The director of the Institute of North American Studies (IEN), Ms. Mercè Segura, began the day with a strong statement: “The relationship between the West and China will define the world order of the 21st century”. Once again, this year, the IEN has promoted a space for dialogue to discuss the convergence and divergence of European and American policies towards the People’s Republic of China. The seminar explored the significant changes in the economic and security landscape that the rise of China has brought about in recent years. Against this background, it is crucial to analyze the response of the European Union and the US to this rise.

After some words of thanks from Mr. Gerard Segú, from the Fundació Catalunya la Pedrera, the day was inaugurated by the president of the IEN, Dr. Joan F. Corona, who expressed his gratitude to all the attendees and briefly recalled the trajectory of the IEN, underlining the objective of making Barcelona a European meeting point to reflect on the United States.

Likewise, Ms. Katie Stana, Consul General of the US Consulate General in Barcelona, predicted that 2024 will be a key year in recent history, as it will end up defining both the evolution of the “strategic competition” that is taking place between the US and the People’s Republic of China, as well as the effects this will have on global security. “Despite being competitors, we must find ways to cooperate,” said the Consul General, recalling President Biden’s recent strategy towards the People’s Republic of China: invest, align, and compete. Invest in competitiveness, innovation, and the promotion of the country’s democracy; align with a dense network of partners to achieve common goals; and compete responsibly with China to defend interests and build a vision for the future.

Mr. Manuel Szapiro, Director of the European Commission Representation in Barcelona, underlined the need to address the China issue as this topic tests the capacity of EU foreign policy to address security challenges. The way in which the relationship with China is jointly managed will shape the geopolitics of the 21st century, she concluded. In the words of European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, it is imperative to adopt a strategy of “Dirisking without decoupling”. This involves mitigating the risks associated with the relationship with China without necessarily separating or severing economic, political, or social connections with the country. Finally, Mr. Pierre-Emmanuel Brusselmans of the Belgian Consulate in Barcelona also emphasized the words of President Von der Leyen in November 2023 on the need to pursue a policy of strategic stability with China (strategic stability) based on the idea of reducing risks (derisk). This is achieved by defending European economic interests, diversifying partners, and more dialogue with China on issues that affect us.

Geopolitics Panel

The first panel discussion, entitled Geopolitics, starts from the realization that the geopolitical landscape is always in constant flux and change. The combined impact of the Covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, and the growing importance of the global South has reshaped the global landscape and the way we interpret it from the West. However, in the midst of geopolitical rivalry, there is an urgent need to seek new forms of cooperation to manage common problems. This panel has addressed the strategic implications of these events, explored the dynamics of the EU-US-China triangular relationship and identified both the most likely areas where friction may occur and those common interests that can lead to cooperation.

To introduce the panel, Dr. Jeffrey Michaels, IEN Senior Research Fellow at the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI), spoke of the need to focus the day’s discussion on identifying those points of agreement and disagreement between the US and the EU towards China, and what consequences they entail for their own strategies. Are the US and China destined for conflict as Graham Allison suggests? What position will the EU take on this? Is it willing to enter into conflict with China?

The first speaker was Dr. Luis Simón, director of the Research Center for Security, Diplomacy and Strategy (CSDS) at the Institute for European Studies of the Vrije Universiteit. Dr. Simón began his presentation by asking whether Europe is a player in the question of China’s rise or whether it is rather the playground. There is an academic discussion, says Simon, on whether the EU should adopt an “autonomous strategy” to act independently and make decisions that reflect its own interests and values, without being obliged to follow the guidelines or agendas of other players such as the U.S. This approach has been described by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell as the “Sinatra Doctrine”. Thus, to avoid being caught between the US and China, the EU must defend its own values and interests, and use the instruments of power available to it. Simon has warned that China is interested in both dealignment among European countries on how to deal with Beijing, and in preventing EU countries from taking a tougher stance on China. It is therefore essential for the EU not only to achieve a level of autonomy but also to avoid such disunity in EU foreign policy on China.

