Dr. Achut Gautam

Henry Kissinger, speaking at the event on 9th of July marking the 50th anniversary of the US-China relations, underlined that to understand the premise which led to the visit of China in 1971 is still valid. The needs for cooperation have not diminished. Setting differences aside, mechanism, procedures and policies can be built and adopted for a peaceful outcome ahead.
The G7 meeting in Cornwall last month was unique: it focussed on ways to assert the US’s primacy in world affairs and to bolster US standing in global politics; as a result the meeting was occupied throughout with the conspicuous issue of the rise of China. The summit ended with a communiqué and a louder message that China was unwanted. The effect of pitching the European Union (EU) against China has exacerbated vulnerability in global affairs and opened forcefully unwarranted frontiers of rivalry. Earlier during the Trump era, the isolationist and inward-looking policies without any pragmatic strategy regarding China dislocated the US relations with Europe and with the rest of the world.

Geopolitical diplomacy
In this situation of no strategy and all egos, there was hope that the US would resume talks with China following the presidential elections. This didn’t happen; it’s sad to see the Alaska meeting fail; and geopolitical diplomacy since then has plummeted downhill. President Joe Biden’s foreign policy has championed Trump’s reasoning vis-a-vis the US-China relations. Ongoing rivalry has stifled the system of nation-states, stakes are higher within the interdependent global economy than realised and expressing allegiance could mean a greater loss, thus, states should manoeuvre and position themselves to work across the divide - in favour of the aspirations of their own citizens.
For example, during the meeting the G7, Europe was exposed to precarious situation, China versus the USA - not something they wanted to commit to because the EU, despite differences, does not see its competition with China as a zero-sum game and any reckless policy will certainly lead to unanticipated consequences. Returning to multilateral institutions, engaging in discussions and seeking avenues of cooperation would be the desired role that the US and China could play. The US-China contestation has propelled the foreseeable argument that questions the US, EU or the NATO’s sole authority and legitimacy in issues of global governance.
Its unilateral policies and exclusions cannot accommodate and represent the diverse ‘international community’. The dispute has further highlighted that the essence of internationalism cannot be expected while mindsets are limited to the ways of the western world; rather the comprehensive form of internationalism requires the inclusion of the “rest” as more exists in terms of population, economy, diversity, cultures and civilisations, including the common experience of being subjected to slavery, apartheid, humiliation and colonization, outside of the west.
The world has changed and will continue doing so even with a quicker pace. The EU is more than a club – a political entity; and yet, the ongoing regional and global geopolitical debates suggest that Brussels is constricting the very domain it operates in and many academics believe that its outreach may shrink further unless Brussels comprehends and incorporates the national agendas of its member states and prioritises the needs of these populations. Strategic geopolitical manoeuvres should benefit its citizenry and nothing less.
The rise of the far right is not a new phenomenon, rather it represents a general and aggressive feature within the European body politic. The far right’s characteristic slogans of nationalism including economic nationalism, sovereignism, conservatism, anti-immigration and Euro scepticism are neither friendly towards Brussels nor in support of the grand European Union project. The failure of Brussels in addressing local and national needs of member states is, in bulk, the reason behind the rise of the far right. Imperial evidence shows that with the rise of the far right, the probability of EU’s survival is almost zero.
Expanded EU has growing needs, to maintain consensus is challenging and to come up with long-term strategy has proven even more difficult. Germany, the largest economy in Europe is concerned over the superpower rivalry and does not want to be trapped in between the US and China. Tensions between the US and Germany over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline supplying Russian oil and gas to Europe were driven by interests. Germany’s manufacturing economy requires oil and gas and it stood for the deal. France too has its own domestic interests and priorities as do the rest of the other countries in Europe.
Recent meeting of the German Chancellor Angela Markel and the French President Emmanuel Macron with the Chinese counterpart via a video link on July 5 has shown that agreements are possible. They agreed to continue multilateral cooperation across a range of areas including COVID-19, aid, trade, business, climate change and cultural and digital matters. Europe’s role is important in preserving peace and avoiding conflict through constructive engagements and processes of multilateralism, diplomacy and dialogue. It’s very important to acknowledge the fact that it is in no one’s interest to view the US-China contestation as a zero-sum game.
Bloomberg citing European Chamber of Commerce has reported that nearly 60 per cent of European companies planning to expand their China operations in 2021 rose from that of 51 per cent last year. Similar to this, there are many positive indicators that show that common interests prevail over differences. EU-China relations need to focus on cooperation, multilateralism and mutual respect, as it is in Europe’s interest to tap into the vast Chinese market for the prosperity of its own people. Prosperous Europe, free from the far-right schema, is visible; however the leaders must think pragmatically and act independently.

Rule-based order
Rules-based international order of the West led by the US, and China’s idea of the international system based on the international law as enshrined in the UN charter are the two differing foundations on which the current global contestation appears to be based, and as such, the contestation clearly marks the emergence of a bipolar world, rapidly transforming and departing from the pre-COVID-19 world order of unipolarity that existed since the end of Cold War. The US, China along with other global and regional powers should agree that the complex situation of escalating competition needs to be balanced, conflict-free and overall a peaceful process. Setting differences aside, mechanism, procedures and policies can be built and adopted for a peaceful outcome ahead.

(The author is a researcher and political analyst. achut.gautam@gmail.com)