The Chinese government has pulled out of the Summit that it was due to have with the European Union in a few days in Lyon. Reason: French President Nicolas Sarcozy’s tete-a-tete with the Dalai Lama, who is perceived by Beijing as a secessionist. Obviously, the man is a cultural leader with an outspoken political agenda. He is traveling the world to gain support for more autonomy for China’s Tibetan minority. Yet, as became clear at a recent Tibetan jamboree in Dharamsala, his problem is that less and less of his fellow Tibetans are eager to follow his peaceful approach and call for more aggressive resistance. If China is serious about harmonious development in Tibet, talking to the Dalai Lama might not be that bad compared to the extremism that we risk now.

That said, though, the main question for the European Union now is whether it was worth it to blow up its Summit. One could discuss about the wrong or right of the Dalai Lama’s status, but the fact is that the EU will have to pay a high price for a decision that ultimately has been taken by one country, being it the holder of the EU Presidency. It goes without saying that the diplomatic spat comes at a crucial moment. The economic crisis begs for a stronger coordination between China and Europe. Not that Europe has been very clear about what it actually wants from Beijing, and China too was not eager to exchange its state-guided policies for more multilateral cooperation and binding rules. Yet, frank exchanges in Lyon, would have been better than having no exchanges at all.

CHINA’S MOVE NEXT
China will be able to exploit frustration among the member states that are amused with Sarko’s solo. If it still wants to move ahead with a strategic partnership, Europe will have to pay for this demarche, and China’s skilful diplomats will undoubtedly step up pressure on individual and ask for big concessions. This in turn, might lead to even more internal division about how we want to engage China. This incident will also aggravate the alarming expectation gap that has been growing since the past few years. There is simply no trust between both sides.

China is increasingly hesitating whether it should see the EU as a reliable partner at all. On the European side frustration about the situation in Tibet is starting to amalgamate with other issues of concern such as trade, Africa and environment. It is not unthinkable that the EU’s internal balance between China-lovers and China-sceptics is alerting in the latter’s favour. It is urgently time now for the EU to make up its mind. The EU pretends to be a solid partner for China, but in reality it only excels in the declaratory ambivalence that is used to cover up the lack of internal consensus. Most member states have endorsed the request for more economic reciprocity. But while chasing business deals, they leave the Commission on its own when it has to deal with an army of determined Chinese negotiators.

There is no agreement on how much pressure should be exerted on China to open up a few lucrative sectors. Neither do they agree on how much Europe should share its precious technology. Not even to mention the need for more innovation as an answer to China’s growing strength in advanced industries. Member states behave like petty shopkeepers, competing more among each other instead of facing the big supermarket that is built around the corner. The challenge for the EU is not only to overcome China’s realpolitik, but also to prevail over realpolitik among member states.

Therefore the European Commission needs to play a two-level game that aims at fostering more awareness of the strategic interdependence and the fact that a collective policy will result in larger gains than when we subjugate ourselves to China’s skilful divide and rule politics. Common objectives do not have to lead the EU towards a collision with the Asian giant. A truly unified policy would allow to move beyond the current superficial relationship and to foster a truly strategic partnership that is based on long-term interests, straightforward bargaining and an equitable balance of power. There are too many challenges in this world for just to keep talking.