European countries are currently divided over whether to join U.S. President Joe Biden’s diplomatic boycott of the upcoming Winter Olympics in Beijing. The episode underscores yet again that when it comes to dealing with China, Europe and the United States truly are an ocean apart.
Beyond sharing fundamental political values, the U.S. and Europe often employ similar rhetoric about the challenge China poses to the international order. Nonetheless, most European governments cannot reconcile their interests with the vision of a U.S.-led coalition of democracies standing up to the world’s autocracies, and European officials balk at pursuing a China policy focused on containment, under the guise of competition.
While the European Union wants to deepen trans-Atlantic cooperation, there is no consensus on how to do so without alienating China or undermining the very international system it aims to defend. Nor are European governments convinced of America’s reliability as a partner. Biden might value the trans-Atlantic relationship, but his predecessor, Donald Trump, did not. Who is to say what the next U.S. president — possibly Trump himself — will stand for? This doubt is a key motivation behind the EU’s effort to operationalize its vision of “strategic autonomy.”
To be sure, there is scope for trans-Atlantic collaboration on China. In fact, efforts to advance such cooperation are already in motion, in the form of initiatives like the U.S.-EU Dialogue on China and the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council. Joint action to counter China’s anti-competitive commercial and trade practices, export and investment restrictions in response to China’s human-rights abuses, and a push for high standards for overseas infrastructure projects should be welcomed.
But the current U.S.-EU agenda on China might be overly ambitious. Clearer prioritization is needed to maximize the benefits of coordination. Furthermore, differing legal systems and threat perceptions in the U.S. and Europe will make progress in key areas — such as carbon taxes, antitrust policy, or responses to Chinese disinformation campaigns — painfully slow.
The prospects for meaningful military and security cooperation vis-a-vis China are especially limited. While European countries have made some symbolic moves — for example, the German warship Bayern recently demonstrated the right to free passage in the South China Sea — they are wary of going much further.
This is the case even for France, the only European country with a significant military presence in the Indo-Pacific. As French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian recently explained, “We do not underestimate the depth of competition with China, which can be ferocious, and the need for a constant evaluation of risks, but we try to avoid the militarization of our strategy to allow us to include — respectful of their sovereignty — all interested countries.”
This unwillingness to take a hard stance on China is set to persist. While Germany’s new government does appear likely to adopt a somewhat firmer tone, Chancellor Olaf Scholz has taken a cautious line, making clear that all actions should be “carefully weighed” and emphasizing the need to seek a cooperative approach.
So, the U.S. should not expect Germany to start viewing relations with China through a primarily ideological lens any time soon. The communication failures surrounding the AUKUS defense agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. — a deal that blindsided France, which lost a major defense contract — further underscore the limits of U.S.-Europe military cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.
But trans-Atlantic cooperation is hardly the only way Europe can influence the U.S.-China relationship — and mitigate the risks that its rapid deterioration implies. Strategists are currently scrambling to draw lessons from history and devise an approach that enables the two sides to compete without catastrophe, particularly armed conflict. Europe can help here.
The EU should consider launching a diplomatic initiative reminiscent of the Helsinki Process, credited with reducing tensions between the Soviet and Western blocs in the 1970s. Through such a process, Europe could broker agreements to promote de-escalation, risk reduction and crisis management, thereby reducing the likelihood of armed conflict.
Europe’s limited capacity to project military power in the Indo-Pacific could be an asset in this context, as it bolsters European actors’ credibility as honest brokers and trusted intermediaries. Compared to more direct stakeholders, the EU might be better positioned to mediate thorny issues such as Taiwan and the South China Sea. It might even be able to promote constructive diplomacy in the domains of cyber and outer space. In these contexts, American and Chinese forces regularly operate in proximity, and a miscalculation could lead to war.
No one should underestimate the difficulty of establishing rules of the road that are robust enough to avert conflict. But Europe has a comparative advantage in this area — one that it has demonstrated repeatedly in the past. For example, the European Commission and European countries played a central role in delivering multilateral export-control regimes, such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement. Europe has also played a critical role in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.
An EU-led de-escalation initiative in the Indo-Pacific is far from a sure thing, especially given the recent increase in tensions between the EU and China. But it would align with the EU’s professed goal of pursuing an inclusive approach to the region that strengthens the rules-based international order. More important, it offers perhaps the best chance of averting war between great powers. Is that not why the EU was created?
More like a Lithuania-China war.
It should, but it won’t as the majority of Europe is subservient to the USA.
We shouldn’t stay neutral between a democratic superpower and a totalitarian one
Europe can, but they shouldn’t. After seeing the “supportive” response that Lithuania received from EU members, most will cave into China.
The Eu should absolutely stay neutral but I seriously doubt the US would refrain from dragging us into this mess.
Imagine thinking China would treat Europe as neutral regardless of what Europe says/does lol
Democratic western regimes are the antithesis to their regime (bonus points if you are one of the nations that caused the century of humiliation)
EU, from a military stand point does not exist. In case there will be the action of certain european countries, according to their economical needs. I fear human rights will not be of any importance.