In the second intervention, Mr. Robert Daly, Director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States began his presentation by highlighting the recent meeting in 2023 between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping in San Francisco, where an appeal was made to have a dialogue and lower the temperature in order to avoid war. However, it should be noted that there are still no signs of this willingness to reconsider its position. Professor Daly has asserted that, in order to understand the friction between the two actors, it is necessary to assume that we are facing a new Cold War. However, what are the Chinese saying about this? While criticizing the U.S. for having a Cold War mentality, they claim that the People’s Republic of China only wants to do what all states that become powers do: transform wealth into more power to defend against possible aggression. With the phrase “The East is rising and the West is declining” uttered by Xi Jinping, Professor Daly concludes that China is accusing the West of entering a phase of decline that misinterprets a rise that, according to the Chinese themselves, is peaceful.

In the last presentation of the panel on geopolitics, Dr. Sarah Kirchberger, Academic Director of the Institute for Security Policy at the University of Kiel, began her presentation by emphasizing that the EU should not be confused with Europe when talking about the view of China’s rise. On the one hand, Kirchberger said, it must be understood that, apart from the EU, it is necessary to analyze how other non-EU countries, such as the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Norway, as well as organizations such as NATO, are dealing with the Chinese issue. Each of these actors has sometimes divergent positions on how to approach China. Dr. Kirchberger has cautioned that some of these divergences are linked to differences in the interests that each actor has in relation to Beijing. In other cases, this difference is related to the lack of knowledge of the area, and it is often ignored how the possibility of a war in the East Asian area is much higher than what is commonly perceived by most European states. Is a new cold war taking place? The expert has stated that we are facing a situation of a new alliance, as Russia and China have cemented relations thanks to the friendship treaty signed in 2013. Faced with the creation of this partnership, it is necessary for the EU not to maintain a neutral position.

Economics Panel

In the second panel on Economics, the session focused on the fact that China’s rise is also as an economic superpower and is challenging the traditional dominance of the EU and the U.S. Some of the initiatives, such as the Belt and Road Initiative, have only increased Beijing’s influence over the global South through a plethora of infrastructure projects between Asia, Africa, and Europe. However, considering all the signs that we could be facing an economic downturn in China, we need to ask ourselves how long the “China moment” of unprecedented economic growth will last. This second panel discussed what economic and trade policies are being adopted by both the EU and the US in response to China’s growth. In addition, some ideas on how these policies could be adapted in the coming years, especially if the Chinese economy eventually stumbles.

The moderator of this second panel, Ms. Celia Cernadas, international journalist, professor, and former correspondent in Washington DC, Catalunya Radio, reminds us that the geopolitical and economic dimensions are two sides of the same coin in the relationship between the three actors. Cernadas points out the relevance of commercial and technological issues in their relationship. Considering that the US and China are the two great economic superpowers, Cernadas warns that trade wars may end up characterizing the dynamics between the three players. The US government’s ban on semiconductor exports to China and the European Commission’s accusation of Chinese funding of electric vehicle production are just some of the examples of these trade frictions in key sectors of the economy, such as raw materials or technology.

