logo
Is it time for Europe to choose China over the US?

Is it time for Europe to choose China over the US?

Al Jazeera20-06-2025

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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate Republicans scramble to pass Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
Senate Republicans scramble to pass Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'

Qatar Tribune

timean hour ago

  • Qatar Tribune

Senate Republicans scramble to pass Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'

Agencies Washington Senate Republicans were racing to pass a budget bill that is pivotal to President Donald Trump's second-term agenda ahead of a self-imposed July 4 deadline. Party leadership have been twisting arms for an initial vote on the 'Big Beautiful Bill' by Saturday afternoon, following the release of its latest version - all 940 pages - shortly after midnight. Republicans have been divided over how much to cut from welfare programmes in order to cover the cost of extending some $3.8tn in Trump tax breaks. The sprawling tax and spending measure narrowly passed the House of Representatives two weeks ago. In a memo sent on Saturday to Senate offices, the White House endorsed the latest revisions to the bill and called for its passage. The memo reportedly warned that failure to approve the budget 'would be the ultimate betrayal'. The latest version of the bill is designed to appease some backbench Republican holdouts. It includes an increase in funding for rural hospitals, after some party moderates argued the original proposal would harm their constituents. Another tweak was made to State and Local Taxes (Salt) - a bone of contention for representatives from high-tax states such as New York. There is currently a $10,000 cap on how much taxpayers can deduct from the amount they owe in federal taxes. In the new bill, Senate Republicans have raised the Salt limit to $40,000 for married couples with incomes up to $500,000 - in line with what the House of Representatives approved. But the latest Senate version ends the $40,000 cap after five years - when it would drop back to $10,000. The legislation still contains some of its core components, including extending tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017, as well as the addition of new cuts that Trump campaigned on, such as a tax deduction on Social Security benefits and the elimination of taxes on overtime work and tips. More contentious measures are also still in place, including restrictions and requirements on Medicaid - a healthcare programme used by millions of elderly, disabled and low-income Americans. Democrats have heavily criticised this piece of the bill, saying it will limit access to affordable healthcare for millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million people would become uninsured due to such Medicaid cuts. Senator Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, took to social media on Saturday to argue the bill contains 'the largest healthcare cuts in history'. Senate Majority Leader John Thune called a possible Saturday vote 'aspirational', and it is still unclear whether Republicans can advance the bill. One Republican senator from Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, told the Fox & Friends programme on Saturday he will be voting 'no', saying he still needed time to read it. 'We just got the bill,' Johnson said. 'I got my first copy at about 01:23 in the morning.'

EU-India FTA set to unlock economic opportunities
EU-India FTA set to unlock economic opportunities

