During his address to the Munich Security Conference over the weekend, Wang stuck to this approach. On the war in Ukraine, he reiterated Beijing’s position that it “adopts a responsible attitude towards international disputes and plays a constructive role in accordance with the merits of the matter itself”. As such, “China’s policy on the Ukraine issue boils down to one sentence: persuasion and talks”, which would form the basis of a soon-to-be-released Chinese position paper “on the political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis”.
Prompted for more details on this during Q&A, Wang provided little that was new. Rather, the MSC audience was treated to the familiar talking points that resolution of the war must be based on respect of the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries”, the “principles of the UN Charter” and consideration of “the legitimate security concerns of all countries” party to the conflict.
However, this did provide an opening for Wang to take both a swipe at Washington and attempt to encourage Europeans to seek and grasp “strategic autonomy” (i.e. lessen their reliance on the United States). “Some people”, Wang suggested, “do not want peace talks to succeed or fighting to stop” as they “don’t care about the life and death of Ukrainians or the harm done to Europe, but have larger strategic calculations in mind”. In this situation, Wang continued, “We hope European friends will give sober thought to these questions: what kind of efforts are needed to stop the war? What kind of architecture is needed for peace and stability to endure in Europe? What kind of role does Europe need to play to realise its strategic autonomy?”.
Wang’s approach however is constrained by two major factors: an over-estimation of European capitals’ desire to remain at arm’s length from deepening Sino-US rivalry and an under-estimation of the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on European security postures and perceptions. While European capitals are, as one analyst put it, “uncomfortable with some of the more hawkish rhetoric toward China that is coming out of Washington these days, notably in relation to Taiwan”, Beijing “should know better than to try to woo Europe by bashing the United States” at a time when European security concerns are firmly focused on Russia’s war against Ukraine.
That European capitals would now distance themselves from Washington appears a vanishingly small possibility, especially as Beijing is currently offering little in return on the most pressing security issue for Europe: the war in Ukraine. In fact, for some European capitals, Beijing is an increasingly problematic actor on here given evidence that Chinese companies and entities have been a major source of dual-use technology and components for Russia in the face of US and EU sanctions.
Beijing’s continuing effort to maintain the pose of “principled neutrality” on the war in Ukraine is thus of diminishing utility in its relations with Europe and should Blinken’s assertion that China may provide Russia with “lethal aid” come to pass, China’s relations with Europe may enter the same territory as Sino-US relations.