‘China-Europe freight trains exceed 10,000 trips’.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1233228.shtml
Grünberg, Nis & Vincent Brussee (2021). [Online] ‘China’s 14th Five-Year Plan –
strengthening the domestic base to become a superpower’, Accessed at:
https://merics.org/en/short-analysis/chinas-14th-five-year-plan-strengthening-
domestic-base-become-superpower
Lai, Suetyi & Cai, Yidong (2022). Mapping perception of China in Central and Eastern
Europe. Asia Europe Journal (2022) 20:305–327.
Lai, Suetyi. (2023) Not seeing eye to eye: perception of the China‐EU economic
relationship. Asia Europe Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-023-00658-w
Liu, Caiyu. (2021) [Online]. ’CanSino granted GMP certificate from Hungary after
Sinopharm, increasing EU confidence in recombinant COVID-19 vaccine’
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1224162.shtml (accessed 12 March 2023)
Martin Prat (2020). Civil Society Dialogue: Meeting on The State of Play of the EU-CHINA
Investment Negotiations. Date: 9/7/2020.
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/events/civil-society-dialogue-state-play-eu-china-
investment-negotiations-2020-07-09_en (accessed 10 March 2023)
MERICS. (2020) ‘Beijing’s “Year of Europe” Launched Against Headwinds’ (MERICS China
Essentials, 10 September 2020) https://merics.org/en/newsletter/beijings-year-europe
-launched-against-headwinds (accessed 10 March 2023)
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
78
McElwee, Lily (2023). ’Despite Beijing’s Charm Offensive, the EU-China Investment
Agreement is Not Coming Back’, <https://www.csis.org/analysis/despite-beijings-
charm-offensive-eu-china-investment-agreement-not-coming-back> (accessed 10
March 2023).
Nicolas, Francoise (2022). A French perspective on the China‐EU comprehensive
agreement on investment: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Asia Europe Journal
(2022) 20:53–58.
O’Reilly, Ronan (2021). EU- China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment – A
Rebalancing of Investment Relations, European Investment Law and Arbitration Review
Online, 6 (1), 58-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/24689017_0601003 (accessed 10
March 2023)
Pharmaceutical Technology (April 5, 2021). [Online]. ‘Hungary issues GMP certificate to
Sinopharm’s Covid-19 vaccine’, https://www.pharmaceutical-
technology.com/news/hungary-gmp-sinopharm-vaccine/ (accessed 10 March 2023)
Shannon, Tiezi (2021). [Online]. ’China’s Foreign Minister Tries Again to Win Europe
Back: China’s foreign minister is limiting his European tour to friendlier ground, in hopes
of halting a downward slide in China-Europe relations’, Accessed at:
https://thediplomat.com/2021/10/chinas-foreign-minister-tries-again-to-win-europe-
back/ (accessed 10 March 2023)
Silver, Laura (2020). [Online]. ’Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many
Countries: Majorities say China has handled COVID-19 outbreak poorly’,
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-views-of-china-reach-
historic-highs-in-many-countries/ (accessed 10 March 2023)
Silver, Laura (2021). [Online]. ’China’s international image remains broadly negative as
views of the U.S. rebound’, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/30/chinas-
international-image-remains-broadly-negative-as-views-of-the-u-s-rebound/ (accessed
10 March 2023)
Song, Weiqing & Rodney Bruce Hall (2019). European Union’s construction of
international identity via strategic partnerships: associating and social distancing.
Contemporary Politics 2019, Vol. 25, No. 2, 172-189.
Teló, Mario (2021). Controversial Developments of EU–China Relations: Main Drivers and
Geopolitical Implications of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investments. Journal of
Common Market Studies, Volume 59, Annual Review. pp. 162–174.
van der Made (January 2021). [Online].’ European Parliament votes to freeze EU-China
investment deal’, https://www.rfi.fr/en/business/20210520-european-parliament-votes-
to-freeze-eu-china-investment-deal-cai-human-rights-sanctions-xinjiang-hong-kong
(accessed 10 March 2023)
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 61-79
Perspectives on the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment
Carmen Amado Mendes
79
von der Leyen, Ursula (2021). ’EU and China reach agreement in principle on investment’,
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2541 (accessed 10
March 2023)
von der Leyen, Ursula (2023). President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen,
‘Mission of Letter to Phil Hogan – Commissioner for Trade’ (1 December 2019)
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/sites/default/files/commissioner_miss
ion_letters/mission-letter-phil-hogan -2019_en.pdf (accessed 10 March 2023)
Wang, Yi. (2021) ’State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi Gives Interview to Xinhua
News Agency and China Media Group on International Situation and China’s Diplomacy
in 2021’ (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China 2021-12-30).
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/wjbz_663308/2461_663310/202112/
t20211230_10477324.html (accessed on 12 March 2023).
Xue, Qing. (2021) [Online]. ’How China Is Losing Europe: China has made serious
mistakes in crafting its Europe policy, resulting in the current rift’,
https://thediplomat.com/2021/05/how-china-is-losing-europe/ (accessed 10 March
2023)
Zhang, Li. (2022) Bridging the communication gap in EU‐China relations: policy, media,
and public opinion. Asia Europe Journal (2022) 20:219–227.
OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023
80
IT’S NOT VENUS, BUT MINERVA: THE EUROPEAN QUEST FOR RELEVANCE VIS-
À-VIS THE CHINA CHALLENGE
PABLO A. SÁNCHEZ-RODRÍGUEZ
pabloals@ucm.es
FPU Researcher and Assistant Professor on International Relations and Global History at
Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain), with a four-year grant from the Spanish Ministry of
Universities. He obtained a BA in Political Science and a Bachelor of Laws at Universidad de
Granada, and then he pursued a MA in International Studies at Universitá degli Studi Roma Tre,
where he graduated summa cum laude. His current research focuses on the revisionist state
within International Relations Theory, great-power competition, and the role of revolutionary and
disruptive forces in global instability.
Abstract
In a world driven by US-China competition, American IR literature is disregarding the EU,
presenting the struggle in terms of a bipolar zero-sum game and pure military conflict. Using
Schweller’s terminology, this vision of the hegemonic struggle is urging the EU to adopt a
bandwagon position, backing the status-quo “lion” US when facing revisionist “wolf” China.
This paper contests this bipolar narrative to introduce the most interesting option for the EU:
becoming the balancer. Using the concept of strategic autonomy, this paper argues the EU
should overcome internal and external barriers to pursue her own agenda in global affairs. In
this context, the China challenge offers an incomparable opportunity for the EU to hold the
balance in three areas: economics, security affairs, and the system of values. Embracing this
leadership role, the EU would regain her geopolitical relevance, resisting the shakings of
American decline, and proving, in global affairs, Minerva’s wisdom and strategy are the most
precious gifts to hold.
Keywords
European Union, US-China Competition, International Relations Theory, Strategic Autonomy,
Balance of Power.
Resumo
Num mundo marcado pela competição entre os EUA e a China, a investigação americana em
RI está a ignorar a UE, apresentando a contenda em termos de um jogo bipolar de soma zero
e de teor exclusivamente militar. Utilizando a terminologia de Schweller, esta visão da
competição hegemónica incita a UE a adotar uma posição de "bandwagon", apoiando o status-
quo "leão" dos EUA quando enfrenta o revisionismo "lobo" da China. Este artigo contraria esta
narrativa bipolar para apresentar a opção mais interessante para a UE: tornar-se o
equilibrador. Utilizando o conceito de autonomia estratégica, este documento defende que a
UE deve ultrapassar as barreiras internas e externas para prosseguir a sua própria agenda
nos assuntos mundiais. Neste contexto, o desafio da China oferece uma oportunidade
incomparável para a UE manter o equilíbrio em três áreas: economia, assuntos de segurança
e sistema de valores. Ao abraçar este papel de liderança, a UE recuperaria a sua relevância
geopolítica, resistindo aos abalos do declínio americano e provando que, nos assuntos globais,
a sabedoria e a estratégia de Minerva são os dons mais preciosos a reter.
Palavras-chave
União Europeia, Competição EUA-China, Teoria das Relações Internacionais, Autonomia
Estratégica, Equilíbrio de Poder
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
81
How to cite this article
Sánchez-Rodríguez, Pablo A. (2023). It’s Not Venus, But Minerva: The European Quest for
Relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. VOL14 N1,
TD1 – Thematic dossier “European Union-China relations”, September 2023. Consulted [online] in
date of last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0123.4
Article received on September 30, 2022 and accepted for publication on January 16, 2023
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
82
IT’S NOT VENUS, BUT MINERVA: THE EUROPEAN QUEST FOR
RELEVANCE VIS-À-VIS THE CHINA CHALLENGE
PABLO A. SÁNCHEZ-RODRÍGUEZ
Introduction: The American disdain for the European Union
In 2002, Kagan (2002: 3) asserted that “on major strategic and international questions
today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus”. His actual point in that
essay, titled ‘Power and Weakness’ was that, in International Relations (IR), there are
two different views over power. While Americans do exercise power in the anarchic
Hobbesian world, he perceived that Europeans were “turning away from power”.
According to Kagan, Europeans appeal to international law and commercial and economic
ties to bind nations, using subtlety, diplomacy, and persuasion. Using provocative
language, he explained that American military predominance and Europe’s relative
weakness provoked a division of labour, where the United States (US) was “making the
dinner” and the Europeans were “doing the dishes” (ibid.: 4-9).
This alleged superiority of the US has also had a manifestation in the discipline with the
idea the US holds a more qualified understanding of interstate relations since the 1940s.
Therefore, world models have tended to illustrate the American perspective over global
needs through a narrative of a perpetual struggle for power where satiated good powers
need to stop unsatisfied evil nations from subverting the entire system. It is ironic to
notice the similarities between this Manichean world vision and the antagonistic
standpoint attributed to the Soviet Union by Kennan (1946).
This theoretical discourse has also meant to turn away from the traditional advocation
for the balance of power, entering into a hegemonical narrative that defends it is in the
world interest the US occupies the apex of the pyramid. In the “European world” from
the late 18th century to the mid-20th century (Jacques, 2009: 1-21), the balance of power
was the rule in international affairs. The stability provided by the equilibrium of forces
and the continuous negotiation among powers was fundamental for Continental powers
in Europe to guarantee their freedom of action (Kissinger, 1964: 271). Additionally, from
the precautionary policy of an insular power, like Britain, the continental balance of power
ensured no overriding danger would threaten the equilibrium, and, ultimately, its
immediate security (ibid.: 163).
However, the isolation that geography provides the US with, in comparison to other great
powers, clearly gives American elites this sensation that hegemony could work better for
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
83
their interests. Hegemony means only one power, the US, rules the system, while the
European powers are considered secondary, but necessary allies (Schwarzenberger,
1960: 159). Even NATO, which symbolized Transatlantic relations after 1948, mainly
protects American interests, disregarding Europe. The best example of this is Lord
Ismay’s words about NATO keeping “the Russians out [the European continent], the
Americans in, and the Germans down” (Flockhart, 2010: 5).
This inequality between the Western North-Atlantic allies has obliged the European
powers to reinvent themselves geo-strategically, towards a more strategic European
Union (EU), although unity has not changed her consideration as a minor party in the
hegemonical struggle. The current challenge China poses over the American predominant
position globally is provoking a shift in US grand strategy attention to the Pacific theatre
(Simón et al., 2021: 91). The most immediate outcome is that the current hegemonic
narrative in the US is disregarding the EU as a global strategic actor.
This paper is rooted in the idea that the situation with China offers an incomparable
opportunity for the EU to be strategically independent while regaining relevance in the
hegemonic competition. In the first section, the correlation of the American discourse
with the theory is explained, denouncing that the literature has progressively
subordinated the EU to a secondary role in the discipline. Secondly, and thanks to the
balance of power, the role to be represented by the EU as the balancer is introduced,
alerting about the four challenges the EU should overcome to hold the balance. Finally,
a route map for EU-China relations to act as the “arbiter” of the current US-China
hegemonic struggle will be exposed in the fields of economics, security affairs and
culture.
The EU from the theory: Just a lamb fearing the China bad wolf?
When the realist research program became hegemonic in IR Theory, the world started to
be depicted as a division of states struggling for power and resorting to conflict to pursue
their interests in a self-help system. However, the nuclear capabilities of the US and the
Soviet Union in the late 1940s provoked a change in the scope of the theoretical
literature. The discipline could no longer be satisfied with explaining interstate relations
in conflictual terms, since preventing major wars to happen should be the litmus test.
In this period, Classical Realism devoted considerable attention to the balance of power
as the finest world model to maintain stability in global affairs. Originally founded on the
idea of equal right-to-exist among the units (Morgenthau, 1949: 125-126), the aspiration
of this model was “equilibrium or a distribution of power between two opponents in which
neither side has attained a position of superiority or supremacy” (Wolfers, 1959: 2). The
logic was tremendously simple: without holding power superiority, none of the forces will
have enough confidence in their victory and then the conflict would be avoided.