To open this second session, Dr. Jan Knoerich, Professor of Political Economy and Institutions at the Lau China Institute, began his presentation by recalling that, despite China’s last forty years of uninterrupted economic growth, becoming the world’s factory and lifting millions of Chinese out of poverty, the country has emerged from the COVID pandemic in a very different situation. Despite growth rates of 5.2% in 2013, these data are not high by Chinese standards and show that the country is going through a difficult situation: a process of capital flight, a process of deflation and a high unemployment rate among young people. As the professor asserts, “The problem is that the difficulties that China’s economy is experiencing seem to be increasingly structural rather than conjunctural”, and he then described what he considers to be the four structural challenges that China is facing. Firstly, the high level of debt in its economy means that there is now insufficient capital to continue investing in public infrastructure, and at the same time, there are problems in the real estate sector. Secondly, China has an increasingly aging population, with very low fertility rates and very high youth unemployment rates. These factors mean that the labor force is no longer an asset to the Chinese economy, but rather a problem because of its social security system. Third, the role of the state in China’s economy, especially in some sectors such as technology, also poses challenges. Finally, geopolitical rivalries are worth noting, as we are facing a strategy of relocating some of China’s investments in countries from Southeast Asia to Africa. Although these attempts at decoupling have not yet had any effect, they will have to be monitored in the coming years, especially now that China has also diversified its trade relations with countries such as Russia. Although in the past China has tried to overcome these difficulties by encouraging domestic consumption, according to the professor this measure has not worked in a country without a culture of consumption and with widespread distrust about the future of the country. As a result, Chinese society continues to save instead of consuming.

The next speaker was Dr. Mary E. Lovely, Anthony M. Solomon Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. She began her talk by reminding us that “many elements of the competition between the U.S. and China also occur in the economic sphere and are essential to the relationship between the two countries.” Dr. Lovely explained to us the approach that the US is taking in economic terms in relation to China, which is also based on the three elements outlined above: invest, align, and compete. It is essential for the U.S. to invest in the development of its own industries or in climate transition, to give just two examples. It is also necessary to establish a strong alliance with Europe through cooperation frameworks such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or the alliance it is building with the Asia-Pacific countries through its Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Finally, it will compete with China in sectors such as finance, reserves, innovation, and information technology, when necessary. On the other hand, it is key to identify how the U.S. can achieve supply chain resilience. According to the professor, this can be achieved through two mechanisms. Firstly, through the relocation of capital (Reshoring) in some key activities such as semiconductors and new energies. This return of capital to the U.S. will also help rebuild the country’s industrial base. The other mechanism is risk reduction (derisking) or the reduction of US overdependence on China. In Dr. Lovely’s words, it is necessary to carry out a “Conscious uncoupling” between the two countries and to start diversifying investments in other partners. Finally, she pointed out deficiencies in the U.S. strategy the underinvestment in the environment, digital trade, and the strategy of mitigating risks (derisking) without completely decoupling, an approach that, according to the professor, is difficult to achieve.

The last speaker of the day was Dr. Françoise Nicolas of the Center for Asian Studies at the Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI). She began by stating that China does not simply represent a challenge, but an existential threat, as Beijing wants to replace Washington in its global leadership role. “The world’s No. 1 position is at stake,” said Dr. Nicolas. This rivalry has manifested itself at the economic level with a technological trade war. On the other hand, she remarked that, although the EU is not conceived as such, it is the world’s leading economic power if we consider it as a bloc. However, it does not have similar political and military power. Therefore, the number 1 position is not at stake as in the case of the USA. In the European case, China represents an economic threat in terms of possible job losses or economic stability. Professor Nicolas then briefly traced the evolution of European policy towards China, recalling that initially “there was no European policy on Beijing”. Some countries have maintained good economic or financial relations with China, while others have maintained a more critical relationship. However, in 2019 everything changed: the EU began to identify China not only as a trading partner, but also as a trade competitor and a “systemic rival”, i.e. a rival with different values than the Europeans. This rivalry is what has prompted the Europeans to have a more coherent approach towards China and to create new instruments to deal with China’s rise, such as the “Derisking China” proposal. Professor Nicolas concluded by pointing out that the EU’s economic strategy towards China is based on the three “P’s”: promote investment, protect itself, and associate with partners.

The day concluded with a speech by Dr. Jacint Jordana, President of IBEI and Professor at Pompeu Fabra University, thanking the organization of the EU-US conference and affirming that this event contributes to making Barcelona a key city for dialogue on international affairs. In addition, Ms. Meritxell Serret, Catalan Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Union, expressed her gratitude for the organization of the event, stressing that it is an honest, open, and critical dialogue.