An uncomfortable position
/What does the European media think of China’s Ukraine stance?
One of the most closely watched press conferences this week was not in Moscow or Kyiv but in Beijing on Monday when Foreign Minister Wang Yi outlined China’s response to the crisis in Ukraine and his wider views on international relations.
It was a pivotal moment. Countries knew that they needed to listen to him because China’s actions could potentially change the outcome of an armed conflict that almost no-one wants. Would he express China’s willingness to act as a mediator and rein in Beijing’s closest ally?
European newspapers covered the speech in depth. However, what they didn’t take onboard was Wang’s desire for Europe to “develop a more independent and objective perception of China and adopt a more pragmatic and rational policy”.
Or at least, not how he may have intended it. Jörg Wuttke, President of the EU Chamber of Commerce in Beijing told German news organisation Web.de that, “The Russians have managed to completely change our China policy in Europe.”
German newspapers flagged how Wang saved all of his critical words for the US, accusing it of causing the war through NATO’s Eastward expansion and trying to establish a new version of the organization in the Indo-Pacific. “Anyone who thought that China would distance itself from Moscow in view of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, was taught otherwise on Monday,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung commented.
Handelsblatt noted how much scepticism there had been when EU Foreign Policy Chief, Josep Borrell suggested that China could play a mediating role between Russia and Ukraine the previous weekend. Wang’s words have only “fuelled that scepticism” it stated.
In a separate article, Janka Oertel, head of the Asia Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations told Handelsblatt that, “China will continue, as far as possible, to remain neutral in public statements… In secret, however, China will definitely help, for example, to circumvent the financial sanctions. Now China is just waiting.”
China’s ability to take advantage of Western sanctions and turn Russia into a vassal state is a recurrent theme. A number of newspapers have been discussing how Russian banks are planning to issue UnionPay credit cards following Visa and Mastercard’s withdrawal.
Spiegel’s Beijing correspondent Georg Fahrion said that “China has to keep a distance at least to the outside world, but of course it now has Russia in its pocket; Russia no longer has a chance to deny China anything.”
Welt picked up a similar point. Like many German newspapers, it pointed out how Beijing is not only refusing to use the word invasion to describe what’s happening in Ukraine, but is also determined to paint the US as the bad guy rather than the “true aggressor”, Russia.
The newspaper’s columnist Jens Munchrath said that Beijing has become entangled in major contradictions in its Russia policy. “How much longer can it maintain this self-deceptive stance?” he asked.
China needs to take a stand, he added, before warning of the voices in Washington calling for sanctions against Beijing because of its support for Moscow. “Anyone who supports a country that is openly threatening to use nuclear weapons in Europe should ask themselves whether they still want, or are allowed to be an economic partner,” he concluded.
Sebastian Heilmann, founding director of the Berlin-based China think tank Merics had a blunt message: “China is fundamentally challenging the old world order that was established after the Cold War in line with Russia,” he explained.
He argued that it would be foolish to underestimate how China’s military build-up might be used to enforce its own great power interests. “Many in the West believe that Xi thinks differently to Putin,” he stated. “That assumption is wrong.”
A European consensus
In neighbouring France, Le Monde reflected a widespread view that Ukraine is a wake-up call for the West. “The war in Ukraine underlines the urgency of an awakening of democracies,” it stated. “Behind the Russian invasion, there’s a struggle between two models of society. Autocratic regimes are gaining ground.”
Le Figaro similarly noted how China opted to blame the US, rather than take sides between Russia and the Ukraine. Spanish newspapers run with the same theme.
After underscoring China’s avoidance of the word invasion, El Pais columnist Macarena Vidal Liy said that Beijing’s “slanted neutrality,” meant using cautious language but clearly leaning towards Moscow.
Her final quote was from Andrew Small of the German Marshall Fund think tank. He said, “China has made its bet: that given China's strategic landscape, the Sino-Russian partnership is worth a price. Any hope of Chinese mediation should be tempered by the fact that they will be reluctant to provide it, and if they do it is unlikely to take a useful form.”
Italy’s La Repubblica similarly concurred that Wang’s words have “left many dissatisfied” but suggested there are “perhaps a “few glimmers” of hope given that he publicly mentioned mediation for the first time.
Italy’s ISPI think tank said that, “China supports Russia because it questions the current international order.” But China specialist Filippo Fasulo added that the current crisis “exposes Beijing to prolonged economic damage and a very serious loss of international consensus with each passing day, each missile fired and each civilian victim.”
Corriere Della Sera wondered just how strong the alliance between Russia and China really is. Columnist Giuliana Ferraino highlighted the “unexpected stance of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which suspended and reviewed all activities relating to Russia and Belarus following the war in Ukraine.”
Many European newspapers have also debated whether China knew an invasion was going to take place. Like many, Le Monde, concluded that it was caught off guard.
On balance, however, the European media reaction to the messaging coming out of China remains tinged with cynicism over Beijing’s motives and approach as the human carnage in Ukraine escalates.
