When dealing with China, grandstanding gets the EU nowhere

Ursula von der Leyen’s relations with China have been characterised by a confrontational and critical tone, with little to show for it.

In recent years, high-ranking EU officials have found themselves compelled to highlight obvious differences between our political systems when engaging with Chinese counterparts. Yet their approach raises certain questions: Do these statements serve to promote democracy in China? Is the public sphere the appropriate venue for such denunciations? Are they directed at the Chinese government or the Chinese people? Or are European politicians making these statements to garner media attention and appease their future European voters?

China’s population is finding the Western democratic model increasingly less appealing. Following the US role in the Iraq War and now the Iran war – along with numerous other situations that have weakened democracies worldwide – EU protests about the lack of democracy or human rights violations in China are perceived by a large part of the population as an affront. This is seen as a double standard and only serves to reinforce anti-Western Chinese nationalism.

People in China harbour a range of political sensibilities. Some yearn for internal democratisation of the Chinese Communist Party while others see the need for a strong central authority. The legitimacy of the Party is rarely questioned, and Party cadres are highly educated – more so than many members of European democratic parties.

On top of this, China is a mass society that has for centuries been under the rule of a strong, centralised power. Many people prioritise stability and security over greater freedom, which can also bring undesirable consequences. The majority of the population would favour a rule of law that guarantees equality before the law and greater judicial independence from the Party, without this implying direct elections for top political leaders, as China remains sceptical that democracy is a guarantee of better governance.

Given the size of China’s population and its significance on the world stage, what measures should EU officials take in their engagement with China?

Modes of communication are shaped by customs, habits, and values that develop over centuries. European communication reflects practices that date back to the classical period of Athenian democracy (6th-4th centuries BC). Those who wished to gain or maintain power were the ones who spoke, trying to persuade their audience with their principles and arguments.

The tradition of European political communication unfolds in a public arena, with open demonstrations and monologues. Traditional Chinese communication, by contrast, has taken place in private settings, in the form of dialogue, and with a small number of participants.

While direct speech is valued in Europe, indirect speech is highly regarded in China. The goal is not to persuade a subordinate but an equal or a superior. For this reason, direct language is considered indicative of a lack of culture and good manners.

To express an opinion that differs from that of your interlocutor, one must find ways to express disagreement elegantly, to the point of being able to win the sympathy of the person one wishes to contradict. Furthermore, indirect speech requires leaving nothing to chance and attending to each and every detail in the communication process.

Does this mean that human rights or the rule of law should not be discussed with China? Of course not, but a greater understanding of its traditions of communication is essential. For words to have any effect, discussions must take place in a cordial atmosphere, away from cameras and microphones. Unproductive public pronouncements should be avoided in favour of engaging in more productive discussions.

Taciana Fisac ​​is a professor of Chinese language and literature at the Autonomous University of Madrid (Spain). She first travelled to China in 1978 and has followed China’s developments closely ever since.