China's EU deal betrays insecurity; not a wedge between US & EU

China's EU Deal Betrays Insecurity; Not a Wedge Between US & EU | The Red Pen | GZERO Media

In our first edition of The Red Pen for 2021, we take a look at an editorial by the FT's Gideon Rachman, who argues that the recent EU-China treaty will complicate President-elect Biden's ability to handle China and rebuild the US-EU relationship. Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group's Michael Hirson point out the deal actually demonstrates how much Beijing fears being out-maneuvered by Biden.

There's a lot going on in the world, and obviously plenty to discuss right here in the United States where our democracy is getting tested like nobody's business. But that doesn't mean that good op-eds out there don't deserve to be sparred with. And, I don't want to just neglect all those perfectly important writers, so we have one this week.

Turning our attention abroad to how China factors in as President-elect Joe Biden takes office in a short period of time … and what role Europe will play in how the United States approaches the second biggest economy, soon to be first, on the planet.

The op-ed we're marking up is by Gideon Rachman. He's the chief foreign affairs commentator at the Financial Times. And the piece is entitled, "Europe Has Handed China A Strategic Victory." He argues against a recent investment treaty between Europe and China championed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, also heavily supported by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. And it's viewed overall as a deepening of financial ties and commerce between Europe and China.

Now as a little bit of background, the deal, which was several years in the making, boosts market access in China for European firms in sectors such as autos and finance.

Now Gideon argues that the European Union has just handed China a big win despite all of that nation's diplomatic and humanitarian transgressions…and that this is going to further complicate things for incoming President Joe Biden as he tries to figure out how to deal with China.

Now, agree with Gideon, it's a significant development. And also, it's true that Europe does appear to be flexing its muscles a bit here: The US can do a unilateral trade deal with China (Phase One) and so can Europe. But is this going to change the geopolitical landscape? No, and the argument goes too far on that point.

First, Gideon writes, "Ms. Von der Leyen concluded 2020 by sending a truly awful geopolitical message — as her commission signed off on an investment treaty between the EU and China."

Well, the EU also has said it agrees with the United States "on the strategic challenge presented by China's growing international assertiveness." And there are many humanitarian and diplomatic issues Europe as a whole has strongly condemned—from China's attack on democracy in Hong Kong to its treatment of Muslim minorities. This is a fairly narrow deal, not a white flag on the relationship.

\

Number two, Gideon describes the timing of the deal as "exquisite" for China, driving a wedge between Europe and the US on the eve of Biden's inauguration.

Now you can make that argument, but let's be clear, Beijing was clearly intent on rushing to get the deal done before Biden took office and ended up giving a lot of benefits to the Europeans accordingly. Does that sound like a confident superpower? Or, rather, like an insecure country worried about being out maneuvered by Biden and preparing to face a lot more coordinated and multilateral pressure? In other words, China might have grabbed what it could at a fire sale before Biden comes in to remove the wedge that has existed between Europe and the United States under the Trump administration.

Now on that, Gideon describes this deal as a "kick in the teeth" to Biden, who wants to restore ties to some of our strongest global allies in Europe.

Now, it's a wake-up call. But Beijing keeps digging its own diplomatic hole, from turning away WHO inspectors to conducting mass arrests in Hong Kong. And that's just this week. The new Biden team's commitment to transatlantic cooperation is going to go a long way to repairing the US-Europe relationship.

Finally, Gideon writes that Europe "is naive to believe that China will respect the agreement it has signed…And it is naive to think that the darkening political climate in Beijing will never affect life in Brussels or Berlin."

Now sure, you can point to plenty of examples of China not holding up its end of the bargain. Gideon mentions the WTO agreement in 2001. He's right. Also, in the terms of this EU/China deal, Beijing is expected to deliver on things like climate action, reducing favoritism to state-owned businesses, and improving labor practices. All kind of red lines for the Chinese state capitalist system. Good luck with that. But let's be clear, when China fails to meet those terms, that ends up working in America's favor and makes any EU/China agreement short-lived at best. It gets weaker as a consequence of that.

So, is it the end of the world order as we know it? No. But is China, and how its growing economic influence and power impacts every nation, going to be a big issue for Biden…and beyond? Yes. We just don't think Ursula von der Leyen or the EU did something "truly awful," as Gideon states.

More from GZERO Media

Syrian forces head to Latakia after fighters linked to Syria's ousted leader Bashar Assad mounted a deadly attack on government forces on Thursday, March 6, 2025.

REUTERS/Mahmoud Hassano

Nearly 50 people were killed on Thursday in the deadliest clashes Syria has seen since the overthrow of Bashar Assad. Pro-Assad militants attacked security checkpoints around the western coastal town of Jableh, a stronghold of the former regime.

The Liberian-flagged tanker Ice Energy, chartered by the US government, takes Iranian oil from Iranian-flagged Lana (formerly Pegas) as part of a civil forfeiture action off the shore of Karystos, on the Island of Evia, Greece, in May 2022.
REUTERS/Costas Baltas/File Photo

The Trump administration is reportedly considering a strategy to disrupt Iran’s oil exports by stopping and inspecting Iranian oil tankers at sea. The US would use the Proliferation Security Initiative, established in 2003 to prevent the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, as a legal justification for the inspections.

Donald Trump issues a proclamation from the Oval Office
REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

US presidents don’t typically talk to organizations the US government has labeled terrorist groups, but Donald Trump is not a typical US president.

President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on March 4, 2025.

Win McNamee/Pool via REUTERS

You didn’t need to sit through all 99 minutes of Trump’s peroration to know that he gave himself an A++ on his first six weeks in office, writes GZERO Publisher Evan Solomon. But if Trump gets to grade himself, maybe it’s time for a more objective report card — one that looks at two criteria: Trump as a dealmaker and Trump as a manager.

The Energy Security Hub at the 2025 Munich Security Conference featured in-depth discussions on energy innovation, security, and market viability. Fatih Birol, IEA executive director, discussed growing global energy demand, especially the rapid rise in electricity outpacing overall growth. He noted electricity demand is projected to increase six times faster than total energy in 10 years, underscoring the need for electrification and grid expansion. As energy systems become decentralized and digitalized, the CEO of E.ON, Leonhard Birnbaum, said: “You’re either fully digitized – or you’re done.” Key takeaways: Energy security requires developing and securing electricity grids Technological openness is a unifying element for getting to net zero Bridge the “Valley of Death” to scale markets New global partnerships will help Europe stay competitive Public acceptance will strengthen democracy You can read the full Executive Summary from the BMW Foundation here.

a crowd of people outside of a white building

In a 5-4 split decision, the US Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration to disburse nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds for work completed by contractors and grant recipients under the US Agency for International Development and the State Department. Does this tell us much about how the top court will handle future Trump-related cases?