The balance-of-power model served as the preferable situation in world affairs until the
late 1950s. The unrelenting Western discourse about Soviet evil intentions and the
fructiferous Transatlantic alliance with Europe allowed a turn in theoretical terms, as
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
84
simple parity with the Communist bloc was no longer desirable. However, to eliminate
any suspicion over this aspiration to disrupt the equilibrium, a new concept was
introduced: the “defenders of the peace and law of the world community” (Wolfers, 1959:
3-5), the status-quo powers. In the hands of these Western democratic status-quo
powers, led by the US, indisputable hegemony was ideal to preserve world stability.
In 1958, Organski introduced the power-transition theory as a critique of the balance of
power. He stated that equilibrium was not equal to peace, since the modern greatest
wars took place in situations of power parity (Organski, 1958: 291-292). Consequently,
he developed a model according to which the best scenario would be an uneven
distribution of power, a hierarchical system dominated by a dominant status-quo nation
able to resist the challenging dissatisfied powers (Organski, 1958: 313-337). Organski
was probably envisioning a cyclical succession of world orders as later presented by
Modelski & Thompson (1989: 36), but his terms were used differently. They served to
consolidate two patterns of great power behaviour in IR literature: the status-quo US
and Europe vis-à-vis the revisionist Soviet Union and Red China (Wolfers, 1959: 11). This
power-transition literature was then biased to argue that world stability had to rely on
the superiority of Western powers.
Nevertheless, the end of the Cold War brought some changes to this conception. The
global pressure on China after Tiananmen and the Russian rapprochement towards the
West after the dissolution of the Soviet Union eliminated all potential rivals to the US
hegemony. Therefore, the US did not have to rely any longer on the Transatlantic
alliance. During the Cold War, the US had sustained NATO despite French concerns about
the overdependence on the US and even supported European nuclear ambitions while
convenient. However, given the new events, it was no longer in the American interest to
deal with the EU as an equal partner, as evidenced in inferiority speeches like the so-
called “Kissinger question” about who would be answering the phone in Europe, which
created serious concern in the EU.
Given the control of the IR Theory narrative, this US policy also found support in the
theory. Continuing the tradition of power-transition theory, Schweller introduced the
bandwagoning for profit in the status-quo/revisionist dimension. In his work, he identifies
four patterns of state behaviour in the continuum of satisfaction-dissatisfaction: lions,
lambs, jackals, and wolves (Schweller, 1994: 100-104). Lions, as kings of the jungle,
rule and manage the international system and need to frighten voracious (revisionist)
wolves from aggression or fight to defeat them. Yet, the most important part of this
contribution is how weak states are portrayed as lambs if they bandwagon to appease
threats, or jackals if they bandwagon to rely on others’ victories.
Although Schweller never referred to specific states when presenting these roles, it is
shocking how the definition of lambs perfectly suits the American vision over the EU. The
American protection the EU searched for during the Cold War (Ratti, 2012: 92) has been
sustained and even increased with the end of the Cold War, despite the lack of direct
threat. Additionally, the US Pivot to Asia in 2011 has thrown the EU into a secondary role
in hegemonic terms when attention is focused on Asia-Pacific.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
85
This shift is manifesting also more assertiveness towards the EU, as evidenced by
Trump’s threats over the dismantlement of NATO. Despite the change of tone, Biden has
not engaged in a more promising dialogue with the EU about global affairs. On the
challenge posed by China, the US would like the EU to support American interests in their
competition with Beijing, or at least not undermine their efforts (Simón et al., 2021: 91).
Concerning China, the US seems to be asking the EU to be a small power (Toje, 2011:
47) that joins the lion to avoid being fed by the China bad wolf. But what happens with
European interests then? Who is taking care of them if the EU is a lamb in this anarchical
jungle?
Honding the US-China balance: The answer for European relevance
This American disdain for the EU has been problematic in the European continent for
decades. It was one of the reasons behind the French abandonment of NATO in 1967, as
the security alliance ultimately meant dependence on the American military forces to
solve purely European security affairs. This is the foundation also of the idea of strategic
autonomy, probably the most important concept in European foreign affairs in the last
decade. According to Damen (2022: 1), strategic autonomy “refers to the capacity of the
EU to act autonomously – that is, without being dependent on other countries – in
strategically important policy areas, [ranging] from defence policy to the economy, and
the capacity to uphold democratic values”. It was the result of the EU's realization that
she needed to rely on herself, considering the episodes going on with Brexit, Trump’s
America First, and China’s assertiveness.
In a system where the units are looking inwards, the EU needs to make a stance to
pursue a more integrative approach among the European nations to strengthen the union
on the outside. The common security and defence policy (CSDP) was, at the time, the
initiative that most symbolized the ambition to act as a Union, diplomatically,
economically and militarily (Toje, 2011: 44). However, the time has evidenced the CSDP
was not enough to achieve the autonomy that was originally pursued. The invasion of
Ukraine in February 2022 has still raised the strategic dependence on the US when
defending European values in the European continent. On the other hand, the existing
complex interdependence between the US and the EU, as main economic and
technological partners and members of the main strategic military alliance in the world,
provokes a still decisive relationship between both powers, despite the increasing
importance of China.
What are then the possibilities for the EU to still be relevant in hegemonic terms? As
mentioned above, the gradual American hegemonic interests have been accompanied by
a progressive correlation in the IR Theory literature, with the preference for the power-
transition theory over an equilibrium based on the balance of power. Nevertheless, the
China challenge is offering a new turning point in this theoretical construction, as the
Western decline and China’s ascent are causing a recent shift in the discipline. Certain
voices are advocating for a balance of power (Swaine, 2015: 146; Lukin, 2021: 375) or
cooperation between the US and China (Weiss, 2022: 41; Rodrik & Walt, 2022: 150) to
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
86
escape from the Thucydides’ Trap, which is simply a captivating term for Organski’s
original power-transition theory. The US is pushing away the hegemonical discourse to
prevent an escalation leading to a major war based on theoretical grounds.
This renewed strength of the balance of power offers very fertile soil to raise the
foundations of European strategic ambitions and find the EU’s place in this early Asian
century. Concretely, Morgenthau (1948: 142-145) explains that, apart from the two
scales composing the balance, there is a third element, named the “holder” of the
balance, whose objective within the system is simply the maintenance of the balance.
The holder of the balance should support the weaker scale to avoid the domination of the
other and maintain equilibrium. Therefore, the balancer “must refuse to enter into
permanent ties with either side”, and this isolation, and even condemnation on moral
grounds, is the price to be paid to sustain stability in the system. This key role as “arbiter”
of the system was majestically represented by Great Britain until the late 19th century.
Morgenthau (1948: 145) stated that “this variety of the balance of power seems to have
disappeared in recent years with the decline of British, and the growth of American and
Russian, power”. In this Cold War context, no force was perceived as strong enough to
hold the balance while not aligning with the Western or Eastern blocs. Additionally,
Organski (1958: 297) severely criticized the concept itself of the “balancer” since no
single nation would disregard their self-interest to maintain the balance, not even Great
Britain. However, as Kissinger (1964: 171) recognized, the political equilibrium in the
continent was an end in itself for the insular power to preserve her particular safety.
Because of that, Britain’s role as the balancer would “more likely encourage divisions in
the Continent than ameliorate them” (Kissinger, 1964: 313).
While divisions could hardly be more enhanced between the US and China in the current
scenario, the EU can play this balancer role, adopting a more tenacious position in the
world system instead of forging permanent alliances with any of the contenders. The
European “isolationist” position towards a potential conflict in Asia-Pacific allows certain
indifference over the domination of the region, providing the ground to decide who will
win and who will lose in every dispute. This role would certainly give the EU a decisive
standpoint in the region where global hegemony is to be decided, but also three important
assets commonly attributed to the balancer: certainty over her independence,
responsibility for the independence of the other nations, and the option to extract the
highest price from those whom she supports (Morgenthau, 1948: 143).
These key decisions to be made would push the EU to become the most powerful actor
within the system, since the US and China would, in a certain way, depend on the EU’s
choices. This unparalleled position as the holder of the balance would certainly come with
the cost of facing, at least, four major challenges for the EU in her quest for relevance.
These are: (1) overcoming the domestic barriers in the search of true internal cohesion
in foreign affairs; (2) breaking the regular military, economic, and political alliance with
the US; (3) starting from scratch as a strategic geopolitical actor in the current multipolar
global system; and (4) reversing the unconstructive rhetoric over China to create mutual
trust in other domains apart from the economic.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
87
In the first place, the EU has never been able to agree on a truly common foreign policy.
In the end, the credibility of external power depends on the deployment of resources
(Aron, 2003: 49), which ultimately involve the intricated EU decision-making process,
the different national foreign agendas, and the need to stay firm with the final decision
made. Any blockade on this situation or unilateral positions, as currently shown with the
practice of bilateral energy agreements with Russia, could be fatal for this common
position. Finally, the challenge posed by Hungary and Poland when giving voice to anti-
European views demands the search for accommodation within the European system to
these opposing attitudes. This search for compromise to avoid revisionism and unilateral
decisions is the only way to effectively tackle this issue and prove the “unity in diversity”
that inspires the entire EU model.
Secondly, being the balancer, the EU should be open to becoming a temporal foe of the
US if her interests require so. To achieve this, moving away from American interests
ought to be a priority, but the US-EU's existing complex interdependence would certainly
hinder the process. Fortunately, in the last years, the US has incurred certain behaviours
that may lighten up this pressure over the EU, as shown by Trump’s actions and rhetoric
over the Old Continent or Biden’s unilateral decision to withdraw American troops from
Iraq. Domestic upheavals in the US and the idea of the Western decline are manifesting
the inner contradictions of the American system. Escaping from these earthquakes by
building a stronger society that abstains to see the US as a role model internally and
externally should be a main concern for European institutions, facilitating a potential split
in strategic affairs.
The existing interdependence means strategic disengagement with the US would hardly
condition a dramatic transformation in the economic and political relations between both
sides of the North Atlantic. However, this move would certainly jeopardize the most
vulnerable and obvious domain for the EU: the dependence on the US military forces.
Nevertheless, Russia’s assertiveness over Eastern Europe has recently emphasized again
the benefits for the US when being present in Europe. Consequently, even with European
strategic autonomy, it would be in the interest of both sides to maintain NATO, as the
two parties would be enjoying the advantages of this alliance among traditional friends.
In this context, the EU could gain this strategic autonomy by officially recognizing the
EU’s “insular” neutral position over a potential confrontation in Asia-Pacific, using rhetoric
based on the balance of power between the US and China. This isolationist policy would
not be an existential threat to the Transatlantic alliance while making clear the EU would
not be subordinated to the White House’s dictates regarding China. Contrary to this ideal
scenario for the EU, the most recent NATO Strategic Concept moved on the opposite
direction when identifying China as a challenge to Euro-Atlantic interests, security, and
values (NATO, 2022: 5). In future NATO agreements, the EU needs to limit the inclusion
of US grand strategy in the Pacific if she wants to maintain the alliance while regaining
freedom of action to progressively approach China.
The third challenge for the EU in the quest for relevance, that is, finding her new role in
the system, is certainly demanding since it would mean abandoning the bipolar discourse.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
88
The multipolar narrative assigns the EU a prominent position in international affairs, but
the EU needs to initiate the route to discover her separate part in the current hegemonic
competition. The EU has traditionally been perceived by other parties as an economic
actor since economy was the primary bond for the EU in her origins. Economics is an
area that allows bonding among European states while not calling for external enmity if
the rest’s shares remain untouched. Embarked on a win-win logic when offering a
common free market to potential partners, the EU has enjoyed a prominent character,
by promoting internal unity and becoming a role model in the domain where cooperation
is less troublesome.
However, the hegemonic relevance the EU is seeking would oblige the organization to
adopt a more substantial role in security affairs, where cooperation is harder and, as
already warned, internal and external constraints can easily be involved. Therefore, the
EU’s new position to regain relevance in hegemonic terms should only be referred to as
freeing herself from the American interests and policies towards China and adopting a
new strategy on China. The latter is our fourth challenge and is developed in the following
section.
The China challenge as an opportunity: How to make it happen?
In 1948, Morgenthau (1948: 273-274) identified the disappearance of the balancer as a
change in the new balance of power that was occurring at the time. According to him,
Great Britain could no longer be able to perform this role as her naval strength had been
surpassed by the US, and modern warfare was challenging the uncontested mastery of
the seas, as well as the invulnerability of the British Isles. Furthermore, when justifying
France’s impossibility to play this position in the aftermath of World War II, he gave the
three main conditions to hold the balance: (1) being “geographically remote from the
centers of friction and conflict”, (2) having “no vital interests in the stakes of these
conflicts as such”, and (3) having “the opportunity of satisfying its aspirations for power
in areas beyond the reach of the main contenders for power” (ibid.: 275).
