Yesterday, this column tackled three specific elements in the relationship between the EU and China. It left out other more general aspects, which are just as significant and include:
Freedom and human rights: an encouraging development? A number of European individuals and organisations are actively monitoring this domain and regularly intervene to make strong condemnations of what they consider abuses and irregularities committed by China. Sometimes they call for sanctions and other measures, which are never really applied. Fortunately, we have witnessed a significant decrease in the number of cases where responses are needed (nonetheless, restrictions were recently applied to a Chinese Nobel prize-winner and these produced considerable resonance). Certain situations that previously provoked sharp and quite justified criticism, such as the situation in Tibet, have produced political arrangements that are more or less satisfactory but which are, it is true, partly contested.
It should be recognised that the Chinese restrictions on individual freedoms and human rights, together with the protests and other responses that they provoked, never prevented the US and EU itself from maintaining and developing trade and economic cooperation with China. But the pressure, responses and protests perhaps contributed to the behaviour of the Chinese authorities evolving somewhat. One clear example of this is illustrated by the international exhibition in Shanghai, which took place in a climate of freedom and allowed everybody to discover a welcoming and dynamic city, which was at the same time very modern and respectful of its landmarks and places of interest.
Other Chinese developments. The number of comments that could be developed is unfathomable and goes beyond the three symbolic examples discussed in this column yesterday and the developments affecting previous bilateral relations reviewed in the 20-21 December session of the EU-China trade dialogue (EUROPE 10282 provided a report on the subject). We could add the following observations:
- China's trade surplus has decreased over the last two or three years. Over recent months, the balance of payments has even gone into deficit. At the same time, China is diversifying its exports and developing specialities in foods, cosmetics and pharmaceutical products and it has a much more diverse customer base;
- China's interest in the euro (the purchase of treasury bonds from countries experiencing difficulties in the eurozone) should not be interpreted as a sudden outpouring of pro-European sentiment but rather, the country's intention to reduce the excess of dollars that have been accumulated and which, if they are placed on the market, would lose their value (as we are aware, the US does not attempt to prop up the value of its currency - the market determines its value in compliance with the principle that “the dollar is our currency but your problem”). China also intends to diversify its monetary reserves;
- European Commissioners Michel Barnier and Antonio Tajani have expressed their concerns about China buying up state-of-the-art European companies and encouraging technology transfers from these companies. These practices are legitimate but it is necessary to be aware of what is happening and assess the scale of this phenomenon, explain Commissioners Barnier and Tajani. They also consider that monitoring on the model of the US may prove necessary;
- the Chinese are aware of the fact that major European companies that have relocated part of their production to China could also move elsewhere ( for example, to Vietnam) for reasons that are exclusively related to production costs. This is one of the reasons why the Chinese authorities are seeking greater cooperation with Europe rather than confrontation.
A global problem. Certain aspects of Chinese practices have had an influence on the future of the world and the EU cannot ignore this. One example of this involves China's intentions with regard to its border with Siberia. This border is several thousand kilometres long, consists of some of the most ancient and extensive forests in the world, and is inhabited by 6 million Russian citizens on one side. On the other side there are 150 million Chinese living in a situation of frenetic dynamism, who are felling thousands of trees every day in ways that are sometimes legitimate and sometimes not (purchases, corruption, illegal felling, etc). The wood is used to manufacture different products sent all around the world. It is difficult for the Chinese to totally forget that a significant part of this territory previously belonged to them and was only ceded to Tsarist Russia in 1858. For their part, the Russians affirm that the Siberian forest is thus slowly and steadily disappearing. The world will therefore be much worse off. Is this a Chinese or international problem? What is Beijing's response? (F.R./transl.fl)