China’s Ambassador To The EU Is Sincere In Saying That Bilateral Ties Have No Limits
China’s goal is to keep expanding ties with the EU in spite of US pressure and EU-Russian tensions since it considers this integral for multipolarity, though many in the Alt-Media Community and Mainstream Media have yet to acknowledge its interests in this respect, hence why they continue producing inaccurate analyses.
Chinese Ambassador to the EU Fu Cong told one of his country’s news outlets on Monday that bilateral ties have no limits, which should be taken seriously by observers from the Alt-Media Community (AMC) and Mainstream Media (MSM). Both halves of the global information ecosystem are critical of Chinese-EU relations, generally considering them to take second place to Chinese-Russian ones from Beijing’s perspective. That’s not the case though as will now be explained.
Prior to doing so, however, it’s important to cite Ambassador Fu’s exact words on this subject: “The European side should correctly understand the reference to 'no upper limit'. Friendship and cooperation among countries are endless and should not be artificially limited. Sino-Russian cooperation is ‘unlimited’, and the same is true for China and Europe.” As can be seen, he was clarifying that China doesn’t consider there to be a hierarchy when it comes to its ties with Russia and the EU.
The AMC and MSM curiously united in pushing the narrative 14 months back that the inclusion of the phrase “no limits” in the Sino-Russo joint statement that followed President Putin’s trip to Beijing was evidence that those two are “allies” supposedly united against the West. This false claim was then exploited to mislead their targeted audiences about China’s intentions, each for different reasons but both nevertheless contributing to the global confusion about its position in the New Cold War.
The impending trifurcation of International Relations is leading to the emergence of three unofficial blocs: the US-led West’s Golden Billion (which includes the EU), the Sino-Russo Entente, and the informally Indian-led Global South. The first wants the global systemic transition to retain as many trappings of unipolarity as possible, the second wants to accelerate its multipolar evolution as much as possible, while the third envisages balancing between both so as to derive maximum benefit from them.
The abovementioned divisions aren’t anywhere near as clear-cut as those between NATO and the Warsaw Pact were in the Old Cold War. Rather, the New Cold War is witnessing elements within each of those three actively multi-aligning with others in an attempt to enhance their strategic autonomy. To that end, China considers the comprehensive improvement of relations with the EU to be one of its top priorities due to their massive bilateral trade, ergo its recent invitation for two leading officials to visit.
European Commissioner Von Der Leyen and French President Macron traveled there earlier this month to discuss Chinese-EU ties, which many in the AMC arrogantly dismissed due to their false perception that this trip was all about those two trying to sway President Xi to their side in the NATO-Russian proxy war. In reality, this trip likely served the unofficial purpose of exploring what would have to happen in that conflict for China to seriously consider arming Russia and how the EU would respond in that event.
Speculation aside about the details that might have been discussed, the importance lies in the fact that these leading officials would travel to China to talk about this in the first place, which proves how much they value their bilateral relations. Even though the EU as a whole is obviously under the US’ hegemonic influence right now, that doesn’t mean that China has any interest in abandoning the bloc. To the contrary, their trade ties compel the People’s Republic to not give up on this partnership no matter what.
The latest trip was evidently successful at least insofar as emboldening Macron to publicly recommit to his vision of the EU one day becoming a strategically autonomous actor. China now likely expects that France could play a pivotal role in convincing the rest of the bloc to support its peace plan for Ukraine, especially in the event that Kiev’s NATO-backed counteroffensive fails like US officials have recently begun worrying could happen according to Politico’s latest report.
Skeptics might scoff that Ambassador Fu’s words are just insincere rhetoric spewed for damage control purposes after the Chinese Ambassador to France shared his personal thoughts last weekend during a TV interview about the legal status of former Soviet Republics. That incident was analyzed here, with it being concluded that it was just a clever way to teach the West a lesson about the “rules-based order”. There was never any intent for China to signal a change in policy towards the EU’s Baltic members.
Those among the AMC and MSM who interpreted his words in such a way did so for agenda-driven self-interested narrative reasons related to their curiously shared goal of framing China as Russia’s “ally” against the West. The first views this false perception as a positive factor in the New Cold War while the latter considers it a negative one, but both are wrong since China’s goal is to keep expanding ties with the EU in spite of US pressure and EU-Russian tensions since it considers this integral for multipolarity.
“Decoupling” at any pace would be mutually detrimental for China and the EU, especially since it would lead to the US completely capturing the latter’s market, thus giving Washington an eventual edge against Beijing at Brussels’ full expense. Neither of those two want that to happen, hence their interest in retaining high-level dialogue about sensitive issues, clarifying their respective intentions, and continuing to expand their ties as much as possible considering the circumstances of heavy US pressure on the EU.
This strategic context enables honest observers from the AMC and MSM to conclude that Ambassador Fu was sincere in his remarks about Chinese-EU ties having no limits, which thus makes them equivalent to Chinese-Russian ones. Both partners are exceptionally important for the People’s Republic, albeit each in their own way, and the failure (or sometimes deliberate refusal) to acknowledge the European dimension of Chinese grand strategy inevitably leads to a grossly inaccurate understanding of its goals.