The EU’s success when separating from American interests will precisely depend on the
ability to justify whether these three conditions are met if the US and China engage in
conflict in Asia-Pacific. Geographically remoteness is no longer a real condition for
neutrality with the current warfare. However, based on the experience in both World
Wars, the US knows that struggling on another continent gives you freedom of action to
decide when to be involved. The vital aspirations of Europe are not played in this US-
China competition in Asia-Pacific, despite the growing interest in partnerships with the
Indo-Pacific region, involving India in economic calculations. In fact, the extension of the
concept from the Pacific to the Indo-Pacific talks about this need to expand the “power
center of global politics” to invoke more interests, as it searches the US with the Quad
and China with the attempt to expand her economic and strategic influence in the Indian
Ocean (Saeed, 2017: 502-504).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
89
However, the EU’s position in the world is not depending on the Chinese expansion in the
Indo-Pacific area or the ability of the US to rebalance China. A potential conflict could
provoke a reversal in the economic possibilities of the European national governments,
but that does not mean the EU as a strategic actor is genuinely interested in the events
occurring in the Indo-Pacific. Actually, her remoteness could be key to rising as a
hegemonic actor when having no vital interests in the region and finding other areas to
exert influence, for example, in Central Asia. But first, the EU should look for the
satisfaction of her power aspirations from the inside, with the unity of the European
powers as a common front in foreign affairs. Achieving this, the EU would be a relevant
actor in hegemonic terms, away from the “main center of friction and conflict”, and with
enough autonomy to draft her own policy in the world.
However, these favourable conditions are dependent on the ability of the EU to separate
herself from American interests and build a constructive relationship with China, acting
as a real balancer. The challenge China is posing to American hegemony is an
unparalleled opportunity for the EU to act as arbiter between the hegemon and the rising
power. Becoming the holder of the global balance of power leads, apart from the
deterioration of the traditional strategic bond across the Atlantic, to the fourth challenge
for the EU on the road to becoming a hegemonic power: reversing the negative
interaction with China. The trial behind this policy is evidenced by the division in the West
on whether China should be considered a “threat” or a “challenge”. However, what might
be a threat to the US national interests in the Pacific could not mean a direct menace for
the EU, as it was proven by the pragmatic approach that EU member states seem to have
adopted to China due to economic possibilities. In fact, this association could be
reinforced by China’s view of the EU as a crucial player in the global society and the idea
of the EU-China relationship as a “new model of major-power relations (新型大国关系)”,
away from confrontation and hostility (Li & He, 2022: 442).
This turn in EU-China relations should be performed following the EU priorities in strategic
autonomy, to be coherent with the order the EU seeks to arbitrate as the global balancer.
In this regard, the European Parliament (2022: 1) and countries like Spain and the
Netherlands (2021: 1) have identified three main fields to achieve strategic autonomy
while preserving peace and international stability: economics, security affairs, and the
upholding of democratic values. This resonates with the traditional distinction in IR
Theory between the three basic forms of social power: economic, political, and cultural,
using the definitions provided by Calduch Cervera (1991) that will be developed below.
Economic power is defined as the “form of social power developed among the members
of an economic process on their condition of producers, distributors, or consumers” (ibid.:
6). Within this global economic system, China is currently the first commercial power in
the world, with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) offering a common economic framework
in the Eurasian continent under Chinese principles. For the EU, the top priority would be
creating a common policy toward the BRI, avoiding unilateral signatures between the
giant dragon and the EU member states. To achieve this, it would be required to convince
existing signers to revoke their partnerships in favour of a partnership between the entire
EU and China within the BRI framework. Therefore, the EU would avoid individual
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
90
conditions with her member states, while China will add more territories and markets to
her most ambitious project in economic terms.
A European united front in economic terms could enhance the European position in the
negotiations with China, opting for a more equal standpoint for both parties to ensure
the win-win approach China is selling to the world. This approach could be applicable
within the BRI framework, but also to the Global Gateway project the EU is developing,
which affects critical resources such as digital technology. In the past, challenges from
China have been reported in the EU in terms of economic security, especially connected
with Huawei or the 5G networks, but it is important also to separate security threats,
which affect the survival of the actor, from the mere protection of economic interests,
which can be achieved otherwise. To do so, the EU needs to become a more self-sufficient
actor to avoid dependency on critical resources and fear of supply chain disruptions from
China. This autonomous EU policy may crease some concern in the US, which is currently
coordinating with the EU in several policy areas, including growing the bilateral trade and
investment relationship, to contain China economically (Li & He, 2022: 446).
A perfect case study in this regard is the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on
Investment (CAI), which was concluded, right before the Biden administration was in
place, due to some remarkably appealing Chinese concessions (Bergsen, 2021: 24). The
US has not only opposed to the CAI but even pressured the EU to dismiss it in the base
of its global disadvantages. While the agreement is officially frozen due to the situation
in Xinjiang, it evidenced the pull of the Chinese market in Europe (Casirini, 2022: 101-
103). The final ratification would be a signal of developing an EU policy on China
unhearing American preferences, with a positive impact on economic and political affairs
for the EU and China. These moves would probably be strengthening Chinese economic
power but would also provide more possibilities for the EU to use Chinese investments
for her profit and under her terms, given the EU’s stronger position in the international
system.
A similar pattern of behaviour could be performed in political power, defined as the
“established social power to organize cohabitation and guarantee society’s security and
independence” (Calduch Cervera, 1991: 6). This political power is then critically impacted
by security affairs, that is, the use of the military to guarantee the state’s survival and
the consecution of the national interests. In this regard, with the US-led NATO and
China’s Global Security Initiative as the two poles that could eventually collide in the
Indo-Pacific. The inclusion of China as a “security threat” to NATO means that, in the
case of a direct US-China confrontation, the EU could be involved if invoked Article 5 of
the North Atlantic Treaty. For the US, it is a priority referring the US-China competition
in military terms to ensure European involvement, as well as the use of the rhetorical
confrontation between responsible democratic Western nations and revisionist
authoritarian non-Western powers (Peters et al., 2020: 1502). In both cases, the
already-exposed EU’s strategy of isolating herself from the Indo-Pacific military theatre
could be successful in the creation of her own narrative and security policy.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
91
The construction of a new common framework of reference in security affairs would
ensure the continuation of the NATO alliance while reaching certain autonomy over the
US grand strategy. As stated, this policy could be harder because of the US-EU’s complex
interdependence, but it would be the only road to being more strategically independent
in this multipolar world. This disengagement with the US could mean, for example, the
adherence to the One China policy regarding Taiwan, as requested by China. The EU
needs to assemble and decide if, contrary to US ambiguity, she would act in case of a
Chinese attack on Taiwan, where no vital interests of the EU are involved. Holding a
common policy on the Taiwan issue and creating a narrative around it could impact
revealing the military escalation between the US and China is actually over becoming the
linchpin in the global system, not on the stability of the latter.
Finally, cultural power is defined by Calduch Cervera (1991: 6) as the “acquired form of
the social power that is based on the existence of a community of values, knowledge,
ideologies or experiences among the members of a society”. In this “community of
values”, one of the most pressing cultural concerns for the EU is the Chinese disregard
for human rights. This matter has been tremendously problematic in China-EU relations
since 1995 (Dosch, 2018: 188-189), but achieved a point of no return when the narrative
on Eastern values was raised (Davison, 2018: 304-310). This disdain for human rights
in China is repetitively addressed by Western officials, linked to accusations of
censorship, abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and repression in Hong Kong. Despite
the repulsive character of these policies in all places, the US has a policy of selective
condemnation of human rights violations depending on their foreign agenda. This was
demonstrated in the promoted diplomatic boycott over the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games,
while the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar was not perceived as problematic whatsoever.
In this cultural projection, the EU has commonly adopted a more coherent position
towards the respect of human rights, being critical of violations everywhere, regardless
of the economic or political interests involved. In a certain way, the EU has embraced
being the “voice of conscience” as part of her international credibility and her aspirations
to “exercise global normative leadership” (de Búrca, 2011:690). Therefore, the options
for the EU would not allow a more flexible stance towards China’s human rights violations
since it would mean a reverse in the European position as a global human rights actor.
This is particularly true in the case of Xinjiang, where the EU should act as Jiminy Cricket
and whisper in China’s ears to get a reversal of the governmental policies in the region
and an improvement in the conditions of the Uyghurs. Through the rapprochement in
other spheres of power, the EU could adopt a more privileged position to try to use her
normative force to impact and obtain concessions from China in terms of the
embracement of societal values like human rights.
However, the EU should always check not crossing the line of sovereignty to prevent
China from perceiving European interference in domestic affairs that could lead to higher
secrecy on Chinese affairs. Therefore, two courses of action for the EU could be followed
to avoid the naming and shaming towards China while maintaining her global normative
front-runner: (1) a more critical approach to other countries neither respecting human
rights, which would reduce pressure on China and, at the same time, pursue a fairer
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
92
defence of human rights globally; and (2) drawing a line and not letting politics to be
involved against China in other cultural aspects like Chinese brands or sports events, as
Macron defended regarding the Beijing 2022 boycott. Both policies would provoke a
positive reaction from Beijing over this change in the EU discourse, easing the path to
becoming the balancer in the existing hegemonic US-China competition.
Conclusions and food for thought: Minerva as a role model
This study has addressed the European concerns of strategic autonomy and hegemonic
relevance, using the challenge posed by China as a far-fetched opportunity to obtain
independence from the American global interests and adopt her own common policy
without further interference. If the EU simply pursues the trail of American officials in her
relationship with China, it will become an irrelevant actor in geopolitical terms, and this
is why the EU should enjoy this chance to raise her voice toward China. In this sense,
the Chinese policy of resisting American hegemony could be interesting for the EU to
avoid being a mere puppet in foreign affairs, but the solution can neither be Chinese
hegemony. The most preferable scenario for the EU would be a global balance of power
with the US and China on each of the scales, and the EU holding the balance.
To achieve this goal, it is fundamental to coordinate the policy toward China and
overcome internal and external barriers, especially in the always-challenging
Transatlantic alliance. Further actions have been drafted in the economic arena, security
affairs, and the defence of democratic values, but the main challenge would certainly be
maintaining the relationship with the US despite the interference (by omission) in
American policy in the Indo-Pacific. As Morgenthau (1948: 143) stated, the ambivalent
role of the balancer comes with moral condemnation, but also with a key position as the
“arbiter” of the system. For the balancer, using Lord Palmerston’s words, there are no
eternal allies or perpetual enemies, just the interests to be followed are eternal and
perpetual. Therefore, it seems to be in the EU’s interests to be accused by the US of
negotiating with the “enemy”, as a jackal bandwagoning for profit, if these could finally
be on the negotiation table.
The possibilities on the other side are promising, especially if being able to act externally
as a bloc. Strategic autonomy comes with the price of ceding sovereignty, but the
alternative is global irrelevance in a world progressively dominated by Washington and
Beijing. The EU should learn from the Cold War period and emphasize the importance of
a tripolar global order, as envisioned by China in her aspiration of a three-superpower
system (三超多强), ruled by the US, China, and the EU. This system is an interesting
option for China because it would guarantee developing countries would ask for her help,
with the subsequent positive economic effect on China. But, even more, it is the best
option for the EU, whose relevance would be notable when arbitrating the US-China
competition in the Pacific.
This entire framework for strategic autonomy during the China challenge opposes the
position the US has been asking the EU to hold in this hegemonic confrontation, and
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
93
questions Kagan’s assertion about Americans coming from Mars and Europeans coming
from Venus. This caricatural differentiation between Mars, the masculine god of war and
father of Rome’s founders, and Venus, the female goddess of love, beauty, and fertility,
permeated the IR literature (Brown, 2002: 481). However, the achievement of EU
strategic autonomy and the policies previously drafted to hold the global balance of power
would make clear those outdated roles do not represent the current EU status and
strategic planning no longer pertains only to Americans.
Status-quo and revisionist powers, lions and wolves, and Mars and Venus are all terms
coming from a Manichean vision of the international order that perpetuates the conflictual
nature of interstate relations and mutual distrust. Current global issues require
cooperation between the nations in a stable system where world poles of power are not
defined by such outdated and antagonistic roles. The EU needs an order where her voice
can be heard, but to achieve this goal, the effort should be put into obtaining strategic
autonomy from the US and strengthening her independent position towards China.
Holding the balance of hegemonical power, the EU would certainly resemble Minerva, a
member of the Capitoline Triad, goddess of wisdom, justice and strategy, and patron of
defensive war, in contrast to Mars’ violence and battle lust.
References
Aron, Raymond (2017). Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. New York:
Routledge.
Bergsen, Pepijn (2021). The EU’s unsustainable China strategy. Research Paper, Europe
Programme, Chatham House, July 2021.
Brown, Bernard E. (2022). Are Americans from Mars, Europeans from Venus? American
Foreign Policy Interests, Vol. 24: pp. 481-489.
Calduch Cervera, Rafael (1991). Relaciones Internacionales. Madrid: Ciencias Sociales.
