Who is China? Is it the Communist government? Is it the people? How should we as Europeans treat such a big country that is able to challenge many of our principles and policies? How should Europe position itself in light of the rivalry between the US and China? How should Europeans evaluate the increasing popularity of China in countries not only along the borders of the EU but also inside some founding member states, such as Italy and - if we may believe some recent polls - even Germany? Even if this is simply a consequence of President Trump‘s erratic and derogatory behavior towards Europe, it is surprising that an authoritarian Asian regime or dictatorship could win such sympathy.
Domestic control
In reacting to the negative attitude and policies of Mr. Trump, one should not forget the policies of China towards its own people and towards its neighbors. Concerning its citizens, China - or more accurately the present "“Communist“ or simply authoritarian government - is building up a high and comprehensive surveillance system combined with a strict - both positive and negative - sanction system. Admittedly it is not easy to govern such a large country with such a diversity of people with different cultural and religious orientations. But there is no justification for establishing such a tight control system based on suspicion and prejudice. And, in particular, there is no justification for the “re-education” camps for the Uighurs in Xinjiang.
Chinese “security policy” and its use of modern tracking technologies serve as a negative example, and already other authoritarian governments around the globe are buying the relevant equipment from China. It is not surprising that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has specially good relations to today’s Chinese leadership.
Maritime Expansion
Another aspect of questionable Chinese policy is the extension of is influence and control concerning the South China Sea. Obviously it is possible to hold different opinions about the adequacy of zones of influence in the neighboring maritime areas, especially in relation to the de facto US presence in the neighborhood of China. But China established a policy of continuous expansion via occupation and the militarization of some islands in its wider neighborhood. They did not seek compromise or new contracts but instead relied on confrontation.
The Philippines brought its conflict with China before the Permament Court of Arbitration in The Hague, and the Court decided in 2016 in favour of the Philippines. But China, although a signatory of the relevant treaty, refused to accept the verdict of the Court. In the meantime, the militarization of some islands continues.
Hong Kong
A special case that has recently become hot again is the relation between the Chinese government and other central authorities with Hong Kong. When Hong Kong was “given back“ to China in 1997 - according to the original treaty - the principle of “One Country - two Systems“ was to be the foundation of the new relationship between Hong Kong and the mainland. In fact, as Hong Kong never experienced democracy under British rule, the new status at least introduced some democracy into the live of its citizens. That this system would become an area of potential conflict for China and its authoritarian system could have been foreseen. But there was no legal alternative for the British government to return their “rented“ colony. The only alternative would have been to violate international law by not abiding by the promises given in the original treaty.
Soon enough, conflict broke out because the Chinese government would not accept the “privileges“ of the Hong Kong people in relation to its own people. And very often it won the support of the majority of citizens in mainland China for their actions against Hong Kong activists. The stubbornness of the Chinese government and its “proxies“ in Hong Kong led some activists to extreme and destructive actions. The result was a true spiral of violence.
Recent days have brought another blow to the democracy movement in Hong Kong. A new security law will give the Chinese Ministry of State Security the right to operate in Hong Kong according to Chinese laws. The special authoritarian attitude towards people who endanger “security” will also be introduced in Hong Kong. Some people have argued that this may keep potential investors away from Hong Kong, especially financial investors much needed by China. But the spokesperson of the Chinese foreign ministry contested these arguments: ”The legislation will alleviate the great concern among the local and foreign business communities about the violent and terrorist forces attempting to mess up Hong Kong.”
Some leading businesspeople have shown sympathy towards - or at least acceptance of - the new legislation. One such manager said: ”The medicine will hurt for sure but we have no choice but take it now.” He might be right in that evaluation, but any stability would be furthered as the expense of democracy and human rights. And, given that over past years the number of Chinese investors in Hong Kong has been sharply increasing and has even overtaken that from the US, the fear of a backlash from investors is limited.
