On Monday, the European Union reminded the world of its rather shallow commitment to human rights.
The weakness came via a long-anticipated video conference between Xi Jinping, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, EU Council President Charles Michel, and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. So what did the EU have to say to China in response to its obvious and rising challenge to the post-war democratic international order?
Well, an EU readout of the meeting says that the political union raised “grave concerns” over China’s repression in Hong Kong and “serious concerns” in relation to the Chinese Communist Party’s persecution of millions of Uighur Muslims. You can bet that the EU’s three officials offered those “concerns” very quickly and rather quietly. Evincing as much is the readout’s total inability to hide the EU’s salivation at the prospect of new access to the Chinese Communist Party trough. The report makes clear that while the EU raised concerns over market access and other familiar elements of Chinese manipulation of trading relationships, its central focus was on driving forward economic cooperation. The EU’s stagnating economies need a bailout, and Xi stands ready to deliver — for a political price, that is.
Such is the impenetrable barrier facing the EU’s actual defense of its values. When it comes to choosing between trade and upholding the liberal international order, the EU always goes with the former. Michel admitted as much when he pledged following the meeting that “engaging and cooperating with China is both an opportunity and necessity. But, at the same time, we have to recognize that we do not share the same values, political systems, or approach to multilateralism. We will engage in a clear-eyed and confident way, robustly defending EU interests and standing firm on our values.”
It’s the “necessity” of trade versus the “clear-eyed and confident” public relations talk of defended values. Or what some might call the Merkel doctrine.
To be clear, this is the equivalent of an accountant telling a terrorist group that their finances are an opportunity and necessity, but that the terrorists should understand the accountant is uncomfortable with where the money might be going. Just not so uncomfortable, that is, to stop dealing with said terrorists. It’s unserious, to say the least. Unfortunately, the comparison holds up to the facts.
While the EU has restricted the export of certain security-related equipment to Hong Kong, it has avoided tougher actions, such as specific sanctions designations, as introduced by the United States. Or how about the EU’s response to those most obvious and internationally concerning examples of Xi’s aggression? Namely, Beijing’s attempt to seize the near entirety of the South China Sea and plunder/pollute the world’s oceans and rivers.
Well, here, the EU “referred to the escalating tensions in the South China Sea, urging for self-restraint and a peaceful resolution of disputes in accordance with international law.” Again, this is astonishingly weak stuff. Where is the blame of China as the sole source of these tensions? Where is the pledge to stand in defense of international order with new and more naval patrols through these contested waters?
The answer: nowhere to be seen. It’s just more proof positive of the legitimate American complaint that when it comes to upholding international order, whether via NATO in Europe or in the Pacific Rim, EU rhetoric is very, very cheap.
But don’t worry, “the EU also stressed the importance of a moratorium in China of building coal-fired power plants and financing their construction abroad, at least as part of a global initiative.”