Casarini, Nicola (2022). A European strategic “third way?” The European Union between
the traditional transatlantic alliance and the pull of the Chinese market. China
International Strategy Review, Vol. 4: pp. 91-107.
Connors, Michael K. (2018). Civilisade: Asian values, democracy promotion and fateful
hubris. In. Michael K. Connors, Rémy Davison and Jörn Dosch (ed.), The New Global
Politics of the Asia-Pacific: Conflict and Co-operation in the Asian Century: London & New
York: Routledge, pp. 302-325.
Damen, Mario (2022). EU strategic autonomy 2013-2023: From Concept to capacity.
Briefing, EU Strategic Autonomy Monitor, July 2022, European Parliamentary Research
Service [online]. [Access on 28 September 2022]. Available at:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733589/EPRS_BRI(2022)
733589_EN.pdf.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
94
de Búrca, Gráinne (2011). The Road Not Taken: The European Union as a Global Human
Rights Actor. The American Journal of International Law. Washington, Vol. 105, No. 4
(Oct 2011), pp. 649-693.
Dosch, Jörn (2018). The EU and the Asia-Pacific: A source of soft power? In: Michael K.
Connors, Rémy Davison and Jörn Dosch (ed.), The New Global Politics of the Asia-Pacific:
Conflict and Co-operation in the Asian Century: London & New York: Routledge, pp. 180-
192.
Flockhart, Trine (2010): NATO and the (Re-)Constitution of Roles: “Self”, “We”, and
“Other”?. DIIS Working Paper. Danish Institute for International Studies 2010: 04.
Jacques, Martin (2009). When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and
the Birth of a New Global Order. New York: The Penguin Press.
Kagan, Robert (2022). Power and Weakness. Policy Review. Vol. 113 (Jun/Jul 2022), pp.
3-28.
Kennan, Georg (1946). Long Telegram, February 22, 1946. History and Public Policy
Program Digital Archive, National Archives and Records Administration, Department of
State Records [online]. [Access on 28 September 2022]. Available at
http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/116178.
Kissinger, Heinz Alfred (1964). A World Restored. New York: The Universal Library.
Li, Yuan & He, Zhigao (2022). The Remaking of China-EUrope Relations in the New Era
of US-China Antagonism. Journal of Chinese Political Science. Vol. 27, pp. 439-455.
Lukin, Artyom (2021). The Russia-China entente and its future. International Politics.
Vol. 58, pp. 363-380.
Modelski, George & Thompson, William R. (1989). Long Cycles and Global War. In: Manus
I. Midlarsky (ed.), Handbook of War Studies. Boston: Unwin Hyman, pp. 23-54.
Morgenthau, Hans Joachim (1948). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace. 1st ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
NATO (2022). NATO 2022 Strategic Concept. [Online]. [Access on 28 September 2022].
Available at: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/290622-
strategic-concept.pdf.
Organski, Abramo Fimo Kenneth (1958). World Politics. 1st ed. New York: Alfred N. Knopf.
Peters, Michael A.; Green, Benjamin; Mou, Chunxiao; Hollings, Stephanie; Ogunniran,
Moses Oladele; Rizvi, Fazal (Open Review); Rider, Sharon (Open Review); & Tierney, Rob
(Open Review) (2022) US-China Rivalry and ‘Thucydides’ Trap’: Why this is a misleading
account. Educational Philosophy and Theory. Vol. 54, No. 10, pp. 1501-1512.
Ratti, Luca (2012). All Aboard the Bandwagon? Structural Realism and Italy's
International Role. Diplomacy & Statecraft. Vol. 23, Issue 1, pp. 87-109.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 80-95
It’s not Venus, but Minerva: The European quest for relevance vis-à-vis the China Challenge
Pablo A. Sánchez-Rodríguez
95
Rodrik, Dani & Walt, Stephen M. (2022). How to Build a Better Order: Limiting Great
Power Rivalry in an Anarchic World. Foreign Affairs. New York, Vol. 101, No. 5 (Sep/Oct
2022), pp. 142-155.
Saeed, Muhammad (2017). From the Asia-Pacific to the Indo-Pacific: Expanding Sino-
U.S. Strategic Competition. China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies, Vol. 3,
No. 4 (Winter 2017), pp. 499-512.
Schwarzenberger, Georg (1960). La política del poder. Estudio de la sociedad
internacional. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Schweller, Randall L. (1994). Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State
Back In. International Security, 19(1), pp. 72-107.
Simón, Luis; Desmaele, Linde; & Becker, Jordan (2021). Europe as a Secondary Theater?
Competition with China and the Future of America’s European Strategy. Strategic Studies
Quarterly. Vol. 15, No. 1 (Spring 2021), pp. 90-115.
Spain & Netherlands (2021). Spain-Netherlands non-paper on strategic autonomy while
preserving an open economy. [Online]. [Access on 28 September 2022]. Available at:
https://www.permanentrepresentations.nl/documents/publications/2021/03/24/non-
paper-on-strategic-autonomy.
Swaine, Michael D. (2015). The Real Challenge in the Pacific: A Response to “How to
Deter China”. Foreign Affairs. New York, Vol. 94, No. 3 (May/June 2015), pp. 145-153.
Toje, Asle (2011). The European Union as a Small Power. Journal of Common Market
Studies. Vol. 49, Number 1, pp. 43-60.
Weiss, Jessica Chen (2022). The China Trap: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Perilous Logic
of Zero-Sum Competition. Foreign Affairs. New York, Vol. 101, No. 5 (Sep/Oct 2022), pp.
40-44, 46-50, 52-58.
Wolfers, Arnold (1959). The Balance of Power in Theory and Practice. Naval War College
Review, 12(1).
OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023
96
UKRAINE GEOPOLITICAL EUROPEAN FLASHPOINTS VIS-À-VIS INDIA AND
CHINA: FROM AMBIVALENCE TO STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT
FRANCISCO JOSÉ LEANDRO
fleandro@um.edu.mo
Ph.D. in political science and international relations from the Catholic University of Portugal in
2010, and his habilitation from ISCTE–University Institute of Lisbon in 2022. From 2016 to 2017,
he took part in a post-doctoral research programme on state monopolies in China — One belt,
one road studies. In 2014, 2017 and 2020, he was awarded the Institute of European Studies in
Macau (IEEM) Academic Research Grant, which is a major component of the Asia-Europe
Comparative Studies Research Project. From 2014 to 2018, he was the Programme Coordinator
at the Institute of Social and Legal Studies, Faculty of Humanities at the University of Saint
Joseph in Macau. From 2018 to 2023 he was the Associate-Dean of the Institute for Research on
Portuguese-Speaking Countries at the City University of Macau. He is currently Associate
Professor with Habilitation in International Relations in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the
University of Macau (China). His most recent books are: Steps of Greatness: The Belt and Road
Initiative: An Old Archetype of a New Development Model (2020), Palgrave Macmillan;
Geopolitics of Iran (2021), Palgrave Macmillan; The Handbook of Special Economic Zones (2021),
IGI Global; Disentangled Visions on Higher Education: Preparing the Generation Next (2023),
Peter Lang Publishers; The Palgrave Handbook of Globalization with Chinese Characteristics
(2023), Palgrave Macmillan; Changing the Paradigm of Energy Geopolitics: Resources and
Pathways in the Light of Global Climate Challenges (2023), Peter Lang Publishers; and
Portuguese-speaking Small Island Developing States: The development Journeys of Cabo Verde,
São Tomé and Príncipe, and Timor-Leste (2023), Palgrave Macmillan
ROOPINDER OBEROI
roberoi2019@gmail.com
Fellow at Institute of Eminence, Delhi School of Public Policy and Governance and a Professor at
the Department of Political Science, KMC, University of Delhi (India). She received a Ph.D. in
political science from the University of Delhi. In 2012, she was awarded a postdoctoral research
fellowship by the University Grant Commission of India. In 2017 she was awarded the UKIERI
project by the British Council. She has authored and edited several books: Corporate Social
Responsibility and Sustainable Development in Emerging Economies (Lexington Publisherr 2015),
Globalization Reappraised: A false Oracle or a talisman? (Vajpeyi, D and Oberoi, R, Lexington
Books, USA, 2017), Revisiting Globalization: From Borderless to Gated Globe (Springer, 2018),
and Social Enterprise in the Higher Education Sector, Cambridge Scholars Publishing (2020),
Contestations is Global Civil Society (Emerald Elgar, 2022). She has published around 35 articles
in peer-reviewed journals and 26 chapters in international books. She is an editor of Social
Responsibility Journal. She has also completed an international project on Social Enterprise and
Higher Education awarded by the UK-India Education and Research Initiative (2017-2020). She
has been a visiting research fellow at the University of Huddersfield UK since 2020. She is the
founder of the Centre of Innovation and Social Enterprise (CISE), KMC, University of Delhi, and
the Young Leader Policy Discourse Forum (YLDPF). She is also a coordinator and convenor of the
180DC KMC chapter. Her areas of specialization include political science, public policy, public
administration, global governance, CSR, social enterprise, and higher education.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
97
Abstract
Ukraine’s Westward drift has been countered by Russia’s invasion. This conflict marks a
dramatic escalation of rivalry and a momentous crossroads for global security, symbolizing a
clear alteration in the world’s security milieu from a unipolarity to one demarcated by a revival
of Cold War competitiveness and global reconfiguration of power balance. Some political
analysts view it as a manifestation of the Kremlin’s growing antipathy towards the U.S., NATO,
and implicitly the EU’s post–Cold War expansionism into the erstwhile USSR’s sphere of
influence.
Response from the global community toward the invasion of Ukraine has been mixed: there
has been an array of condemnations that is pushing the international community to a New
Cold War, (re)aligning the EU, NATO, and the U.S. on a number of key issues, but many have
staked a tacit, condoning stance that prioritizes the protection of their own immediate
interests. Meanwhile, ideological, nuclear and economic powers such as China and India have
adopted strategic ambivalence towards the invasion. China, as a member of the United Nations
Security Council (UNSC), and as an alternative ideological power house, is also facing a sort
of paradox with Chinese characteristics. India, as the world’s sixth largest economy and an
emerging power devoted to self-reliance, has seized the opportunity to capitalize on the
Russia-India-China trilateral strategic cooperation. This is significant, as, together, China and
India account for more than half of all FDI-inflow to low- and middle-income countries.
However, as the war wears on, the appeal of any initial constructive neutrality begins to
backfire. For China, it damages its branding of peaceful options, severs its economic
partnerships with the EU, and reinforces the trade-war antagonist perceptions in relation to
the U.S. in light of the looming isolation of Russia. The 2024 U.S. presidential elections will
likely add more uncertainty.
Ultimately, this research illuminates how India and China’s involvement may impact the EU’s
security. The research uses an inductive methodology and combines analyses of events,
qualitative primary sources, key media references, the realism school of international
relations, and it is organized as follows: (1) Introduction: The new Cold Power Play and Hot
War; (2) Decoding India’s Strategic Ambivalence; (3) EU and China: Diplomatic aloofness or
constructive engagement? (4) China-Russia: Paradox with Chinese Characteristics; (5)
Conclusion.
Keywords
European Union, US-China Competition, International Relations Theory, Strategic Autonomy,
Balance of Power.
Resumo
A invasão militar Russa na Ucrânia, tem por objectivo combater a sua deriva para Oeste. Este
conflito armado marca uma escalada dramática de rivalidade e, assinala uma encruzilhada
importante para a segurança global, simbolizando uma clara alteração no ambiente unipolar
no contexto de segurança mundial. Além deste facto, demarca também o renascimento da
conflictualidade à guisa da Guerra Fria e ainda, uma reconfiguração global do equilíbrio de
poderes. Alguns analistas políticos vêm estes factos como uma manifestação da crescente
antipatia do Kremlin em relação aos EUA, à OTAN e, implicitamente, ao expansionismo pós-
Guerra Fria da União Europeia (UE), na antiga esfera de influência da URSS.
A resposta da comunidade dos estados à invasão da Ucrânia foi mista: Por um lado, houve
uma série de condenações que conduziram a um ambiente internacional para uma nova
espécie de Guerra Fria, (re)alinhando a UE, a OTAN e os EUA em várias questões importantes.
Por outro lado, outros estados têm assumido uma postura tácita de condescendência, que
prioriza a proteção de seus próprios interesses imediatos. Enquanto isso, potências
ideológicas, nucleares e económicas como China e Índia, adotaram uma ambivalência
estratégica em relação aos acontecimentos na Ucrânia.
