Is it time for Europe to choose China over the US?
As Donald Trump barrels through his second term in the White House, Europe faces a question it has long avoided: Should it continue clinging to its alliance with the United States, or is it time to chart a new course – perhaps one that leads eastwards?
In April, Chinese President Xi Jinping urged Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez to encourage the European Union to 'resist together' against Washington's 'unilateral coercion'. This coercion is not limited to trade; it extends to politics, culture and global strategy. For Europe, the question is not simply whether the US remains a powerful ally but whether it is still the right one.
A closer relationship with China now offers distinct advantages – an idea likely to be discussed at the EU-China summit in July. While European attitudes towards China remain cautious, as demonstrated by recent tariffs targeting low-cost imports from platforms like Temu and Shein, Europe's strategic reflex still defaults to the US, especially in finance and defence. That reflex, born of history, is increasingly out of step with Europe's long-term interests.
The US has long pursued a consistent global aim: to preserve its position as the world's sole superpower. But under President Trump, US global leadership has taken a darker turn. Basic democratic principles are being eroded. Human rights, academic freedom and social justice have come under sustained assault. From unconditional support for Israel's devastating assault on Gaza – widely condemned as a genocide – to greenlighting a newly launched war on Iran, mass deportations and the dismantling of university funding, Trump's United States is actively undermining the values it once claimed to champion.
China, of course, has its own challenges. It lacks press freedom, censors dissent and tightly controls public discourse. But is the democratic West still so different? In an information landscape dominated by a handful of tech billionaires, platforms like X and Facebook amplify misinformation and conspiracy theories while marginalising serious public debate. The treatment of whistleblowers such as Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden further suggests that truth itself has become a threat to what now passes as American democracy rather than a foundation of it.
Europe must also confront the economic and political model it shares with the US. Democracy, once a source of pride, increasingly functions as ideological cover for oligarchy – rule by and for the few. Trump embodies this shift, treating democratic norms as obstacles to unending accumulation. But he is not alone in this. Across the West, wealth is increasingly concentrated and politics increasingly unresponsive to the needs of most of its people.
The contrast between Washington and Beijing in foreign affairs also warrants attention. China maintains one overseas military base, in Djibouti, and a handful of small support outposts. The US, by contrast, operates more than 750 military installations worldwide. That vast footprint may soon serve Trump's revived imperial imagination: He recently shared a video envisioning Gaza as the 'Riviera of the Middle East' after saying its Palestinian residents would be resettled elsewhere. China, meanwhile, opposed such forced displacement and reaffirmed the Palestinian right to resist foreign occupation.
China is also becoming an increasingly attractive destination for education. With more than 3,000 universities serving over 40 million students, its system is both expansive and accessible. Tuition ranges from $1,500 to $3,000 a year, in stark contrast to the $40,000 charged by many US institutions. Universities like Tsinghua are gaining global recognition for high-impact research. And while these institutions operate under strict censorship, they remain a serious alternative – especially as US campuses now face student repression, visa crackdowns and mounting political interference.
Why, then, does the EU remain tethered to an alliance that increasingly undermines its values and interests?
The truth is that Europe is not yet politically sovereign. It lacks a unified economy, military, tax system and labour market. From north to south, east to west, the continent is fragmented – linguistically, culturally and politically. In a 2017 speech at the Sorbonne, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of 'European sovereignty'. But that is precisely what Europe still lacks: the ability to evaluate its interests independently and form alliances accordingly.
Until that sovereignty becomes reality, any talk of shifting alliances – however urgent – remains largely theoretical. China is prepared for a new era of cooperation. Europe, paralysed by internal division and outdated loyalties, is not. Yet Trump's United States is doing everything it can to make the eventual choice for Europe clearer by the day.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
EU squeezes Russia financially to reach ‘peace through strength' in Ukraine
The European Commission floated a plan last week to phase out all Russian gas imports by the end of 2027. The plan, unveiled on Tuesday at the end of the Group of Seven summit in Canada's Kananaskis resort, would immediately ban new contracts to buy Russian gas. It would allow existing short-term contracts to run their course by next June, and cut short any long-term contracts at the end of 2027. 'To achieve peace through strength, we must put more pressure on Russia to secure a real ceasefire, to bring Russia to the negotiating table, and to end this war,' said Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. 'Sanctions are critical to that end.' Russia unleashed 32 missiles and 440 drones on Kyiv as the plan was unveiled, killing 26 people and injuring 134. The attack damaged railway infrastructure and lit fires. Odesa was also hard hit. '[Russian president Vladimir] Putin is doing this deliberately – right during the G7 summit. It's a clear signal of total disrespect toward the United States and other partners calling for an end to the violence,' said Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha. Putin had done the same right after a phone call with Trump on Sunday, sending 183 strike drones and 11 missiles of different types into Ukraine. The European Union has dramatically reduced its imports of Russian energy during the war – by almost 80 percent, according to the commission. But it still spent about 22 billion euros ($25bn) buying 19 percent of its gas and about 3 percent of its oil from Russia last year. The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air recently estimated that eliminating that revenue would deprive the Kremlin of 22 percent of its gross revenues. Hungary and Slovakia have been the main holdouts, arguing against an outright import ban. They argue that being landlocked, they have few alternatives to Russian oil and gas. Slovak premier Robert Fico called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy 'an enemy of Slovakia' in January because Ukraine shut down the Yamal pipeline that carries Russian gas across Ukraine to Slovakia. The only remaining functional Russian pipeline to Europe is TurkStream. The day before the commission's announcement, Hungary vetoed a statement of support for the ban. The EU banned Russian coal and oil imports in 2022, and has since planned to ban gas. The EU and G7 in December 2022 also launched a $60 per barrel price cap on Russian oil sold to anyone else in the world, by threatening to uninsure tankers selling above that price. 