As a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine is still nowhere to be seen, Finland has joined NATO. In the meantime, French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, following in Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s footsteps, visited Beijing. US President Joe Biden verbally tried to stop them, but to no avail. What does the EU want and what is in the minds of those European leaders?
For France and Spain, the main purpose was to gain more economic benefits from China. Macron has been troubled by social issues at home for some time. To divert attention, his visit was aimed at boosting bilateral trade between China and France. Since China has been isolated by the West, Macron knew that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) needed to rely on the EU. At the same time, Xi tried to increase the EU’s dependence on China, whose foreign trade is in a grim situation.
Moreover, the EU nations intended to break the collusion between Russia and China. During their visits, European leaders conveyed messages to Beijing, hoping that Xi could rein in Russian President Vladimir Putin.
They also displayed to Xi the extent to which they could accept Beijing’s affiliation with Moscow. That the EU demanded Xi to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was to test how genuine China could be.
The EU made it clear: The relationship between China and Europe would be jeopardized if China sent military aid to Russia. Confronting a recuperated Russia is the last thing European leaders want.
However, it is doubtful whether the relationship between European countries and China can become stronger than before.
First, given that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s visit to China was criticized, Macron visited Beijing with the EU president because they did not want China to complain.
Second, even though the EU confirmed its dependence on China’s market, European nations know that they cannot entirely depend on China for critical products. To minimize the risk of relying too much on China, the European Chips Act is likely to be approved soon, and the Netherlands has limited China’s access to advanced semiconductor machinery.
The EU’s Foreign Subsidiary Regulation aims to counter the threat to European industry, and G7 nations have planned to fight against “economic threat.”
Meanwhile, France, Germany and Italy made more commitments to the Indo-Pacific region.
The EU wants to break the alliance between China and Russia, and European leaders want to establish economic ties with Beijing. Apart from bilateral trade and nonmilitary cooperation, the EU is wary of China, as evidenced by how the French and EU officials only promised to “work on” processing the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment.
Clearly, the EU has utilized the investment agreement as political leverage to deal with Beijing.
The relationship between the EU and China depends on how close Beijing is to Moscow. The EU is betting on China as a peacemaker, to bring Putin to the negotiation table.
Under the pressure from the US, the EU took the initiative to assure Beijing that it would not detach from China. Beijing’s reaction to such “kindness” is yet to be seen, but it would be difficult for Xi to cater to both sides.
Chang Meng-jen is chair of Fu Jen Catholic University’s Department of Italian Language and Culture, and coordinator of the university’s diplomacy and international affairs program.
Translated by Emma Liu
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS