Austrian-Chinese Research and Science Dialogue. Europe, the United States and China – Insights from Fudan University

The Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue hosted an informal discussion moderated by sinologist Oliver Radtke on Europe–China–US relations. The  senior delegation from Fudan University, Shanghai, China,  attracted more than 30 participants from business, politics, academia and civil society and discussed the widening gap in strategic perceptions between Europe and China, the all-encompassing US–China relationship and the triangular relationship among them.  Human rights, trade, soft power, Taiwan and China’s possible role in the conflict with Iran were also addressed.

On Europe and China, the gap in how the two sides have perceived the strategic environment and their respective role in it, was an underlying current. Europe is hardening its position on trade and geopolitical conflicts, while Beijing does not regard these as the defining issues of the relationship and expects stability, continuity rather than a breakthrough. This mismatch in expectations helps explain the mutual frustration over a perceived absence of give and take. Green technology, investment and a shared interest in preventing the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine emerged as areas where both sides could still build common ground.

The US–China relationship was present throughout the discussion, even where the conversation focused primarily on other issues. One line of argument held that Washington’s transactionalism — inconsistency and forward deployment notwithstanding — offers Beijing a more legible model of deal-making than Europe’s current approach. Whether the two capitals ultimately regard each other as partners or rivals remained an open question.

Beyond the respective bilateral relationships, the discussantsaddressed the wider triangle and the question of whether Europe has any bearing on US strategic calculus. No clear consensus emerged on the extent of Europe’s potential influence. Human rights, trade and soft power emerged as recurring issues on which the relationship is tested rather than negotiated, while Taiwan and the danger of two-sided belligerency prompted some of the most pointed interventions. On China’s role in the US–Israeli conflict with Iran, participants expressed doubts about its capacity to impose an agreement, while seeing China as potentially well placed to facilitate one.

Despite some  disagreements that emerged throughout the discussion, there was broad recognition of the importance of sustained exchange with one of the world’s leading powers. Understanding how the same set of challenges is perceived from different perspectives remains an important precondition for addressing them.