Debate: Outcome of the EU-China Summit
Date: TUESDAY, 5 APRIL 2022
Speaker: Josep Borrell Fontelles
Language: EN

Most of you will agree that our relations with China are not where we would like them to be and, given China’s increasing assertiveness both at home and abroad, it’s clear that we don’t share the same political values. To start with, we have a very different interpretation of human rights, and they recognise it. They told us they have their own constitution, and their own interpretation of human rights. With respect to the war in Crimea, China has an ambiguous position on this war, which requires us to put plain facts on the table and to press China to do all within its power to be part of the solution to end the war. That was our primary goal in a dialogue which was everything but a dialogue. In any case, it was a deaf dialogue.  China wanted to set aside our differences on Ukraine. They didn’t want to talk about Ukraine. They didn’t want to talk about human rights and other issues and instead focus on the positive things. The European side made clear that this compartmentalisation from compartments is not feasible and not acceptable. For us, the war in Ukraine is a defining moment for whether we live in a world governed by rules or by force. That’s the question.  We condemned the Russian aggression against Ukraine and support this country’s sovereignty and democracy, not because we followed the US blindly, as sometimes China suggests, but because it is our position, our genuine position. This was an important message for the Chinese leadership to hear. We called on China to use its influence with Russia to reach an immediate ceasefire and to support humanitarian corridors. We stressed that any attempt to assist the Russian military, or to help Russia circumventing the sanctions we have taken, would have serious consequences and could deteriorate our relations. The Chinese side stuck to general statements of ‘wishing to see peace’, ‘we are peaceful people’, ‘we do not invade the others’, and asking for de—escalation, but avoiding specific commitments or avoiding also any kind of blame on Russia. As I said, it was not exactly a dialogue, maybe a dialogue of the deaf, but certainly we did not come to an agreement on joint actions. So we couldn’t talk about Ukraine a lot, but we didn’t agree on anything else.  We didn’t hesitate to raise other issues where we disagree with China. We recalled our concerns about China’s treatment of minorities in Xinjiang. Both Presidents were both very much assertive and clearly addressed this concern. The concern about Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and our dismay at China dismantling the ‘one-country two-systems’ principle in Hong Kong. We called on China to address global concerns on human rights and labour rights. We stressed the need to relaunch the EU-China human rights dialogue. And on this, I have to say, Prime Minister Li Keqiang agreed.  The discussion also touched upon international issues. We called on China to play a constructive role in Myanmar, in Afghanistan, in Iran – I have to recognise that on the JCPOA they are playing a constructive role – and also on maritime security. We raised our concerns over the South China Sea and called for preserving the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. We agreed with the Chinese leadership on the importance of cooperation on climate and environment, on biodiversity, and agreed that the high level dialogue on environment and climate will continue through regular meetings.  It was clear that global recovery from the pandemic is a shared priority. You know that they are facing, again, difficulties facing a new wave of pandemics. We discussed cooperation on vaccination and confirmed our commitment to work with China on a new international instrument to boost pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. At the same time, we requested China to lift its unacceptable and disproportionate sanctions against European decision makers, members of this Parliament and national parliaments and intellectuals. As long as Chinese control measures will be in place, there is no prospect for the ratification process of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment to move ahead. That is what I explained clearly, first during my conversations on the preparation of the summit to my counterpart, the Foreign Affairs Ministers and then during the Summit.  We also were very clear about the need for China to stop using unjustified trade measures targeting Lithuania, violation of WTO rules, disrupting our internal market. We talked certainly about trade and investments. They wanted to talk about it, and we talked about it. We pointed to the need to address asymmetries in our trade relationships and make it more balanced. We made it clear, too, that China needs to address longstanding difficulties related to market access and investment environment and urged China to find concrete solutions to some of these problems at the next high level trade and economic dialogue. In addition, we also raised issues including the crucial importance of a level playing field in 5G procurement and contracts, and cybersecurity threats were also raised.  We stated our readiness to cooperate in research and innovation, in common priority areas like agriculture, biotechnology, climate change, biodiversity, but arguing for our reciprocal relationship. We also stressed that, as global humanitarian needs keep growing, China’s role as a humanitarian donor should also rise. We underline that being a good donor requires robust coordination founded on an effective multilateral humanitarian system.  That was the summary that I could go through with you, because I think that the Summit was, as I said, not exactly a dialogue because one part was importantly focusing on Ukraine and the other was not exactly doing that. We talked about Ukraine, without having any commitment from the China side. But I insisted on the idea that we at least should agree on asking for a ceasefire, for humanitarian corridors and to make sure that Russia will not use any kind of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, that there are red lines that everybody should agree on in this war, that certainly we want this war to finish as soon as possible, but the way it finishes matters. At least we put these issues on the table and we insisted a lot on them. We must continue the dialogue with them in the resolution of the conflict, because China cannot pretend to be a responsible, great power and close its eyes or cover its ears when it comes to a conflict that obviously makes it uncomfortable, because it knows very well who the aggressor is – although for political reasons, refuses to name him. I remain at your disposal. I am sure we will have an interesting debate about such an important question.