'It is no secret that we wanted the price to be lower,' Estonian then-premier Kaja Kallas, now the EU's foreign policy chief, wrote on Twitter. 'A price between 30-40 dollars is what would substantially hurt Russia,' she said. There was speculation that the EU and G7 would lower the cap to $45 this week. That's because even if the EU were to stop buying Russian energy, Moscow would still make an estimated 215 billion euros ($248bn) from sales to others. But the EU announced it was shelving the plan due to rising energy prices – partly the effect of Israel's war on Iran. The current $60 cap 'had little effect' while oil was cheap, 'but in the last days, we have seen that the oil price has risen [and] the cap in place does serve its function,' von der Leyen told reporters on the sidelines of the G7 meeting. 'So for the moment, there's little pressure on lowering the oil price cap.' Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy disagreed. 'If Russian oil is sold at no more than $30 a barrel, then Moscow will suddenly sound peaceful,' he wrote on the Telegram messaging platform. That is estimated to be Russia's cost of extraction, leaving it no profit margin to help it prosecute wars. Russia partly circumvented the oil cap by purchasing a 'shadow fleet' of tankers not insured in EU and G7 countries. On Tuesday, the UK sanctioned 20 tankers in addition to 100 last month. The next day, Australia imposed restrictions on 60 vessels, its first targeted sanctions strike on the shadow fleet. On Friday, US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he and Democrat Richard Blumenthal were working with the Trump administration to finalise a sanctions package that would impose secondary sanctions on countries that still import Russian energy. 'We now have more than 84 co-sponsors in the Senate and 70 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives on a bill to impose severe sanctions and tariffs on Russia and its financial backers,' Graham wrote in a column. That figure was up from 50 senators on April 1. Trump has opposed sanctions, preferring to cajole rather than confront Putin. Zelenskyy decried that approach in an interview with US outlet Newsmax on Saturday. 'Today, America's dialogue with the Russians resembles a warm conversation,' he said. 'Let's be frank: this will not stop Putin. A change of tone is needed. Putin must clearly understand that America will stand by Ukraine, including by imposing sanctions and supporting our army.' Politico reported on Thursday that the EU was also considering transferring about 200 billion euros in frozen Russian assets from the Euroclear system in Belgium to a 'special purpose fund'. Currently, Euroclear can only invest through the Belgian central bank, which is safe but offers low returns. The new fund would be allowed to make riskier investments, potentially increasing income that could be directed to support Ukraine. Russia has continued to assault Ukrainian positions over the past week, making tiny gains. Zelenskyy told Bild last week that Ukrainian and Russian forces were in day 18 or 19 of a Russian offensive designed to create a breakthrough. The Ukrainian side had defeated a key section of the Russian advance, preventing Russian units from coming together, he said. Russian troops seized the village of Horikhove in Ukraine's eastern Donetsk region on Saturday. That, and other Russian incremental gains, have come at a great cost to life. Britain's Defence Intelligence on June 12 estimated that Russia had suffered a million casualties in the war, of whom 40-50 percent were likely irrecoverable losses – killed, missing and presumed dead or irrevocably wounded. Some 200,000 of those casualties were estimated to have been inflicted in the first five months of this year, suggesting that Russia's casualty rate is rising. The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, broke down Russian casualties and found they have roughly doubled each year of the war. Based on Ukrainian General Staff figures, it estimated that in 2022, Russian forces sustained 340 casualties a day, rising to 693 casualties a day in 2023 and 1,177 casualties a day in 2024. This year, Russian daily casualties have averaged 1,286.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US appeals court rules Trump can keep control of California National Guard
A United States appeals court has ruled the administration of President Donald Trump could keep control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom. The decision on Thursday comes against a backdrop of heightened tensions in California's largest city, which has become ground zero of Trump's immigration crackdown across the US. In a 38-page unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel said Trump was within his rights earlier this month when he ordered 4,000 members of the National Guard into service for 60 days to 'protect federal personnel performing federal functions and to protect federal property'. 'Affording appropriate deference to the President's determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalising the National Guard,' the panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeal said. Trump, a Republican, had appointed two of the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel while his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, had named the third, according to US media reports. Last week, a lower court judge had ordered Trump to return control of the California National Guard to Newsom, saying the president's decision to deploy them during protests over federal immigration detentions in Los Angeles was 'illegal'. That decision by US District Judge Charles Breyer on June 12 prompted the appeal. On Thursday night, Trump hailed the appeal court's decision in a post on his Truth Social social media platform, calling it a 'BIG WIN'. 'All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,' Trump wrote. The state of California had argued that Trump's order was illegal because it did not follow the procedure of being issued through the governor. It was the first time since 1965 that a US president deployed the National Guard over the wishes of a state governor. The judges said Trump's 'failure to issue the federalisation order directly 'through' the Governor of California does not limit his otherwise lawful authority to call up the National Guard'. But they said the panel disagreed with the defendant's primary argument that the president's decision to federalise members of the California National Guard 'is completely insulated from judicial review'. 'Nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,' it wrote in its opinion. Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added. The governor could raise those issues at a court hearing on Friday in front of Breyer, it also said. In a social media post after the decision, Newsom promised to pursue his challenge. 'Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law,' he wrote. 'Tonight, the court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court. 'We will not let this authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens go unchecked.'
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US police use tear gas on protesters at immigration facility
US police use tear gas on protesters at immigration facility NewsFeed US police use tear gas on protesters at immigration facility Police in the US city of Portland used tear gas and stun grenades to disperse protesters outside an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility.