A China, como membro do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas (CSNU) e como potência
ideológica alternativa, enfrenta também uma espécie de paradoxo com características
Chinesas. A Índia, como a sexta maior economia do mundo e uma potência emergente
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
98
dedicada à autossuficiência, aproveitou a oportunidade para capitalizar a cooperação
estratégica trilateral Rússia-Índia-China. Estes factos são significativos, pois, juntos, a China
e a Índia respondem a mais da metade de todo o fluxo de Investimento Directo Externo para
países de baixo e médio rendimento. No entanto, à medida que a guerra avança, o apelo da
neutralidade construtiva inicial, começa a ter também os seus efeitos negativos. A China,
acaba por não beneficiar totalmente das suas legítimas opções pacíficas, prejudicando as suas
parcerias econômicas com a UE e reforçando as percepções antagonistas na guerra comercial
em relação aos EUA, à luz do isolamento iminente da Rússia. Finalmente, as eleições
presidenciais de 2024 nos EUA, provavelmente, adicionarão mais incerteza a este cenário.
Em última análise, esta investigação clarifica como o envolvimento da Índia e da China pode
produzir efeitos no contexto da segurança da UE. A investigação utiliza uma metodologia
indutiva e combina análises de eventos, fontes primárias qualitativas, referências jornalísticas
de momentos chave, considerando a escola do realista das relações internacionais. O texto
está organizado da seguinte forma: (1) Introdução: O novo jogo da Guerra fria e a escalada
da guerra; (2) Decodificando a ambivalência estratégica da Índia; (3) UE e China:
distanciamento diplomático ou engajamento construtivo? (4) China-Rússia: Paradoxo com
Características Chinesas; (5). Conclusão.
Palavras-chave
Guerra na Ucrânia, União Europeia, Índia, República Popular da China, Federação Russa,
Ambivalência Estratégica, Neutralidade
How to cite this article
Leandro, Francisco José; Oberoi, Roopinder (2023). Ukraine Geopolitical European Flashpoints vis-
à-vis India and China: From Ambivalence to Strategic Engagement. Janus.net, e-journal of
international relations. VOL14 N1, TD1 – Thematic dossier “European Union-China relations”,
September 2023. Consulted [online] in date of last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-
7251.DT0123.5
Article received on September 18, 2022 and accepted for publication on January 17, 2023
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
99
UKRAINE GEOPOLITICAL EUROPEAN FLASHPOINTS VIS-À-VIS
INDIA AND CHINA: FROM AMBIVALENCE TO STRATEGIC
ENGAGEMENT
FRANCISCO JOSÉ LEANDRO
ROOPINDER OBEROI
Introduction: The New Cold Power Play and Hot War
A New Cold War - reminiscent of the 1950s but with apparent, essential differences in
international circumstances - has been unfolding (Karaganov, 2021). This New Cold War,
between not only the Russian Federation (hereafter Russia) and NATO but also the U.S.
and China, has been looming long before the ongoing Ukraine crisis. Such is the current
reality of the international system where battles are being fought for spheres of influence.
Ukraine has been more than a critical combat zone; it is where two opposing ideologies
collide: one, classical, hard supremacy, driven by the simple, unrefined ideas of “blood
and soil”; the other, a more contemporary approach for propagating national interests
and influence through effective and malleable philosophical, communicative, and financial
apparatuses frequently referred to as “values” (Tsygankov & Tsygankov, 2022).
The world is said to have entered the New Cold War era, whose iron curtain is drawn
wherever the reach of Russian troops ends (Gaston, 22 February 2022). Politically and
economically, Russia is becoming increasingly isolated, “and Russian foreign relations will
be increasingly zero-sum or even negative-sum” (Engle, 2014). Russian Federation is
isolated by overwhelming defeating majorities (Table 2) at UNGA and uses the veto to
block all the initiatives addressing the Ukraine War, at UNSC, as its last resort, as it did
during the Cold War. The war in Ukraine is all about the European defence architecture
and Russia’s fears posed by the continued expansion of NATO and European values. The
looming possibility of the Ukraine accession to European Union and NATO would represent
the end of the “Russia buffer zone”, consequently being perceived as having the ‘enemy’
literally at the gates. This narrative suggests that Putin had seized Crimea out of an
enduring wish to resurrect the Soviet Empire (or at least to protect what is left from it),
and has ultimately gone for the rest of Ukraine. The 2014 Maidan Revolution and the
ousting of the Ukraine’s constitutionally-voted pro-Russian president had been the last
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
100
straw for Putin. Therefore, his pushback to reclaim control was, arguably, expected.
The West had it coming: they had moved too close to Russia’s backyard, menacing.
Georgia and Ukraine’s push for NATO membership had in particular seriously perturbed
the equilibrium in the region; Putin had constantly upheld that these two countries joining
NATO would outright signify a direct security risk to Russia. From the Russian perspective,
the existence of NATO is an unacceptable vestige of the Cold War (Talbott, 1995;
Carpenter, 2022), inherently directed against them, particularly after the end of the
Warsaw Pact. For the Russian Federation the key question is why the Western allies did
not disband NATO? The reality is, however, very different: as Rajagopalan (2022)
categorically explains, it was Russia’s own post–Cold War decline that left it vulnerable
to Europe, not the other way around. Indeed, Russia’s self-perception as a waning power
- especially in regard to its ideological and economic appeal - is the root cause of its
insecurity, and its invasion of Georgia in 2008 - Putin’s last resort - should have
demonstrated his determination to curtail Russia’s demise. Yet, despite this clear
warning, NATO never publicly closed its doors to Georgia and Ukraine (and to Finland and
Sweden).
Ukraine President Zelensky was banking on the U.S.-led NATO to come to its support in
case of any conflict with Russia, but, truthfully, Russia’s attack was not just about
Ukraine; it was also part of a larger geo-strategic to stall NATO’s eastward expansion.
After the collapse of the USSR, from 1991 till 2007, NATO had enlarged into the Czech
Republic (now Czechia), Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria,
Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Putin, speaking at the Munich Security Conference in
2007, questioned whether such NATO expansion was the West’s way to box in Russia.
The EU’s eastward expansion and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in
Ukraine starting with 2004’s Orange Revolution were therefore playing with fire and have
now escalated into full-blown war. Putin called the expanding EU a mere stalking horse
for NATO expansion, and when Russian leaders looked at Western social engineering in
Ukraine, they saw their nation as next on the list. This strategic trio of the West — NATO
expansion, EU enlargement, and democracy promotion — would serve to not only
symbolize Russia’s failure to counteract, unmasking its true state of affairs beneath the
façade of a modern powerhouse, but also add to Russia’s anxiety. For Putin, it was now
or never to act against Ukraine — as he blames the West for making trouble in Russia’s
backyard, threatening Russia’s core strategic interests, even though the EU has never
been by any means a military organization, and, as an association of states, has seemed
to enjoy considerable appeal.
For Putin, the disintegration of the USSR was the biggest catastrophe of the 20th century
(2022 was to be the centenary of the Soviet Union). Over the past few decades, Western
regimes have tried to pacify Russia, presuming that if Russia seizes just one piece of land
— in Moldova (Transnistria), Georgia, or Ukraine — then the incumbent administration
can be placated, and the West can continue its economic, political, and cultural relations
with Russia. This is where their calculus has erred and has been a cause for frustration
for the Ukrainians: despite the growing isolation of Russia (such as from G7, G20, Arctic
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
101
Council, and WEF), the world has not taken decisive action to stop Russia, consequently
rendering Ukraine a mere epicenter of global political tectonics.
Mearsheimer’s remarkably clear and consistent work provides compelling answers as to
why, tragically, aggressive state strategies are a rational answer to life in the international
system (Toft, 2005): Post-USSR Russia had been humiliated by heavy-handed retribution
from the victor of the Cold War (i.e., the West). This in turn paved the way for a strong,
Soviet-style leader (i.e., Putin) to rise to power, under whom the Russians could unite.
The trajectory of the assertion of power and influence in the international system that
would ensue follows Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism. For Russia, it took
advantage of China’s increasing economic dominance and the demise of the U.S.’s global
leadership to assume a position that challenged the U.S.’s military supremacy. All of these
events culminate in the creation of a new international order (Mearsheimer, 2001). Where
U.S. and European leaders had blundered was in attempting to turn Ukraine into their
stronghold right on Russia’s border, and, now that the consequences have been laid bare,
it would be prudent to avoid blundering further down the same misbegotten course. One
of the strong points of classical realism, in contrast to U.S. neorealism, is the mindfulness
of how significant it is to comprehend the local and internal circumstances for a nation’s
successful defense against external coercions. Raymond Aron, Edward Carr, and Hans
Morgenthau articulate their theories during critical periods in Europe’s development
(Tsygankov & Tsygankov 2022). That probably helps to understand the Russian
unprovoked war of aggression.
Politically and economically, Russia will likely become more isolated, and its foreign
relations more zero- or even negative-sum. There is now bipartisan consensus in
Washington that China and Russia are the most existential threats to U.S. security
Table 1 - Comparative Key Indicators
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
GDP
HDI
SDI
Major Trading Partners
Military
Expenditure
Weapons
Exports
Public Debit
Relations with U.S.
European
Union
17,088,620.74
(3rd Largest)
0.895
Average1
(2020)
28 out of
189
66,70
92 out of 168
European Commission (2021) Exports – US (€399M), UK
(€283M), China (€223M), Switzerland (€156M), Russia
(€89M). Imports – China (€472M), US (€232M), Russia
(€162M), UK (€146M), Switzerland(€123M).
1,5% GDP
USD 5,722B2
(2020)
2 out of 32
94% GDP
Relative alignment and
mutual reinforcing. Very
important trade
partners.
People’s
Republic of
China
17,734,062.65
(2nd Largest)
0.761
(2019)
85 out of
189
65,44
100 out of
168
Exports - United States (US$438B), Hong Kong SAR (US
$262B), Japan (US $151B), Germany (US $112B),
and South Korea (US $110B). Imports - Japan (US
$133B), South Korea (US $131B), United States (US
$122B), Germany (US $106B), and Chinese Taipei ($104B).
1,7% GDP
(Unconfirmed
official figure)
USD 760B
(2020)
8 out of 32
70% GDP
(Official figure3)
Very important
relationship in the global
context.
Economic competition
and ideological
antagonism.
Republic of
India
3,173,397.59
(6th Largest)
0.645
(2019)
131 out
of 189
58,81
115 out of
168
Exports – UK (US$49.7B),
China (US$18.5B), UAE (US$18.1B), HKSAR (US$9.18B),
and Germany (US$8.8B). Imports –
China (US$64.2B), United
States (US$26.6B), UAE (US$22.1B), Saudi Arabia
(US$16.8B), and Iraq (US$14.4B).
2,1% GDP
USD 151B
(2020)
18 out of 32
84% GDP
Growing in importance.
Currently strengthening
across economic and
political areas.
Russian
Federation
1,775,799.92
(11th Largest)
0.824
(2019)
52 out of
189
73,45
62 out of 168
Exports- China (US$49.3B), UK (US$25.3B), Netherlands ($
22.5B), Belarus (US $15.8B), and Germany (US $14.2B).
Imports - China (US $50.7B), Germany (US
$26.1B), Belarus (US $12.8B), South Korea (US $7.93B),
and Italy (US $7.71B).
4,3% GDP
USD 3,203B
(2020)
2 out of 32
19% GDP
Critical bilateral
relationship with
implications well beyond
the two states
themselves.
1 The highest value was in Ireland: 0.955 points and the lowest value was in Croatia: 0.783 points.
2 Germany, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands and France.
3 This number has been challenged by different analysts, such as “Today, China's banking system is still standing despite a deb t-to-GDP ratio of 264%” (Pei, 2022). Nevertheless, according
to the World Bank International Debt Report (2022, p. 3), China is one of the world’s largest single creditor nations.
Sources: (1) WB, 2021; (2); (3) SDI, 2021; (4) EC, 2022b) and OEC, 2022; (5) WB, and SIPRI 2020; (6) GE, 2022; (7)Trade Economics, 2022
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
102
interest, while anti- Western/U.S. sentiments have been mounting in Moscow and Beijing.
NATO’s new strategic concept (2022) not only states that Russia “is the most significant
and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area”
(NATO, 2022, Paragraph 8), more importantly, “[t]he deepening strategic partnership
between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation and their mutually
reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules-based international order run counter to our
values and interests” (NATO, 2022, Paragraph 13). Such has been the political tectonics
underlying the Ukraine war, in which China has decisive momentum, since the EU and
Moscow are not the leading actors, as they themselves are not self-subsistent.
The U.S. and its European allies thus face a trilemma on Ukraine: 1) continuing down the
current road, which will prolong hostility with Russia and devastate Ukraine in the process
- a scenario that pushes China further towards Russia; 2) working together to create a
prosperous but neutral Ukraine, one that does not threaten Russia but allows the West
to repair its relations with Moscow — this scenario will reward forceful land occupation
by a UNSC member (as it does not penalizes Russia), which simply undermines the
international system. This scenario is very unlikely to happen and China will continue to
adopt neutrality with Chinese characteristics; 3) escalating their involvement in Ukraine,
which will exacerbate hostility with Russia - a scenario with chaotic, unpredictable global
consequences that drive China towards siding further with Russia. Ultimately, however,
all scenarios tend to converge towards a grim outcome in the international order:
“A Russian victory [in Ukraine] … would lead countries around the world to
arm themselves with nuclear weapons, because they would know that, in the
final analysis, they are alone. And lonely, fearful countries with nuclear
weapons may very well use them […] Ukrainian victory would encourage if
not guarantee change in a Russia that has yet to accommodate itself to the
loss of empire and still evidently aspires to its restoration”. (Cohen, 2022)
This suggests that a protracted stalemate would be the best option. Moreover, from the
West’s perspective, China detaching itself from Russia will benefit its global leadership.