It’s ridiculous. Europe shouldn’t stay neutral.
But the US doesn’t care for Europe’s military support.
Three EUs strongest weapons are their diplomats and their economic power.
The real question would be if Europe intervenes in an Indian Chinese war.
It’s ridiculous. Europe shouldn’t stay neutral.
But the US doesn’t care for Europe’s military support.
Three EUs strongest weapons are their diplomats and their economic power.
The real question would be if Europe intervenes in an Indian Chinese war.
Europe shouldn’t be involved directly in a confrontation between China and US. On the other side Europe should support their ally US. If US falls, than Europe has an issue.
Question:
1) If Europe doesn’t support the US on China issues, then why should the US support Europe on Russia issues?
2) What Europe can get if it supports China more? Make China against Russia? Damn that’s so illusionary, imagine China and Europe corporate together to divide and conquer Russia together 🙈
3) If interests are that important, then why not stop fighting against Russia? Because European countries can get cheaper energy then. And weaker countries should try hard to be a part of stronger countries, like, if Russia is stronger, East and then West European countries should be a part of … uh Russia, I mean the US is stronger, why not Russia then be a part of the US then. 🤡
All of European countries (whether part of EU or not) are basically american puppet states, so saddly they will continue to blindly support the US.
A couple of years ago many people were absolutely sure that there’s going to be war between USA and North Korea, but in the end nothing happened. Full-scale war between USA and China would be an act of absolutely insanity. Fortunately, it is extremely unlikely that it would happen, no matter what war hawks say because both sides have too much to lose. If, however, this extremely unlikely war would happen, then Europe doesn’t have any reason to care about it unless it directly affects on Europe. I prefer not sending European soldiers to die in conflicts that has nothing to do with us. Civilized countries should always prefer diplomatic solutions to international conflicts and war should always be the last possible option.
I can’t see how Europe can remain neutral in any potential US – China conflict.
Firstly there is NATO to consider,a attack on one NATO member is considered an attack on the entire alliance. There are also French and British holdings in the Pacific that would no doubt be in chinas firing line. How would France and British react to any Chinese attacks on their overseas territory? I can’t see either letting such things go unanswered
So there is that, secondly how would Russia react in any situation? Would Russia see the US as occupied with China and launch its own campaign against eastern Europe?
There is no way Europe would remain untouched or uninvolved in such a conflict
15 comments
Article:
European countries are currently divided over whether to join U.S. President Joe Biden’s diplomatic boycott of the upcoming Winter Olympics in Beijing. The episode underscores yet again that when it comes to dealing with China, Europe and the United States truly are an ocean apart.
Beyond sharing fundamental political values, the U.S. and Europe often employ similar rhetoric about the challenge China poses to the international order. Nonetheless, most European governments cannot reconcile their interests with the vision of a U.S.-led coalition of democracies standing up to the world’s autocracies, and European officials balk at pursuing a China policy focused on containment, under the guise of competition.
While the European Union wants to deepen trans-Atlantic cooperation, there is no consensus on how to do so without alienating China or undermining the very international system it aims to defend. Nor are European governments convinced of America’s reliability as a partner. Biden might value the trans-Atlantic relationship, but his predecessor, Donald Trump, did not. Who is to say what the next U.S. president — possibly Trump himself — will stand for? This doubt is a key motivation behind the EU’s effort to operationalize its vision of “strategic autonomy.”
To be sure, there is scope for trans-Atlantic collaboration on China. In fact, efforts to advance such cooperation are already in motion, in the form of initiatives like the U.S.-EU Dialogue on China and the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council. Joint action to counter China’s anti-competitive commercial and trade practices, export and investment restrictions in response to China’s human-rights abuses, and a push for high standards for overseas infrastructure projects should be welcomed.
But the current U.S.-EU agenda on China might be overly ambitious. Clearer prioritization is needed to maximize the benefits of coordination. Furthermore, differing legal systems and threat perceptions in the U.S. and Europe will make progress in key areas — such as carbon taxes, antitrust policy, or responses to Chinese disinformation campaigns — painfully slow.
The prospects for meaningful military and security cooperation vis-a-vis China are especially limited. While European countries have made some symbolic moves — for example, the German warship Bayern recently demonstrated the right to free passage in the South China Sea — they are wary of going much further.
This is the case even for France, the only European country with a significant military presence in the Indo-Pacific. As French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian recently explained, “We do not underestimate the depth of competition with China, which can be ferocious, and the need for a constant evaluation of risks, but we try to avoid the militarization of our strategy to allow us to include — respectful of their sovereignty — all interested countries.”
This unwillingness to take a hard stance on China is set to persist. While Germany’s new government does appear likely to adopt a somewhat firmer tone, Chancellor Olaf Scholz has taken a cautious line, making clear that all actions should be “carefully weighed” and emphasizing the need to seek a cooperative approach.
