From an Asian perspective, Europe and its problems seem to shrink and become relative, but this impression is both erroneous and profoundly dangerous. Chinese expansionism in our spheres of influence is a reality that cannot be ignored. It is true that this vast continent accounts for 29% of the world’s territory and represents 60% of the global population. In terms of GDP, it is already the leading continent, surpassing both America and Europe. The economic, military, and demographic power of China and India should not distract us from our own issues, crises, and the urgent need to evolve to avoid falling behind, while accepting that Europe will not regain its status as the world’s leading economic power. Europe must strive to remain at the forefront of science, technology, engineering, and, if possible, research, as these are the true sources of influence, development, and wealth in the 21st century.
The war in Ukraine is much more linked to global geopolitics than the staunchest proponents of the Trump movement might think. They believe that if the U.S. imposes peace in a conflict involving an aggressor state and a victim state, they can retreat inward, strengthen themselves, and then confront what they consider their true adversary: China. This is a misconception. Let’s explore why.
I read with great interest a lengthy statement (in the form of an interview) by China’s most prestigious and influential political scientist, Professor Zheng Yongnian, published in the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong. The choice of messenger and medium underscores the “solemn unofficial officialdom” of the message (forgive the pun). In this interview, Professor Yongnian asserts that no matter how hard it tries, the U.S. cannot and should not disengage from Europe and the Middle East, as doing so would incur a heavy cost and exacerbate global chaos. A Chinese intellectual advocating for U.S. influence in Europe and the Middle East is indeed surprising.
Yongnian defends the liberal international order (we can all stop gasping now…) and argues that pure economics, rather than geoeconomics, will steer the world back to the liberal international order. He emphasizes that neither Ukraine nor the EU can be excluded from peace negotiations, nor can China. He believes that U.S. and European capital will break down tariff barriers because its tendency is to seek profit, which only occurs in a globalized context. He issues three warnings: 1) The damage Trump will inflict on global trade should not be underestimated. 2) The ability of capital to find new avenues for “reglobalizing” the economy should not be underestimated. 3) China’s capacity to open up to the world and to export and attract capital should not be ignored. He even states that they are willing to establish factories in the U.S. as a central part of their new growth strategy to avoid tariff barriers.
He denies that reconciliation between the U.S. and Russia is possible, no matter how hard Trump tries, arguing (correctly) that the deep-seated antagonism and enmity have lasted for over a century. His analysis of the Ukraine war is, interestingly, closer to the European perspective than to that of Trump 2.0. This seems to be more than just a warning to the Russian navigator, whom the Chinese consider a minor economy and a regional power, albeit heavily armed. It is a genuine strategic declaration made deliberately in Hong Kong, where the West has thousands of official and private eyes and ears. The message is not only directed at governments; it also targets the markets. It is reassuring to hear such statements from a Chinese figure of significant stature, but the “harmonious” declarations—the Chinese Communist Party has long maintained that “a harmonious China contributes to building a harmonious world” (sic)—must be accompanied by actions.
Yongnian asserts that there will be no military confrontation between the U.S. and China (because, in my opinion, it is not in their interest at this moment) while simultaneously stating that there will be a “peaceful absorption of Taiwan,” although military “pressure” cannot be ruled out. He warns that no great power has ever managed to subdue another since the end of World War II, attributing the implosion of the USSR to its lack of economic reforms rather than to the victory of the U.S. and its allies.
In this and other official and unofficial statements, they acknowledge the inevitability of a clash for technological hegemony and global influence, contrasting the U.S. method of influence through “hegemonic imposition” with the Chinese approach, which they call the “tributary influence system.” This system involves being “strategically patient” and flexible, without disrupting the local order, while influencing investment, trade, and finance. I would add that this allows them to become a hegemonic power almost without making a sound.
Despite the measured tone of this message to the West, it is clear that China believes the West, led by the U.S., is in an inexorable and inevitable process of decomposition and decline since the implosion of the USSR. The message is wrapped in an undisguised sense of moral and ideological superiority, presented with almost arrogant pride. In the official Chinese nomenclature, Europe and the U.S. remain the enemy, regarded as PDPs—declining powers of the past (an acronym in English). This chillingly reminds me of what a senior Chinese Communist Party official told a friend and diplomatic colleague, who was then the Consul General of Spain in Shanghai, when he asked, “In this future of Chinese, American, and Indian hegemony, where does that leave Europe?” The official replied with undisguised condescension: “You will be our museums, our vacation spots, and our luxury shopping destinations, as well as our historical-cultural theme park.” I fear that this horrifying dystopian future has already hit us.
Gustavo de Aristegui is a Spanish politician, diplomat and an international analyst.
(Cover Photo: Canva Pic)
ChinaeconomyEuropeForeign PolicyGlobalisationIndiaMaritime Silk RoutePoliticsWestern