Joël Ruet wrote that during the recent visit of US President Joe Biden to Europe, EU countries continued to boycott the election of sides, and their leaders instead repeated the term “strategic autonomy.”
PhD Joel Root He is an economist at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) and the president of The Bridge Tank, a G20 affiliated think tank.
Biden recently visited Europe, and during the recent series of world summits, from the G7 to the EU-U.S. to NATO, it was more China-centric than the geography of these summits has usually allowed in the past.
Under the leadership of Biden’s new administration, the United States continued its steady development of its attitude towards China during the Trump era. However, unlike the Trump era, the former US president referred to the European Union as a “competitor” during this period, and this year’s G7 was widely promoted and commented by the media as “reuniting” to “against China.” Concerns about cybersecurity and maintaining democratic values are increasing.
They are not alone. By inviting “Indo-Pacific” countries (India, Australia, South Korea, South Africa) to participate in this G7 meeting, the British presidency not only hopes to herald the political transformation of democratic countries “D10”, this is a congregation plan that Boris cherishes. Johnson, but also makes room for the United States to discuss its position on China with like-minded countries.
However, European leaders did not explicitly form an alliance with the United States, but emphasized “strategic autonomy.” The final statement of the summit was cautious; on page 27, China was mentioned only 3 times, and it was limited to known themes-Hong Kong, Xinjiang, South China Sea, Taiwan-without introducing new sanctions or reminding what has already been done Sanctions.
In contrast, Africa has been mentioned 15 times. A notable change is the mention of “human rights violations”, while the European Union (participant of the G7) previously mentioned “forced labor” in its principled agreement on the China-EU Investment Treaty. But its leaders remain vigilant. French President Macron expressed his hope that the European Union will adopt a more neutral stance, “neither succumbing to China, nor consistent with the US position on this issue.” Following that, Armin Laschet, the frontrunner who became the next chancellor of Germany, warned of the danger of launching a new Cold War against China and agreed with Angela Merkel’s view that Beijing It is both a systemic competitor and a partner.
Italy just announced through the voice of its foreign minister that Rome hopes to deepen cooperation in energy, industry and “third-party countries” and the “Belt and Road” initiative, although Rome supports the G7 project to establish an alternative.
Similarly, there is the analysis by the head of the European Soros Foundation: “Europe does not want to be a ball between two big countries (…). The EU must play the role of a mediator for open discussions, because it has a close relationship with China. Its relationship bears no resemblance to the logic of competing with the United States.”
Macron proposed to establish a new partnership with the United States based on a “community of values”, but ultimately allowed Europe to act independently in its Chinese strategy, saying that Europe “needs to establish a framework for its strategic autonomy in economic, industrial, technological and military aspects.”
The last aspect was specially discussed at the NATO summit, especially since Biden was elected, China has replaced Russia in the debate. Although the President of the United States called for the inclusion of the “security challenge posed by China” in the statement on global cybersecurity, Macron opposed its inclusion and called on not to confuse the target: “NATO is a military organization and our goal. Relations with China It’s not just military. NATO is an organization that focuses on the North Atlantic (…), and China has little relationship with the North Atlantic.” In addition, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg believes that “China is not our opponent, our enemy “.
But it was during the EU-US summit on technology and sovereignty that the crux of the problem was solved. Despite Trump’s removal of excessive air tax requirements, European confidence in the United States has not yet fully recovered. The willingness of Europe and the United States to cooperate cautiously is reflected in the establishment of a high-level trade and technical committee (TTC), which aims to coordinate key global trade methods, economics and technology issues based on deeper dialogue and joint efforts. Democratic values.
However, this post-liberal approach at the national level leaves two unresolved issues: Except that some European countries may have reason to believe that, for example, in the field of environmental technology, the fight against climate change can be achieved through cooperation with China and the United States. Does the approach involve the technology companies themselves seeking partnerships? At present, European industries have no plans to give up. They do not know whether their American counterparts will abide by the ban; on the other hand, all stakeholders have proved that the United States is putting huge pressure on European companies.
Finally, two powerful observation points emerged:
First, the North Atlantic has not fully recovered from the distrust that Trump sowed. If a unified alliance policy exists at all, it may not return. Parts of Europe hope to promote strategic autonomy. Industrial and economic actors have become accustomed to liberalization, even though they are aware that technological exchanges need to be more and more cautious…whether they look east or/or west. Europe does not want any Trojan horses, whether Chinese or Americans. This may be a lesson learned from the failure of the China investment agreement and the half-hearted success of the US proposal. It is necessary to leave room for Europe to reflect on technological sovereignty. What’s more, from one department to another, the European continent is sometimes in a leading position and hopes to become a force for technical standards.
Secondly, China has clearly entered the Atlantic territory.
