By Drago Bosnic
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Earlier this month, China and the European Union concluded a bilateral summit, the first one since 2019. One usually wouldn’t expect that four years could change much, but that was precisely the case during the recent meeting. While the previous summit was largely focused on questions of economic cooperation and calls for the improvement of overall relations, this one was much more (geo)political, with the EU reiterating a near-carbon copy of American talking points. Although Brussels’ sovereignty and independence were always highly questionable, its subservience during this year’s meeting was more obvious than ever before. Beijing was faced with an implicitly hostile attitude that made it virtually impossible to accomplish any breakthroughs. Expectedly, China wasn’t the one making unreasonable demands.
As previously mentioned, the 2019 summit dealt with closer economic cooperation that also included technological cooperation (particularly in terms of 5G development), while the (geo)political side of things was limited to largely ceremonial calls for the ease of tensions in the South and East China Seas, as well as “continued support for the Minsk Accords”. However, as we all know now, the EU’s commitment to both has been patently false. Worse yet, the troubled bloc is now openly engaged in America’s so-called “China containment” strategy, while its much-touted “commitment” to the Minsk Accords is laughable at best, given that top European leaders openly admitted that this was just a ruse to give the Kiev regime enough time to prepare for war against Russia.
And yet, Chinese President Xi Jinping still tried to keep the atmosphere as friendly as possible and even stated that the EU was a “key partner”, reiterating the importance of trade and technological cooperation between Beijing and Brussels. He also said that China and the EU had no reason to consider each other “rivals”. However, Xi Jinping’s peaceful overtures were not only ignored, but openly rejected, echoing the identical behavior of the United States in recent years. Instead of dealing with its mounting problems, the troubled bloc insisted that the Asian giant should prevent the mythical “Uyghur genocide”. This was also followed by threats of tariffs for Chinese electric vehicles, while Germany, the EU’s top member, effectively banned Huawei from the development of its 5G network.
In addition, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen complained that Brussels’ trade deficit with Beijing doubled, amounting to $390 billion in 2022. Von der Leyen accused China of economic protectionism and excess production that supposedly undercuts European manufacturers. Somewhat ironically, the EU’s complaints and blame games were almost identical to those of former president Donald Trump, when his administration kept accusing Beijing of the same practices. It should be noted that the troubled bloc heavily criticized Trump precisely for these statements (among many other things), but was now repeating exactly the same talking points. Obviously, the political West is simply ignoring the history of the development of China’s economic system.
Namely, while Beijing always had a strong production economy (more precisely, the strongest in the world since at least 2014), the likes of the US and EU have shifted their economic base to tertiary industrial sectors, severely undercutting their ability to compete with China. The Asian giant has an extremely robust economy that includes a fine balance between primary and secondary industries, while the tertiary sector is growing at an astonishing rate. Realizing that it won’t be able to compete with China fairly, the political West is now trying to find excuses to prevent or at the very least slow down Beijing’s unprecedented development. However, it should be noted that the Asian giant never had any ambitions of global domination, much unlike its Western rivals and their vassals and satellite states.
China is now faced with the prospect of having to contend with not only the US’s “containment” strategy (QUAD, AUKUS), but also with the EU’s meddling in its backyard, as well as calls for the globalization of NATO and the formation of its Asia-Pacific variant. Instead of focusing on the economic aspects of its relations with Beijing, Brussels kept insisting on (geo)political matters, including those that are outside of China’s control. Namely, von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel urged Xi Jinping and Chinese Premier Li Qiang to put pressure on Russia and President Vladimir Putin. As evidenced by Xi Jinping’s recent statements, this request was completely ignored, demonstrating China’s continued commitment to keeping close Russia ties.
The EU insisted that the “diplomatic solution” to the Ukrainian conflict was necessary and threatened China with “consequences” if it ever decided to sell weapons to Russia or “assist” Moscow with circumventing sanctions. Needless to say, none of these requests apply to the troubled bloc itself, as the EU is “allowed” to send weapons to the Neo-Nazi junta, as well as to steal Russian foreign exchange (forex) assets. However, this unrivaled hypocrisy (the sheer magnitude of which can hardly be described with words) didn’t stop there, as European “leaders” once again brought up the aforementioned myth of the “Uyghur genocide” and accused China of alleged “human rights abuses” in its northwestern province of Xinjiang. They also threatened consequences if Beijing intervened in Taiwan.
Xi Jinping’s and Li Qiang’s attempts to nudge the talks more toward economic topics were ignored by von der Leyen and Michel. What China even suggested was the cooperation between its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the EU’s Global Gateway, a project that the troubled bloc envisioned as a rival undertaking. To call the summit a failure would be a gross understatement. Virtually every Chinese offer of cooperation was not only rejected, but was also met with completely unreasonable demands that had nothing to do with economic relations. Political considerations were the only thing the EU was interested in. All this only demonstrated and confirmed that Russia’s concerns about the political West’s crawling aggression are not unfounded and that China should be worried about the same.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