So, the U.S. should not expect Germany to start viewing relations with China through a primarily ideological lens any time soon. The communication failures surrounding the AUKUS defense agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. — a deal that blindsided France, which lost a major defense contract — further underscore the limits of U.S.-Europe military cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.
But trans-Atlantic cooperation is hardly the only way Europe can influence the U.S.-China relationship — and mitigate the risks that its rapid deterioration implies. Strategists are currently scrambling to draw lessons from history and devise an approach that enables the two sides to compete without catastrophe, particularly armed conflict. Europe can help here.
The EU should consider launching a diplomatic initiative reminiscent of the Helsinki Process, credited with reducing tensions between the Soviet and Western blocs in the 1970s. Through such a process, Europe could broker agreements to promote de-escalation, risk reduction and crisis management, thereby reducing the likelihood of armed conflict.
Europe’s limited capacity to project military power in the Indo-Pacific could be an asset in this context, as it bolsters European actors’ credibility as honest brokers and trusted intermediaries. Compared to more direct stakeholders, the EU might be better positioned to mediate thorny issues such as Taiwan and the South China Sea. It might even be able to promote constructive diplomacy in the domains of cyber and outer space. In these contexts, American and Chinese forces regularly operate in proximity, and a miscalculation could lead to war.
No one should underestimate the difficulty of establishing rules of the road that are robust enough to avert conflict. But Europe has a comparative advantage in this area — one that it has demonstrated repeatedly in the past. For example, the European Commission and European countries played a central role in delivering multilateral export-control regimes, such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement. Europe has also played a critical role in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.
An EU-led de-escalation initiative in the Indo-Pacific is far from a sure thing, especially given the recent increase in tensions between the EU and China. But it would align with the EU’s professed goal of pursuing an inclusive approach to the region that strengthens the rules-based international order. More important, it offers perhaps the best chance of averting war between great powers. Is that not why the EU was created?
More like a Lithuania-China war.
It should, but it won’t as the majority of Europe is subservient to the USA.
We shouldn’t stay neutral between a democratic superpower and a totalitarian one
Europe can, but they shouldn’t. After seeing the “supportive” response that Lithuania received from EU members, most will cave into China.
The Eu should absolutely stay neutral but I seriously doubt the US would refrain from dragging us into this mess.
Imagine thinking China would treat Europe as neutral regardless of what Europe says/does lol
Democratic western regimes are the antithesis to their regime (bonus points if you are one of the nations that caused the century of humiliation)
EU, from a military stand point does not exist. In case there will be the action of certain european countries, according to their economical needs. I fear human rights will not be of any importance.
It’s ridiculous. Europe shouldn’t stay neutral.
But the US doesn’t care for Europe’s military support.
Three EUs strongest weapons are their diplomats and their economic power.
The real question would be if Europe intervenes in an Indian Chinese war.
It’s ridiculous. Europe shouldn’t stay neutral.
But the US doesn’t care for Europe’s military support.
Three EUs strongest weapons are their diplomats and their economic power.
The real question would be if Europe intervenes in an Indian Chinese war.
Europe shouldn’t be involved directly in a confrontation between China and US. On the other side Europe should support their ally US. If US falls, than Europe has an issue.
Question:
1) If Europe doesn’t support the US on China issues, then why should the US support Europe on Russia issues?
2) What Europe can get if it supports China more? Make China against Russia? Damn that’s so illusionary, imagine China and Europe corporate together to divide and conquer Russia together 🙈
3) If interests are that important, then why not stop fighting against Russia? Because European countries can get cheaper energy then. And weaker countries should try hard to be a part of stronger countries, like, if Russia is stronger, East and then West European countries should be a part of … uh Russia, I mean the US is stronger, why not Russia then be a part of the US then. 🤡
All of European countries (whether part of EU or not) are basically american puppet states, so saddly they will continue to blindly support the US.
A couple of years ago many people were absolutely sure that there’s going to be war between USA and North Korea, but in the end nothing happened. Full-scale war between USA and China would be an act of absolutely insanity. Fortunately, it is extremely unlikely that it would happen, no matter what war hawks say because both sides have too much to lose. If, however, this extremely unlikely war would happen, then Europe doesn’t have any reason to care about it unless it directly affects on Europe. I prefer not sending European soldiers to die in conflicts that has nothing to do with us. Civilized countries should always prefer diplomatic solutions to international conflicts and war should always be the last possible option.
I can’t see how Europe can remain neutral in any potential US – China conflict.
Firstly there is NATO to consider,a attack on one NATO member is considered an attack on the entire alliance. There are also French and British holdings in the Pacific that would no doubt be in chinas firing line. How would France and British react to any Chinese attacks on their overseas territory? I can’t see either letting such things go unanswered
So there is that, secondly how would Russia react in any situation? Would Russia see the US as occupied with China and launch its own campaign against eastern Europe?
There is no way Europe would remain untouched or uninvolved in such a conflict