As EU-China relations sink into mistrust, the European Parliament is attempting to reopen a political channel with Beijing. The question is whether Europe can move beyond bloc confrontation and recognize that engagement with China is not a concession but a strategic necessity in a changing world order.
The European Parliament Mission to Beijing: An Attempt to Repair Relations
The debate reflects a broader European dilemma: should China primarily be treated as a systemic rival, or as a complex partner with whom Europe must compete and cooperate at the same time? While some lawmakers argue for maintaining a tougher approach, others warn that excessive confrontation risks damaging European economic interests and limiting diplomatic space. The Socialists and Democrats, for example, have pushed for softer language, replacing descriptions of China as an almost exclusively negative actor with a more nuanced assessment of a “complex and challenging” relationship.
This internal European dispute has been intensified by the more confrontational tone adopted by parts of the EU’s foreign policy establishment. High Representative Kaja Kallas has taken an aggressive stance towards Beijing — comparing China to a cancer — contributing to an atmosphere in which dialogue has become increasingly difficult. The question now is whether the European Parliament can introduce a more pragmatic voice into a debate dominated by strategic competition and ideological positions of the Western bloc’s efforts to keep united.
Europe should not ignore China’s challenges, from trade imbalances to security concerns. But diplomacy cannot be built only around suspicion and aggressive statements. An accomplished European strategy requires recognising both risks and opportunities.
Beyond Ideology: What China Can Offer Europe
The European debate on China often focuses on vulnerabilities: dependency on supply chains, industrial competition, and geopolitical rivalry led by Washington. These concerns are legitimate. Yet an exclusive focus on confrontation overlooks what China represents for Europe’s economic and strategic future.
China remains the world’s largest market and a central actor in global manufacturing, technology, and green industries. China has become the world’s largest trading partner for more than 120 countries, while maintaining major trade relations with over 160 economies worldwide. By contrast, in the European Union, China is the largest trade partner with only three to five member states. For many European companies, access to the Chinese domestic market is not simply an economic opportunity but a necessity in a century defined by Asian growth and the center of the world economy. A Europe seeking competitiveness cannot afford to disengage from the world’s second-largest economy and the biggest domestic market.
The question is not whether Europe should accept every Chinese economic practice. It should defend its interests, demand reciprocity, and protect strategic sectors. But engagement can produce better results than isolation. Spain’s approach illustrates this alternative path: Madrid has argued for greater engagement with Beijing, emphasising dialogue, trade, and the attraction of Chinese investment while addressing economic imbalances.
China can also be a partner with Europe on global challenges where cooperation is indispensable: climate change, energy transition, development, artificial intelligence governance, and reform of multilateral institutions. At a time when confidence in the stability of the international order is weakening, Europe needs more — not fewer — channels of communication with China, which is regarded as a more stable and reliable actor in the international system than the U.S. According to a recent Pew Research survey, 46% of interviewees worldwide view China more positively than the U.S. (36%) and have more trust in Xi Jinping (31%) than in Donald Trump (21%).
The European Union has traditionally defended multilateralism and international law. Yet the current geopolitical environment raises a difficult question: does Europe want to remain locked into a Western-bloc mentality based on double standards, or does it want to preserve its strategic autonomy through pragmatic engagement with all major actors?
The unpredictability of US policy under Donald Trump has reinforced this dilemma. For many Europeans, Washington can no longer automatically be considered a predictable strategic anchor. This does not mean abandoning the transatlantic relationship, but it does mean recognising that Europe must diversify its strategic partnerships.
Learning to Understand China Before Defining It as a Rival
One of Europe’s biggest problems in dealing with China is not only policy disagreement — it is also misunderstanding. Too often, the Chinese system is analysed exclusively through Western political categories, leaving little room for understanding its own historical, economic and institutional logic.
Chandran Nair, author of Understanding China, argues that many Western narratives fail to capture the complexity of China’s political economy and development model. His central point is not that China should be praised uncritically, but that it should be analysed through facts rather than simplified geopolitical narratives, captive to a bygone world.
China’s rise has been built on decades of steady, consistent industrial policy, infrastructure investment, technological development, and integration into global supply chains. The country’s economic transformation cannot simply be reversed through political decisions to reduce dependence. Nair estimates that replacing Chinese industrial capacity would require enormous additional investment, illustrating the scale of Europe’s challenge.
For Europe, the strategic choice is therefore not between friendship and hostility. It is between a realistic policy of managed competition and cooperation, or an ideological approach that risks limiting Europe’s own economic possibilities.
The European Parliament’s mission to Beijing will not resolve all disagreements. Human rights, security concerns, and trade disputes will remain part of the relationship. But dialogue is not weakness. It is the necessary condition for defending European interests.
Europe’s future will depend on its ability to engage with the world as it is, not as geopolitical narratives would like it to be. China is a competitor, but also the biggest market, the major investor, a technological power, and a potential partner on global challenges. The question facing Europe is whether it can recognise this complexity before others define its place in the new international order.
Conclusion: Pragmatism as Europe’s Strategic Choice
The European Parliament has an opportunity to correct a growing imbalance in EU-China relations. A confident Europe should neither blindly follow Beijing nor automatically align every position with Washington. It should pursue a strategy based on its own interests, dialogue, strategic autonomy and professional diplomacy – of course, this is the ideal to pursue.
It sounds cliché, but the future will not belong to those who build the highest walls, but to those capable of managing complex relationships. For Europe, engaging China is not a choice between values and pragmatism. It is a test of whether Europe can combine both, but it still needs a diplomacy commensurate with the challenge.
Ricardo Martins, PhD in Sociology, specializing in international relations and geopolitics.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