The last British governor in Hong Kong, Chris Patten - whom I met for the first time in the then-colony and then quite often later on when he became EU Commissioner for Foreign Affairs - argued recently that this new legislation “ripped up the Joint Declaration, a treaty lodged at the UN to guarantee Hong Kong’s way of life till 2047.” His call that “G7 nations must stand up for Hong Kong’s freedoms” will probably not have many consequences, as he himself underlines the necessity to keep good relations with China to deal with global problems.
Necessarily, a decisive and coordinated action by the US together with Europe and democratic Asian nations could put at least some pressure on China to refrain from undermining the basic freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. They could be pressured to respect the upcoming elections of the local assembly and to try to find a compromise with the democratically-elected representatives.
But Trump sees China as the main competitor, and thus he is not eager to find a basis for dialogue and compromises and may even challenge the previously-concluded trade agreement. And the Corona crisis and the upcoming US elections have contributed to new tensions between the US and China. Indeed, some experts see the danger of a war between today’s two major powers. They compare the situation with the rivalry between England and Germany before World War I. Martin Wolf wrote recently in the Financial Times: “The world as been here before and knows that superpower rivalry can bring only ruin.” Further, the announced “sanctions” by the US officially revoking the special treatments awarded to Hong Kong as an independent customs territory will not help the people of Hong Kong but will instead add to the China-US conflict.
And Europe? Well as is so often the case, the EU is split. Some countries, especially those that are participants of the Belt and Road Initiative, are rather restrained and often even prevent statements criticizing Chinese actions. China is very skillful in influencing different national governments and is offering help in critical situations like the Corona epidemic. As is frequently the case, Chinese help is minimal but done quickly and with much propaganda. It will be hard to influence China’ s domestic and external policies. But we should be aware of the consequences of the uncritical attitude that is expressed by some authoritarian European countries. And we should not blindly accept China‘s self-proclamation as a promoter of multilateralism. It has a very selective interpretation of multilateralism.
During all my visits to China, I have always admired China’s longterm thinking and strategy. But I always thought that Europe should develop such a strategy, but instead directed toward implementing and fostering democratic principles. So EU representatives should at least express their concerns loud and clear. Otherwise, the virus of authoritarian rule and annexation will spread. And in some respects we can call the unilateral breach of the special status of Hong Kong an annexation equivalent to the abolishment of the autonomy of Kashmir by Indian Prime minister Narendra Modi. And these come on top of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Israel’s annexation of Palestinian territory. As the Financial Times wrote recently, annexation is contagious.
The global scene
Let us return to the global situation. Ian Baruma has recently recognized that “The prospect of China‘s global leadership is not inviting. But the US is rapidly fading as an alternative…If China wishes to lead the world, it will have to offer more than money and intimidations.“ Needless to say, we do not need a single global leader. But certainly China has won tremendous economic heft. Its share of global manufacturing output rose from 5% to 20% in the period from 1980 to 2015. The share of the US shrank from 23% to 18%, while that of the EU went from 34% to 27%. These changes show the dramatic shift in the world economy.
Nevertheless, the EU has enough economic power to play a bigger political role. Of course it would be better to have the US as an ally in this global competition. But this is not possible with Trump as US President. On the other hand, we should recognize the strong and steep rise of China’s economic power. And economic power, if combined with a central authority and a strong army, always translates itself into a strong political power. These ingredients - central authority and military - are missing inside the European Union. It weakens the EU’s potential. But the EU can at least act as a moral power when it recognizes clear violations of human rights and international law.
So China should and must be a partner in trying to find solutions for global challenges such as climate change. But Europe and Europeans should resist accepting and even admiring the Chinese government’s way of treating its citizens and expanding its influence by violating treaties and international law. The starting points for managing globalization are quite different. Europe should not hide these differences. Europeans should be honest and express their concerns and criticisms. But the EU should invite China to work together in order to solve problems where they can find common positions.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.