Recently, political leaders from Europe, located at the western end of the Eurasian continent, have been intensively visiting countries in the East—namely China, ASEAN nations, and Central Asian states—forming a noticeable eastward shift in diplomatic engagement. Observed against the backdrop of dramatic changes in transatlantic relations since the beginning of the new U.S. administration this year, it is evident that European diplomacy is undergoing a strategic realignment in response to Washington’s shocks, with Asia emerging as a focal region.
First, the breakdown of transatlantic relations has shaken the foundation of Europe’s diplomatic strategy. After World War II, the transatlantic relationship served as a strong bond linking Europe and the United States in their joint opposition to the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc adversaries. It became the cornerstone and dependency of the EU’s and its member states’ foreign policies. However, with the disappearance of a common adversary after the Cold War, this foundation was fundamentally undermined and increasingly perceived as a burden by the U.S., which had long shown signs of pivoting away from Europe. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel once remarked that the era in which Europe could completely rely on the U.S. for its security had ended, and that “Europeans must take their destiny into their own hands.” While Trump’s first term already delivered an initial shockwave to Europe, the continent continued to define its relationship with the U.S. based on its own imagination—hoping to hold on to Washington through a “community of values.” It was not until Trump returned with a more forceful second wave that Europe truly awakened to the reality that its “values diplomacy” was diverging from America’s “transactional diplomacy,” the latter posing real threats to European interests. In a national televised address on March 5, French President Emmanuel Macron explicitly stated that Europe is facing both the threat of war in the East and the threat of a “full-scale trade war” launched by the U.S., stressing that Europe must defend itself and not let Moscow or Washington decide its future.
Second, unlike Europe becoming the epicenter of global security tensions, Asia’s stability and development are drawing growing global attention. Asian scholars often note in discussions with European counterparts that Asian thinking tends to be pluralistic and compromise-oriented. Solutions are sought through various pathways, rather than in a linear, one-sided manner. Take the issue of peace, for instance: more and better weapons do not necessarily equate to greater chances of peace. While military strength is important for stability, it is not everything. Europe’s own history shows that periods of peace achieved through force are often short-lived. The seven decades of post-war peace and prosperity were fundamentally enabled by reconciliation and joint development grounded in economic integration. After the Cold War, the imbalance between advancing military integration and lagging economic integration has led to accumulated tensions and conflicts, turning Europe and its periphery into some of the world’s deadliest battlegrounds today. In contrast, although Asian countries have their disputes, they have generally maintained peace, stability, and economic growth—often referred to as the “Asian model.” This model emphasizes enthusiasm for development and restraint in military ambitions. Sustaining a balance between military and economic priorities has been key to Asia’s continued stability. However, the increasing U.S. military presence in Asia and its encouragement of regional arms buildup are eroding this balance. Alarmingly, some European countries claim they want to contribute to Asia’s regional security. For example, during a recent Asian visit, French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné stressed the importance of the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle’s presence in Asian waters. But what Asia truly needs is economic development—not military posturing. Europe must not export to Asia the failed lessons of conflict and war born from the imbalance between military and economic strategies. Historically, Europe's military presence in Asia has never brought peace or prosperity to the region.
Lastly, the EU should define its relationship with China from the standpoint of its own interests and global strategy, rather than short-term expediency. This year marks the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between China and the EU—an impressive success story in the history of international relations. The close exchanges between the two sides have not only contributed to their mutual development and well-being but have also boosted the material and human connectivity across the Eurasian continent, promoting peace and development across a region historically fraught with war. This is the achievement of China-EU cooperation and reflects both parties’ responsibility for global peace and development in today’s turbulent world. Overall, the China-EU relationship is a large-scale, stable, and highly predictable “mega relationship” and should be regarded as a strategic asset and a solid foundation for shaping the future together. Europe must recognize that its relationship with China is not a replacement for strained ties with the U.S., nor should it be viewed as part of a balancing act in its broader “Asian presence” strategy.
Admittedly, China’s rapid development and growing strength are changing the structure of China-EU relations, placing Europe under pressure to strike a balance. At the same time, China must also adapt to the evolving relationship. This calls for both sides to be problem-conscious and to possess the will to resolve issues through dialogue. If Europe simplistically attributes its development challenges to differences in political systems and defines China as a “systemic rival,” it will not only fail to solve problems but will instead solidify and deepen them—bringing harm to both sides. Ideologically driven “values diplomacy” brings more confusion and trouble than benefits to the EU’s foreign policy. The key is mutual respect, a pluralistic perspective, and the ability to manage differences with an emphasis on achieving balanced interests. As highlighted in the China-EU leaders’ phone call earlier this year, both sides have the capability and wisdom to resolve existing issues through friendly consultation and to jointly open a promising new chapter for the next 50 years.
Author | Jiang Feng, Research Professor at Shanghai International Studies University, Chairman of the Shanghai Academy of Global Governance and Area Studies
Source | Global Times, April 1, 2025
Translated and reviewed by Zhang Yangyang with AI translator