China however strongly disagrees with this; China perceives that the results of the
Ukraine war will produce consequences for the international order, and this time China
wants to have a say in it. The Ukraine war may herald a new international order — a new
bipolarity of actors including China, but not Russia.
1. Decoding India’s Strategic Ambivalence
We turn to India: the soon-to-be world’s most populous country, a nuclear power, an
economic powerhouse, and a political actor with strong geopolitical implications on its
relationships with Russia, China, the U.S., and the EU. In the context of a broader regional
reality, India is wedged in geopolitical contestations: The regional and global looming rise
of China, the Taliban’s return in Afghanistan, the possible convergence of interest among
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
103
China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and the war in Ukraine. All these factors have put India
in a perceived unpleasant spot. Russia, conceivably, is the state that is not ill-disposed.
After Russia’s 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, on the next day, India vetoed a
UNSC resolution to condemn Putin’s aggression disguised as a “special operation.” On 18
March, the UNGA overwhelmingly adopted A/RES/ES-11/1, demanding Russia to
immediately end its military operations in Ukraine and unconditionally reverse its decision
on the status of certain areas in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine. On 30
September 2022, a new draft resolution, circulated by the United States and Albania,
was supported by ten of the fifteen members of the Council, with Russia voting against
it. Four members abstained, Brazil, China, Gabon and again India (Table 2). This draft
described the so-called referendums held by Russia in the four regions of Ukraine which
Moscow now regards as sovereign territory – Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and
Zaporizhzhya – as illegal and an attempt to modify Ukraine’s internationally recognized
borders. As Table 2 summarizes the UN resolutions, emphasizing India’s position in
relation to the Ukraine war.
India’s abstentions might have been perceived as surprisingly, as its ambiguity ran
counter to its old resolve on respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity. Western
policymakers hoping for increased allyship with the world’s largest democracy were left
disappointed. The Bilateral relationship between Moscow and New Delhi dates back
multiple decades: since India’s independence in 1947, the two have shared a high level
of mutual political and strategic trust, regularly supporting each other on various
Table 2 – Summary of the United Nations Decisions
#
Content
Positions
UNSC
S/2022/155
UNSCR draft
25 Feb 2022
2. Deplores in the strongest terms the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine in violation of Article 2,
paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter;
3. Decides that the Russian Federation shall immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine and shall refrain
from any further unlawful threat or use of force against any UN member state;
The draft resolution was not adopted due to the
negative vote of a permanent member of the
Security Council (Russian Federation) (S/PV.8979).
Eleven members voted in favor, one against and
three members China, India and the United Arab
Emirates abstained.
UNGA
A/RES/ES-
11/1
(18 March
2022)
3. Demands that the Russian Federation immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine and to refrain from any
further unlawful threat or use of force against any Member State;
4. Also demands that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military
forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders;
Adopted by a recorded vote of 141 in favor to 5
against (Belarus, Eritrea, Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, and Syria)
with 35 abstentions. China and India abstained.
UNSC
S/2022/720
UNSCR draft
30 Sep 2022
6. Also declares that the 21 February 2022 decision by the Russian Federation related to the status of certain areas
of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine is a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine
and inconsistent with the principles of the Charter; 
7. Decides that the Russian Federation shall immediately and unconditionally reverse its decision on 21 February
2022 related to the purported status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, and refrain
from future decisions related to the purported status of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhya regions of Ukraine; 
The draft resolution was not adopted due to the
negative vote of a permanent member of the
Security Council (Russian Federation). Ten members
voted in favor, one against and four members Brazil,
China, India, and Gabon abstained.
UNGA
GA/12458
(12 October
2022)
The General Assembly condemned the Russian Federation’s attempted illegal annexation of the Donetsk, Kherson,
Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine, and demanded it immediately withdraw all its military forces from
Ukraine territory.
India joined several other speakers in expressing deep worry that the people of the global South were feeling pain
from a food, fuel and fertilizer shortage, and sky-high price increases, as a result of the war.
Adopted by a recorded vote of 143 in favor to 5
against (Belarus, Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria) with
35 abstentions. China and India abstained.
Statements (Selection)
Fergal Tomas Mythen (Ireland) condemned the Russian Federation’s attempts to illegally annex the Ukrainian regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, and
its holding of illegal, illegitimate and sham referendums. Such actions are another blatant breach of the United Nations Charter and do not represent the freely expressed
will of the people in those regions, he said (…) Describing the Russian Federation’s veto as a “reprehensible attempt to excuse its own military aggression
against Ukraine, a fellow member of our United Nations,” he reiterated the call to abolish the veto. He then called on the Russian Federation to immediately
cease hostilities, unconditionally withdraw from the entire territory of Ukraine and refrain from further threats of the use of force of any kind, including nuclear weapons.
Agustín Santos Maraver (Spain), aligning himself with the European Union, condemned the sham referendums held in parts of Ukrainian territory temporarily under the
Russian Federation’s military control. The Russian Federation persists in its flagrant violations of international law, he said, adding that the international community will
never recognize these illegal annexation attempts (…) Noting that the Russian Federation’s veto paralysed the Council at a time when that country is threatening
to use nuclear weapons, he said such actions undermine global peace.
Ishikane Kimihiro (Japan) condemned the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine (…) The attempted illegal annexation of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and
Zaporizhzhia regions clearly breaches the Charter and international law, he said, adding that the General Assembly must not accept such outrageous actions. Further,
such unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force shake the very foundation of the international order, he said, adding that while the Security Council has the
primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace, it failed to act because of the veto cast by the Russian Federation.
Source: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3965290
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
104
contentious international relations issues, and there is the notion of Russia being a sturdy,
dependable supporter of India that traces back to 1955 - both the erstwhile Soviet Union
and, since the 1990s, Russia, had unrelentingly supported India’s stand on Kashmir at
the UN (in 1957, 1962, and 1971) and the UNSC, and stood steadfast with India during
the Indo-Pakistani conflict. Also worth noting is that Russia devotes nearly 4.3% of GDP
to its defence, whereas India spends 2.1 % of its GDP on military, according to data
collected by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and World
Bank (Table 1).
This partnership between India and Russia has remained till this day, particularly during
times when the U.S. was not a partner of India. In 2010, the Declaration of Strategic
Partnership (signed by Putin and Vajpayee) was upgraded to a special and privileged
strategic partnership; in 2019, when India (under the Modi regime) scrapped Article 370
which provided special status to Jammu and Kashmir, Russia refrained from interfering,
calling it India’s “internal matter”; and the year 2021 marked both the 10th anniversary
of the special and privileged strategic partnership, and 50 years since the Indo-Soviet
Treaty on Peace (1971), the joint statement of which reads “Partnership for Peace,
Progress and Prosperity,” with wide coverage on business, health, defence, and
multilateralism.
This relationship between India and Russia has however become more complicated
amidst rising U.S.-China rivalry (chiefly due to closeness between Russia and China).
India’s geopolitical strategy has geared towards establishing a U.S.-Russia equilibrium to
curb China’s growing dominance — India can no longer discount the reality of having to
co-exist with a hegemon. Since the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014,
relationships between Russia and the West have down-spiralled, leading Russia to ascribe
more worth to China and India as they have both backed Russia on Crimean issues at
the UN, despite India having joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in
2017.
In the last few years, India became tactically closer to the U.S. The institutionalisation of
the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) gave new impetus for India and the U.S. to
collaborate and focus on the Indo-Pacific region. Besides a shared obligation to shape a
tactical relationship, since 2016, the U.S. has designated India as a Major Defense
Partner, with New Delhi and Washington penning defence agreements. The Biden
administration has also reaffirmed its commitment to support India’s permanent
membership in a reformed UNSC and New Delhi’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group
(Press Trust of India, 2022).
Needless to say, China is another potential flashpoint between India and Russia. Even
though both countries want to cut their financial dependence on China, they hold different
opinions and follow dissimilar strategies in face of China’s ascendency — India mainly
sees China as a constant rival (especially after the border dispute at Galwan Valley in
May to June 2020), while Russia views China as a tactical partner. The possibility of a
Russia-India-China trilateral strategic cooperation is therefore slim, as such
multilateralism and shifting alliances create a fragile power balance between India,
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
105
Russia, the U.S., and China. Considering their long historical ties, it is hardly surprising
that the Indian administration and the citizens have opted to take remain neutral while
the rest of the global community strongly denounces and sanctions Russia. Clearly, India
wants to hold onto its strategic ties and partnership with Russia as it needs Russia’s
backing in resolving border clashes with its neighbours (especially China), as well as
financial and military support. There has been the sentiment in India that, since Russia
has repeatedly sided with India at the UN on Kashmir, India should now return the favour.
A further point of concern relates to cooperation in space. India has already been
cooperating with the U.S. and EU in several space projects. Unfortunately, sanctions
imposed on Russia have led to ROSCOSMOS withdrawing its engineers from the Guiana
Space Center, site of the European Space Agency (ESA)’s operations to launch its
Copernicus and Galileo global navigation satellite systems. While the European
Commission claims that this would have no consequence on the continuity of its
navigation services, it is undeniable that the withdrawal will impact their launch schedule,
which depends on Russian Soyuz rockets (Bhandari, 2022). On the other hand, in
December 2021, after a visit from Putin, India released a joint statement with Russia in
which the two agreed to enhance cooperation between ROSCOSMOS and the Indian
Space Research Organization (ISRO) in various domains — human spaceflight, satellite
navigation, development of launch vehicles, and planetary exploration. This joint
statement was an addition to an existing MOU between ROSCOSMOS and ISRO (CBS
NEWS, 2022). Russia’s recent declaration to pull out of the International Space Station
project after 2024 may trigger strong cooperation in space among Russia, China, and
India.
At this juncture we can therefore see why, on the Ukraine war, it is unsurprising that
India should adopt a strategic ambivalence, but it is also treading a tightrope. While India
does not want to condone (Russian’s) aggression, considerable public neutrality toward
Russia has also been engendered. At the UNSC, UNGA, and UNHRC, India has abstained
from chiming in on the West’s strong, unanimous condemnation of Russia, and refused
to outright label Russia the perpetrator. This choice to distance itself from the Ukraine
war and tacitly tolerate Russia is less apprehensiveness towards upsetting the established
world order and more a geopolitical calculation to avoid estranging Russia, as doing so
would destabilize the region and threaten India’s security, despite drawing the ire of the
West with such ostensible fence-sitting.
In a nutshell, the sequence of events and India’s tense backroom diplomacy with Ukraine
— including summoning the Russian and Ukrainian ambassadors to demand “urgent safe
passage” for Indians stranded in Kharkiv and other war zones — explicate why India
forwent a reproachful tone and adopted a more delicate narrative to mask its
disappointment towards Russia. While wanting to convey dismay at Russia’s actions,
India also declined to unequivocally condemn Moscow, opting instead to reinforce the
need to “respect […] the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states,” ask for “the
immediate halt of aggression,” openly express regret that the “route of diplomatic
negotiation and mediation was given up,” advising that global leaders should “return to
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
106
it” and that negotiation would be the best way to resolve disputes (Tellis, 2022). India
also reiterated that “the global order is anchored on international law, [the] UN Charter
and respect for [the] territorial integrity and sovereignty of states.” Such ambivalence
toward Russian aggression was underpinned by India’s apprehension vis-à-vis China and
Pakistan, both of whom India perceived as coercive. India assumes that an alliance with
Russia can help to thwart any deepening Russia-China ties as well as relations with
Pakistan sought by Russia. Another reason for this neutrality is India’s dependence on
Russia for military acquisitions (partly because Russian weapons are typically cheaper
than their Western counterparts) even though India has already been diversifying the
sources of its arms purchases (in 2022, India received 36 French aircraft Rafale). This is,
indeed, at odds with India’s pledge to protect the rule-based world order in the Indo-
Pacific, especially as India’s global partners — both financial and strategic one — stand
in solidarity while denouncing and sanctioning Russia. In turn, India’s opting out of that
solidarity has left it in the company of China and Pakistan, both having been India’s long-
standing rivals (Tellis, 2022). However, Indian officials are conscious of the perils
associated with their neutrality towards Russia. The key moral from the Russia-Ukraine
war is to have clear and unambiguous national interest. There is no doubt, thus, that
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has put India in a difficult position with tough strategic
choices, and India is buying time as it maneouvres between the West and Russia, drifting
towards the former but refusing to sever ties with the latter, all the while cohabiting with
a China rising as a regional and global power competitor.
