EU China Summit: Can Europe Chart a True Neutral Path?

EU China Summit: Can Europe Chart a True Neutral Path?

While celebrating 50 years of diplomatic relations, the recent EU-China Summit brings to light a fundamental geopolitical concern: Is there a way for Europe to take a genuinely neutral stand among warring global powers? From the EU side, the summit was attended by the President of China, Xi Jinping alongside EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, EU Council President Charles Michel, and designated EU Council President and rapporteur on EU-China relations, Adina Vălean. The rhetoric was to “enhance communication and cooperation” to foster a more stable world.

The EU-China meeting depicted hints of cooperation but as usual, the central tension that shapes EU-China relations remains to harmonize political divergence and economic cooperation. From the EU side, the need for neutrality is different and more complex than earlier. The region finds itself in a difficult predicament sitting in the middle of a historical allied partnership with the US and a deep economic relationship with China. On the one side, Chinese markets and investments are critical for European economies. On the other side, political values and security considerations increasingly align the EU with Washington. The critical issue is: Is neutrality ever achievable and to what extent is it desirable?

The latest EU actions indicate a drift away from neutrality. The European Commission’s increasing emphasis on “economic security” has given rise to tougher screening of foreign investments and diverted supply chain arrangements, largely aimed, though not named, at cutting dependence on China. In addition, the E.U. has aligned with the U.S. in sounding alarms about human rights in Xinjiang, the Beijing government’s muscle-flexing in the South China Sea and the fate of Taiwan.

And still Europe does not take an openly confrontational position. It is not pushing for complete decoupling, but instead remains vocal in calling for “de-risking” rather than disengagement. This strategic ambiguity demonstrates the EU’s objective to be a geopolitical player with an autonomous decision power, and not just a transatlantic echo.

From China’s vantage point: Europe’s effort to walk a fine line can seem inconsistent, even insincere. Beijing is looking for partners who treat it as an equal, not a competitor to be feared or contained. The Chinese leadership is also anxious about Europe swinging too close to the U.S. geopolitical orbit, particularly after having its face sandpapered by U.S.-led sanctions, technology bans, and military alliances in the Indo-Pacific.

The future of EU-China relations will be determined by whether Europe is able to redefine neutrality as active engagement based on principles, not passive nonalignment. True neutrality these days means being able to defend democratic values and security interests without becoming a mere appendage of Washington or Beijing. It needs Europe to define its own foreign policy, independent and distinct for who it is and what it has to offer the world.

The EU-China Summit, in this light, was not a mere diplomatic ritual. It was a test of Europe’s commitment to being a global counterweight. If Europe can show that it can stand on principles without spiraling into polarization, defend its self-interest while promoting constructive cooperation, then maybe neutrality, in a new form, is still attainable.

But cautious language is not enough, it takes courage, clarity and consistency.