Other
François Godement, Ashley J. Tellis
{
"authors": [
"François Godement"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"East Asia",
"China",
"Western Europe"
],
"topics": []
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
EU-China: The New Semantics of the Summit
One has to fight the feeling of disappointment at the outcome of the EU-China summit of April 9, 2019.
Published on Apr 15, 2019
Source: Institut Montaigne
One has to fight the feeling of disappointment at the outcome of the EU-China summit of April 9. There are genuine advances in the joint statement that was finally agreed in the wee hours. A comprehensive investment agreement by 2020 or earlier; a promised quick wrap-up of the treaty on geographical indications (100 protected origins that would benefit both European and Chinese agriculture); a commitment by China to discuss industrial subsidies in the context of a WTO reform, to improve its offer on a WTO public procurement agreement, and to oppose forced technology transfer. In fact, the statement holds the prospect of results on a host of other, more technical, agreements. It also lists the foreign policy issues on which both parties seem to agree in principle. By inference, and along with six mentions of "international law" and three of "multilateralism", the statement would seem to answer some of the European concerns voiced in the tense weeks after the EU’s March 12 communication branding China as a "systemic rival".
So why is it that we experience a feeling of déjà vu and at least partial let down? First of all, because, in the tradition of China’s public diplomacy, some statements simply do not ring true. "The EU and China reaffirm that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated". Beyond the sad howl of laughter that this claim will bring, there is papering over a fundamental divergence: China emphasizes social and economic rights within the context of government action, and certainly not the rights of the individual. In fact, the claim is followed by a telling qualification: cooperation will happen "in particular in UN fora": that is where China has been most successful at engineering coalitions to fight political human rights. This is certainly not enough of a criterium, as the EU has demanded for the first time, to evaluate the "sincerity" of China. To be fair, the EU is also emphasizing lists of detainees.
Another case concerns maritime issues: China, the EU and its member states "respect the maritime order based on international law and uphold freedoms of navigation and overflight enjoyed by all states in accordance with international law". This is in marked retreat to the declaration of G7 foreign affairs ministers adopted only 2 days before the summit with China. On Asia-Europe connectivity (e.g. Silk Road and European funds), cooperation will "comply with established international norms and standards, as well as the law of the countries benefitting from the projects, while taking into account their policies and individual situations". Which will it be ?
This article was originally published by Institut Montaigne.
About the Author
François Godement
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Asia Program
Godement, an expert on Chinese and East Asian strategic and international affairs, was a nonresident senior fellow in the Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Reorienting China Policy By Working With Europe
- China at the Gates: A New Power Audit of EU-China RelationsIn The Media
François Godement, Abigaël Vasselier
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- As It Turns 25, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Reflects the New World OrderCommentary
With the growth in points of friction between the great powers, organizations like the SCO will continue to play a role in the strategic adaptation of the smaller powers caught between them.
Temur Umarov
- Did Putin Return From China Empty-Handed?Commentary
With no key agreement signed on the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline, there is a risk that the window of opportunity for Russia will close if Chinese power generation becomes so green that new gas sources are no longer of any interest to Beijing.
Alexander Gabuev
- Could the Iran War Push Japan to Restore Russian Oil Imports?Commentary
Tokyo would have to surmount a lot of obstacles—not least Western sanctions—if it wanted to return Russian oil imports to even modest pre-2022 volumes.
Vladislav Pashchenko
- The Much-Touted Middle Corridor Transport Route Could Prove a Dead EndCommentary
For the Middle Corridor to fulfill its promises, one of these routes must become scalable. At present, neither is.
Friedrich Conradi
- What Does Nuclear Proliferation in East Asia Mean for Russia?Commentary
Troubled by the growing salience of nuclear debates in East Asia, Moscow has responded in its usual way: with condemnation and threats. But by exacerbating insecurity, Russia is forcing South Korea and Japan to consider radical security options.
James D.J. Brown