2. EU and China: Diplomatic aloofness or constructive engagement?
The EU’s approach towards China as set out in the “Strategic Outlook” Joint
Communication of 12 March 2019 remains valid, but bilateral relations between the two
economic giants have deteriorated, exposing immense ideological discrepancies.
According to EU/EEAS (2022a) China’s counter-measures to EU sanctions (pertaining to
human rights issues), economic coercion, and trade measures against the single market,
as well as its position on the Ukraine war are all contributing to worsening the bilateral
relations, but the EU continues to work with China not only as a partner for cooperation
and negotiation, but also as an economic competitor and systemic rival.
In reality, the EU and China need one another economically. China is very dependent on
the 420 million consumers in European markets, and China is the top export partner of
the EU (Table 1). However, their ideological clash is damaging trade relations. The
Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) is a case in point on how principled
diplomacy (Borrell, 2022) can hinder their relationship: the EU Parliament holds the
ability to ratify international agreements, thus any EU members being sanctioned by
China will put the overall agreement into a quagmire. In addition, though China’s initial
stance on the Ukraine war was constructive neutrality in favour of a peaceful solution (in
accordance with the Chinese golden rule of peaceful settlement of neighborhood
conflicts), in the eyes of the EU, while peace has not been restored in Ukraine but trade
relations between China and Russia have grown, especially in terms of energy, China has
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
107
already taken sides and has indirectly facilitated further brutality and carnage in Ukraine.
To the EU, the more the war drags on, the more China’s constructive “neutrality” becomes
an abettor of Russia’s perpetration of supplanting the international order and increasing
its geopolitical influence. As Le Corre (2022) recalls: “Despite Beijing’s so-called
‘neutrality,’ on 4 February 2022, Putin and Xi Jinping signed a joint communiqué declaring
a ‘friendship without limits’ between their two states.” Indeed, it is not the Ukraine war,
but the very nature of China’s relations with Russia that has caused the relationship
between China and the EU to sour.
All countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity should be respected and upheld and the
purposes and principles of the UN Charter should be jointly safeguarded […] our
relationship (China-Russia) features non-alliance, non-confrontation and non-targeting
of any third party (Wenbin, 2022).
To the EU and its partners, this deliberately vague statement — contradictorily standing
by the principles of the UN Charter but also backing a state that unlawfully exercises
brutal, unprovoked aggression — is hardly acceptable. Moreover, China’s tacit acceptance
of the systematic destruction of a sovereign state (Ukraine) has rendered it an
unmistakable supporter of Russia’s agenda: for the two to stand together to “oppose
further enlargement of NATO and call [for the abandonment of] its ideologized cold war
approaches” (Rajagopalan, 2022). The EU and its partners interpret the message of the
statement — 1. friendship between China and Russia has no limit; 2. there are no
‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation; 3. any strengthening of bilateral strategic cooperation
neither targets any third-party country, nor is affected by the changing international
environment or circumstantial changes in any third-party countries — as a fragility of
China, which, as history has shown, will prove to be a major source of problems.
“Necessity is clearly pushing Russia and China together, but it remains to be seen how
long it will last” (Rajagopalan, 2022).
Since the COVID-19 pandemic and especially since February 2022, China’s branding and
image within the EU and its partners have plunged. Beijing’s willingness to embrace and
magnify EU divisions in the early stages of the pandemic has led to backlash both in
European public opinion and among governmental elites, who have become irritated by
China’s aggressive discourse (Le Corre, 2022). In terms of macro-economics, Chinese
FDI has dropped considerably (MERCIS, 2022), despite a significant surge in 2020. As
Table 1 depicts, China is the EU’s second trading partner in export and first in import.
However, the situation deteriorated when China sanctioned Lithuania (an EU member
state) for opening a new office in Formosa, bringing uncertainty to the future of Sino-EU
bilateral relations.
EU-China relations will also have heavy implications on the Belt and Road Initiative
(B&RI). Ukraine, first of all, plays an important role in the Eurasia land belt of the B&RI:
Since 2016, China and Ukraine have signed USD 2.95 billion worth of construction
contracts under the B&RI in sectors such as transport and energy (including sustainable
energy and gas). According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry (Xinhua, 2022), Ukraine-
China trade increased by 47.5 percent year-on-year to 9.37 billion U.S. dollars in the first
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
108
half of 2021, and a direct freight train linking Ukraine and China was established. These
projects have, however, been severely disrupted by the Ukraine war. On the other hand,
for the 16 states in Central and Eastern Europe (hereafter CEE) that have cooperative
relationships with China, most of the are receiving large numbers of refugees and are
sending assistance to Ukraine. They will be rethinking and reevaluating their relationships
with China, particularly as China appears to be an apologist for Russia.
As Le Corre suggests (2022), Sino-European relations has reached a tipping point, and
there is a risk that the Ukraine war and Beijing’s stance on advancing a strong relationship
with Russia might deeply affect relationships with the EU and CEE in the long term. As
Hussain suggests, however, China still has some wiggle room (2022): “Ukraine’s
integration into the ambitious rail network linking China with Europe, by providing
alternative routes bypassing Russia, would be acceptable to the EU, the U.S., and Russia,
too, could be open to China taking a lead on brokering a sustainable ceasefire, especially
if it means lifting some sanctions.”
3. China-Russia: Paradox with Chinese Characteristics
One of the main reasons that China adopted a constructive neutrality was its own sense
of a potential vulnerability. Neutrality allows China to bide its time, and such deliberate
wait to pragmatically evaluate the best option in light of the national interest is a typical
Chinese characteristic. Several scholars have also defended China on taking this stance:
Among them, Bi (2022) argues that the neutrality “is crucial, not only for its own interest
but also for world stability … [it] is not purely commercial, [but] is driven by a mix of
humanitarianism, pragmatism, and political realism.” Bi goes on to suggest that: Beijing’s
current principled and impartial neutrality should be appreciated. In the age of the toxic
mix of weapons of mass destruction and mass dissemination of fake news of various
kinds, it is time to leave some room for dialogue, peace, and neutrality towards an
inclusive, indivisible, and enduring security for all (2022).
A wider reason that prompted such neutrality was China’s geopolitical quandary, in which
all options seem equally undesirable. China is particularly disturbed by the possibility of
nuclear escalation and global economic disarray. According to Nathan and Scobell (2014):
“Despite its impressive size and population, economic vitality, and drive to upgrade its
military, China remains a vulnerable nation surrounded by powerful rivals and potential
foes.” Furthermore, the war in Ukraine drives China into five intertwining dilemmas:
(1) China needed to be sympathetic to Russia’s self-perceived vulnerability against a
possible NATO eastward expansion, and China has reiterated that “Russia’s
legitimate security demands ought to be taken seriously and Russia’s legitimate
security demands ought to be taken seriously and properly addressed” (MFA-PRC,
2022 and Indian Express, 2022). However, China cannot and should not support
Russian separatists’ agenda in east Ukraine and Moldova (Transnistria). Doing so will
contradict the principle of not interfering in a third state’s domestic affairs, as well
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
109
as the “One-China policy” vis-à-vis the South China Sea and Formosa. Furthermore,
China is particularly uncomfortable with Russian nuclear rhetoric;
(2) China has worked tirelessly to build and repair its branding and image in the EU,
negotiating the 2003 China-EU comprehensive strategic partnership and the 2020
EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. Both can be game changers in
their bilateral relations. However, the EU sees China’s constructive neutrality as pro-
Russia, which undermines their bilateral relationships, potentially leading to more
troubles ahead, i.e., the European Parliament voting down any attempts to further
and/or strengthen cooperation;
(3) China’s constructive neutrality may open the door for diplomacy with potentially huge
domestic and external benefits. If China can work with both Russia and Ukraine under
the UN framework, it may be able repair its global image and divert the focus away
from its internal affairs, ultimately giving it a chance to reinforce the Eurasian part
of the B&RI. However, as Europe strengthens its unity and fortifies alliance with the
U.S., China will find it increasingly difficult to play mediator on the world stage. China
has already decided that it would be “politically naive to alleviate its awkwardly
arranged relations with Russia by aligning with the United States, Russia’s greatest
rival” (Deng, 2022);
(4) Currently, still very much engaged in the trade war imposed by the Trump
administration, China blames the U.S. for promoting a Cold War mentality among
the elites. Since the inauguration of Biden, the Chinese administration has initiated
“baby steps” to de-escalate the hostility. This has however proved difficult, as it has
been complicated by the rearmament of Formosa and China’s worries and
apprehension in light of the day-to-day outcomes of the Ukraine war, as well as its
‘no-limits’ friendship with Russia. These military, economic, and political events,
having all driven Russia into a corner, are making China lose face for having vowed
unconditional partnership with Russia, brandished via the 4 February 2022 joint
statement;
(5) Russia and the EU are, respectively, China’s largest and second-largest trading
partners, with different trade profiles. However, in 2021, total trade between EU and
Russia was worth almost twice of that between China and Russia. China-Russia trade
was driven by oil, gas, coal and weaponry. According to SIPRI, between 2017 and
2021, approximately 80% of China’s total arms imports originated from Russia,
accounting for 21% of Russia’s total arms export. Further, according to the Financial
Times (March, 2022), “Russia has requested military assistance from China to
maintain its invasion of Ukraine. According to intelligence the U.S. shared with allies,
Russia requested supplies including surface-to-air missiles, drones, intelligence-
related equipment and armoured and logistics vehicles.” The performance of Russian
military equipment during the first phase of the Ukraine war has been disastrous.
This is alarming for China, as it has direct impact on building up its military might.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
110
As regards the negative impact of Western sanctions on Russia, Efremov (2022) states
that the Russian economy “is facing its biggest recession since at least the 1990s, that
is, since the collapse of the USSR,” despite exhausting ways to circumvent them. It is
also important to understand the geopolitical context: “China’s interest in weakening
Russia, Serbia’s interest in joining the EU, Turkey’s more critical view, Kazakhstan’s
official disagreement to recognize the independence of parts of Ukraine, the development
of energy exports by Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan bypassing Russia” (Efremov, 2022).
Adding to the above five dilemmas is that China’s relationship with Russia is driven from
the Russian side by the geopolitics of a sort of pragmatic neo-Eurasianism that recalls
the idea of Russia as an empire, which was culturally closer to Asia than to Western
Europe. In 1997, Dugin called for the demise of Atlantism in Eurasia, the refusal to allow
liberal values to dominate Russia, and the rebuilding of its influence through annexations
and alliances. As Ingram (2001) explains:
“Since the rise of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency, Dugin’s prominence has
increased, and Russia’s official Eurasianist orientation has been consolidated. During
the Yeltsin era, figures such as Dugin were officially regarded as beyond the pale, but
under Putin, proclamations of Russia’s derzhavnost (great power status) have
become not just acceptable, but a genuine component of official discourse, and
oppositionists have found much to praise in Putin’s programme”.
This neo-Eurasianism is both dividing and uniting China and Russia: China supports
neither annexation nor alliance, and events in places such as Georgia-Ossetia, Chechenia,
Moldavia-Transnistria, and even regarding Russian’s association with Belarus make China
uncomfortable for a number of historical reasons, but Beijing welcomes the idea of driving
Western influences out of Eurasia, a fact that has led to China’s support of a number of
institutional arrangements such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the
Eurasian Economic Union, and the creation of organizations/initiatives such as the SCO,
the partnership for Greater Eurasia, and BRICS. Indeed, it is important to note that SCO
is the largest in-regional organization in the world in terms of geographical coverage and
population, covering three-fifths of the Eurasia and nearly half of the Earth’s population.
Likewise, in relation to BRICS, an organization that has global ambitions, Wang Yi (2022),
China’s state councilor and foreign minister, told an online meeting of BRICS foreign
ministers that “China proposes to start the BRICS expansion process, explore the criteria
and procedures for the expansion, and gradually form a consensus” (Reuters, 19 May,
2022). These two Chinese perceptions of Russia’s pragmatic neo-Eurasianism explain
why China turned a blind eye to Russia’s regional domination, believing itself to be strong
enough to withstand any Russian encroachment into China, at the same time aligning
with Russia occasionally for circumstantial mutual benefits, to advance a bilateral
relationship, and to create institutions capable of counteracting the U.S.’s enduring global
influence. Nevertheless, in September 2022, on the margins of the SCO summit, Xi
Jinping and Vladimir Putin met and the narrative of the annexation of the occupied
territories in Ukraine and the possible use of nuclear weapons, were not welcomed by
the Chinese delegation.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
111
Russia’s major structural problems persist and will become more visible and increase the
effects of sanctions (Efremov, 2022): “the lack of an independent judiciary in Russia,
corruption and unprofessionalism of the judiciary at all levels”; the “low level of
federalization and autonomy of the regions actually contribute to the growth of poverty
and instability in the regions that do not have the tools to ensure their economic
development — even resource-rich regions have no motivation to develop international
relations, since VAT in its entirety and most other taxes are taken by the center, while
the income tax actually also remains in Moscow; The migration inflow to the capitals of
the regions, the general decline in the population, the brain drain and the depopulation
of small towns” — All of these structural problems impact China’s wait-and-see attitude,
as potential gains and reputation are affected. Nevertheless, is important to make it clear
that, historically, China and Russia have a sinusoidal relationship with very large
amplitudes. The new ascendance was initiated with the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness
and Friendly Cooperation Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian
Federation, signed by Jiang Zemin and Vladimir Putin, on 16 July, 2001. However, twenty
years ago, China was diverse and had completely different internal and external goals.
5. Conclusion
This research has illuminated the possible implications of a China-Russia partnership and
India’s role in the Ukraine war, for the security dimension of the EU. Political pundits
agree that immediate and long-term impacts of the Ukrainian crisis need to be evaluated
at the EU, Europe, and worldwide levels to confirm the substantial costs of this conflict.
Mearsheimer believes that the prospect for harmony has gone. Russia will not lay down
its arms the gains made in Eastern Ukraine, whereas the West cannot bear their sustained
occupation. Mearsheimer’s logic points in the course: if there is no peace the only
reasonable consequence is continuing fighting and unending fighting will plausibly lead
to escalation (Mearsheimer, 2014). To make things worse, the questioning about the
legitimacy of the Russian veto power at UNSC (Table 2) is growing, putting at jeopardy
all the international security. This perfect storm is also an exceptional chance for the EU
to rethink its future and measure its historical vulnerabilities and fault lines. The Russia-
Ukraine conflict embodies the fourth asymmetric shock that the EU and Europe have felt
recently after the 2008 financial crisis, the BREXIT and the COVID-19 pandemic – The
looming possibility of a global international security system disarray.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict in the context of EU-China and EU-India relations poses six
major security challenges:
1. The change from a unipolar-hegemonic to a diffuse-multipolar international order (or
a multipolarity driven by two poles), with China being part of it, will push Europe and
the EU to systemic insecurity, with direct consequences in the economic, investment
and development sectors and indirect effects in the crisis response mechanisms;
2. EU-China ideological clashes raised by the pragmatic neo-Eurasianism shared by China
and Russia, will pose global governance insecurity, with particular emphasis on climate
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
112
change, decarbonization of the global economy, global commons governance,
institutional financialism and the militarization of outer space. China will continue
pushing for a constructive engagement and EU will endure for a stronger Chinese
international activism;
3. In addition to five intertwined dilemmas, a possible de facto and de jure China-Russia
alignment will add a new level of geopolitical insecurity, especially in Eurasia, forcing
a swift development of the European defence sector at the expense of all other sectors
associated with development and globalization. The defense budgets are expected to
divert resources from other public sectors with large public impact. These facts will
drive EU members towards a stronger commitment to NATO but also to a greater
internal public dissatisfaction;
4. A China-Russia political alignment also represents a huge geopolitical risk for China.
“If Russia’s war against Ukraine leads to victory for Ukraine or a stalemated quagmire,
the instability of the Putin regime will grow exponentially” (Pyziur & Motyl, 2022).
Indeed, it is necessary to consider the scenario in which Russia collapses and
transforms into a series of independent states — that will be a geopolitical nightmare
not only for China but also for the EU. Moreover, in September 2022, the public
narrative between China and Russia has suffered a sudden adjustment, as Xi and Putin
hold first meeting since Ukraine invasion began (Samarkand, Uzbekistan) on sidelines
of the SCO. The accession of Iran will reinforce the importance of SCO as an alternative
to neo-liberal world order, but China-Russia relation appears to be to resemble a
necessary ideological alignment, that advances the benefits of an economic
pragmatism. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons is simply not acceptable to China.
5. India will continue to play a double-faced game, capitalizing on its relations with
Europe and Russia, while growing and reaching a level of self-confidence to compete
directly with China. As the most populated state in the world and a leading economic
powerhouse, India’s pursuit of a permanent seat on the UNSC requires effective
bilateral relations with all current UNSC members. But ambivalence also has a political
cost, that EU institutions may not ignore. That can be another pressure factor to
(in)securitization in relation to the trilateral geopolitical game in the Eurasia and Indo-
Pacific regions;
6. Russia’s intention to develop an independent space program will induce another
insecurity, as outer space is no longer regarded as an area of international
cooperation, but another competitive domain, perhaps with stronger militarization
than before. Space tends to be part of another global divide.
Regarding specifically the EU and India vis-à-vis the Ukraine conflict, India will likely buy
time by maintaining a pragmatic, non-hostile neutrality. Indeed, India will continue to
take advantage of long-term relations with Russia (and China), being part of the BRICS
and the SCO and, at the same time pushing an emerging and growing partnership with
the U.S. The situation is ever dynamic and the targets are constantly moving, as each
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
113
state within the realist school wants to leverage relations to their own advantage in the
globally interconnected world. The EU and Europe should not expect to rely on India as
an extended partner, even if there is considerable ideological political common ground.
Russia’s actions in Ukraine, which is not compatible with the international responsibilities
vested in a permanent member of the UNSC, pose enormous risks for EU, China and
India. All things considered, there is a real possibility that the Ukraine war will entail a
new international order, based on a diffused bipolarity or a multipolarity driven by two
poles, which is, by definition, an insecure solution for a challenging international order -
This is an important reason for the EU, India, and China to come together and cooperate
to facilitate a peaceful solution of the conflict.
References
Bhandari, K. (2022). The War in Ukraine and its Implications on India’s Space Program.
Retrieved in July 2022, from https://carnegieindia.org/2022/03/30/war-in-ukraine-and-
its-implications-on-india-s-space-program-pub-86760
Bi, Yu (2022). China’s Neutrality in a Grave New World. Russia in Global Affairs. Retrieved
in July 2022, from https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/chinas-neutrality/
Carpenter, Ted Galen (2022). Many predicted NATO expansion would lead to war. Those
warnings were ignored. The Guardian. Retrieved in January 2023, from
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-
ukraine
CBS NEWS (2022). Russia says it will withdraw from the International Space Station after
2024. Retrieved in July 2022, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-
international-space-station-exit-2024/
Cohen, Eliot (2022). Who Perseveres, Wins. The Atlantic. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/stakes-of-ukraine-winning-russia-
war/631642/
Deng, Jia (2022). China treads a fine line on the Russia-Ukraine war. East Asia Forum.
Lowy Institute. Retrieved in March 2022, from
https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2022/05/20/china-treads-a-fine-line-on-the-russia-
ukraine-war/
Dugin, Aleksandr (1997). The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of
Russia. English Translation.
Efremov, Sergey (2022). Russia: il peso delle sanzioni. ISPI. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/russia-il-peso-delle-sanzioni-
35809#.YuZGQu4gnww.whatsapp
Engle, Eric A. (2014). A New Cold War? Cold Peace. Russia, Ukraine, and NATO, 59 St.
Louis U. L.J. Retrieved in March 2022, from
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
114
https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol59/iss1/5
European Commission (EC) (2021). Trade in Goods by Partners. Retrieved in July 2022,
from https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_122530.pdf
European Union/EEAS (2022a). A Window on the World — Blog by HR/VP Josep Borrell.
Retrieved in July 2022, from https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/window-world-blog-
hrvp-josep-borrell_en
European Union/EEAS (2022b). Fact Sheet. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-china-relations-factsheet_en
Financial Times (March, 2022). China reverses roles in arms trade with Russia. Retrieved
in May 2022. https://www.ft.com/content/dc4bc03c-3d9d-43bd-91db-1ede084e0798
Gaston, Erica (Feb. 22, 2022). The Russia-Ukraine Crisis Has Removed All Doubt. We’re
in a New Cold War. Retrieved in March 2022, from
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/30341/the-russia-ukrainian-crisis-
confirms-we-re-in-a-new-cold-war
Hussain, Agha (15 Jun, 2022). How China’s belt and road diplomacy could end the
Ukraine conflict for good. South China Morning Post. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3181523/how-chinas-belt-and-road-
diplomacy-could-end-ukraine-conflict-good?module=opinion&pgtype=homepage
Ingram, Alan (2001). Alexander Dugin: geopolitics and neo-fascism in post-Soviet
Russia. Political Geography - Volume 20, Issue 8, pp. 1029-1051.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00043-9. Retrieved in May 2022, from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0962629801000439
Le Corre, Philippe (2022). The Ukraine War’s Impact on Sino-European Relations.
Retrieved in July 2022, from https://ash.harvard.edu/ukraine-wars-impact-sino-
european-relations
Mearsheimer, John (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton.
Mearsheimer, John (2014). Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault. Foreign Affairs.
September.
MERICS (2022). Chinese FDI in Europe: 2021 Update - Investments remain on downward
trajectory – Focus on venture capital. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://merics.org/en/report/chinese-fdi-europe-2021-update
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA-PRC) (2022). Wang Yi Expounds China's Five-Point
Position on the Current Ukraine Issue. Retrieved in January 2023, from
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202202/t20220226_10645855.html
North Atlantic Organization (NATO) (2022). Strategic Concept. Adopted by Heads of State
and Government at the NATO Summit in Madrid 29 June. Retrieved in July 2022.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/290622-strategic-
concept.pdf
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
115
Observatory Economic Complexity (OEC) (2022). China. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/chn
Observatory Economic Complexity (OEC) (2022). India. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/chn
Observatory Economic Complexity (OEC) (2022). Russia. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/chn
Pei, Minxin (17 July, 2022). China’s debt boom looks ready to explode. Nikkei Asia.
Retrieved in July 2022, from https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/China-s-debt-bomb-looks-
ready-to-explode?fbclid=IwAR0D060XRRebxg4vJnkfMj-
c_hd23mkwwuIteqFoKheAtv_nAkMg6z8L_yM&fs=e&s=cl
Press Trust of India (2022). US reaffirms support for India's permanent membership in
reformed UNSC, NSG. Retrieved in July from https://www.business-
standard.com/article/current-affairs/us-reaffirms-support-for-india-s-permanent-
membership-in-reformed-unsc-nsg-122041200379_1.html
Pyziur, Max; Motyl, Alexander (2022). If Russia collapses — which states will break away?
Retrieved in July 2022, from https://euobserver.com/opinion/155358
Rajagopalan, Rajeswari Pillai (2022). Putin and Xi Frame a New China-Russia Partnership
- Pressure that both sides face from the United States and the West gives their
partnership new depth. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://thediplomat.com/2022/02/putin-and-xi-frame-a-new-china-russia-partnership/
Reuters (19 May, 2022). China says it wants to expand BRICS bloc of emerging
economies. Retrieved in May 2022, from https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-
says-it-wants-expand-brics-bloc-emerging-economies-2022-05-19/
Social Development Index (SDI) (2021). Countries Ranking. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://www.socialprogress.org/index/global/results
Talbott, Strobe (1995). Why NATO Should Grow. The New York Review. Retrieved in
January 2023, from https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/08/10/why-nato-should-
grow/
Tellis, Ashley (April 2022). What Is in Our Interest: India and the Ukraine War, Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/files/202204-
Tellis_The_Ukraine_War_and_India1.pdf
The Global Economy (GE) (2022). Arms exports - Country rankings. Retrieved in July
2022, from Arms exports. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/arms_exports/
The Indian Express (2022). Russia’s security “legitimate demands” ought to be properly
addressed to resolve Ukraine crisis: China. Retrieved in January 2023, from
https://indianexpress.com/article/world/russias-security-legitimate-demands-properly-
addressed-resolve-ukraine-crisis-china-7796500/
Toft, Peter (2005). John J. Mearsheimer: an offensive realist between geopolitics and
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N1, TD1
Thematic dossier - European Union-China relations
September 2023, pp. 96-116
Ukraine geopolitical European flashpoints vis-à-vis India and China:
From ambivalence to strategic engagement
Francisco José Leandro, Roopinder Oberoi
116
power. Journal of International Relations and Development. 8(4), pp. 381–408.
Trade Economics (2022). Public Debt Percentage of GDP. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/government-debt-to-gdp
Tsygankov, A. P.; Tsygankov, P. A. (2022). Might Makes No Right: Realism and
International Relations Theory. Russia in Global Affairs, 20(4), pp. 68–76. DOI:
10.31278/1810-6374-2022-20-1-68-76
Waltz, Kenneth (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
Pub.
Wenbin, Wang (2022). Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Regular Press Conference on
February 28, 2022. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/2022
02/t20220228_10646378.html
World Bank (2021). GDP Current US$. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD
World Bank (2022). International Debt Statistics. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/36289/9781464818004
.pdf
Xinhua (January, 2022). Interview: China, Ukraine have broad prospects for BRI
cooperation, says Ukrainian economist. Retrieved in July 2022, from
https://english.news.cn/europe/20220107/199a78fc8f414760b22610a597c80762/c.ht
ml