Qatar Tribune

timean hour ago

  • Qatar Tribune

EU-India FTA set to unlock economic opportunities

Agencies Brussels India and the European Union (EU) have nurtured a strong and evolving economic relations rooted in shared democratic values, strong complementarities, and a long-term vision of mutual prosperity. As the global trade architecture undergoes a profound transformation, driven by shifting supply chains, worsening -geopolitical conflicts, and sustainability imperatives, the proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and the EU presents an unparalleled opportunity to redefine their economic partnership in the new global economic order. India's trade engagement with the EU dates back several decades, but the most significant turning point came in 1994 with the signing of the India–EU Cooperation Agreement. This accord laid the foundation for structured political and economic dialogue and paved the way for deeper commercial cooperation. Throughout the 2000s and early 2010s, India liberalized its trade regime and embraced global markets, leading to a surge in trade withthe EU. By 2006, India's exports to the EU stood at approximately $25 billion, and by 2018, they had nearly doubled. The trade basket expanded from traditional textiles and apparel to include pharmaceuticals, chemicals, auto components, and information technology services. Services trade witnessed rapid growth, with India consistently maintaining a surplus, particularly in IT and consulting. In recognition of this economic convergence, negotiations for a Broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA) were launched in 2007. However, due to disagreements over tariff liberalization, intellectual property, and regulatory standards, talks stalled in 2013. Despite the pause, bilateral trade and investment ties remained resilient anddiversified. The post-COVID era provided a renewed impetus to reimagine global partnerships. Recognising the need for resilient supply chains and strategic diversification, India and the EU revived FTA negotiations in 2021. This time, the scope was broader and more forward-looking. Beyond trade in goods, the new talks aimed to cover services, investment protection, e-commerce, data governance, sustainability, and climate cooperation. The momentum received a further boost in March 2024 when India signed a landmark Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA) with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), comprising Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein. The TEPA, India's first FTA with a European economic bloc, is expected to act as a catalyst for the India–EU FTA. In early 2025, diplomatic exchanges intensified with high-level meetings aimed at addressing critical issues impeding the FTA. Discussions focused on India's tariff structures, particularly on automobiles, wines, and dairy products. European concerns about sustainability and climate alignment, and India's expectations around professional mobility and data adequacy. These exchanges underscored a shared political commitment to conclude the agreement, albeit with an understanding of its complexity. India's trade trajectory with the EU over the past decade reflects steady growth trajectory. In the financial year 2014–15, India exported goods worth approximately $49.3 billion from the EU and imported about $48.3 billion with a total trade of $97.3 billion. The bilateral trade in goods expanded substantially with EU in 2024-25 at $136.4 billion showing a growth of more than 40 percent with exports expanding to $75.75 billion and imports at $60 billion with a trade surplus of about $15.75 billion. The top 10 items of exports and imports with EU include include a variety of goods, with machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, and manufactured goods. India's top 10 import items from the EU include machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, manufactured goods, and mineral fuels. Specifically, India imports electrical machinery, organic chemicals, machinery (including nuclear reactors and boilers), mineral fuels, and manufactured goods. India-EU also hold a strong trade trajectory of more than $ 50 billion with India in a trade surplus with EU. The bilateral trade in goods and services is expected to double within the five years of comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with EU Alongside trade, investment flows between India and the EU have expanded considerably. The EU is India's largest source of foreign direct investment (FDI), accounting for nearly 16 percent of total FDI inflows since 2000. As of December 2024, the cumulative EU investment stock in India stood at approximately $119 billion, marking a sharp rise from around $91 billion in 2019. In the fiscal year 2024–25 alone, EU investments in India exceeded $17 billion. These flows have been directed towards high-growth sectors such as automotive manufacturing, renewable energy, pharmaceuticals, and digital infrastructure. Major European companies including Airbus, Siemens, Schneider Electric, and Bosch have not only expanded their Indian footprint but have also actively participated in technology transfers and skill development initiatives. Conversely, Indian investments in the EU have also shown a steady rise, reaching an estimated $11.2 billion by 2024. Indian firms such as Tata Motors, Infosys, Sun Pharma, and Wipro have made strategic investments into the European market through greenfield investments, joint ventures, and acquisitions. These ventures span across sectors such as automotive, life sciences, financial technology, and business consulting. This two-way investment flow reflects growing mutual confidence and underlines the interdependence of the two economies. As of 2025, the India–EU FTA negotiations have entered an advanced phase, though several complex issues are expected to come at conclusions soon. The EU is seeking substantial tariff cuts on sectors like automobiles and alcoholic beverages, India, in return, wants more liberal visa policies, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and assurance on its data protection framework being deemed adequate under EU standards. A particularly contentious issue is the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which imposes levies on carbon-intensive imports such as steel and cement. Despite these challenges, both sides are exploring a phased or modular approach. A possible roadmap involves signing an 'early harvest' agreement covering low-sensitivity sectors such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, machinery, and IT services, followed by gradual liberalization in more sensitive areas. The successful implementation of the India–EFTA TEPA can offer useful lessons and establish trust around dispute resolution, labour standards, and environmental safeguards. Looking ahead, the future of India–EU bilateral economic relations appears promising. The EU is India's second-largest trading partner and a key source of capital, innovation, and clean technology. A comprehensive FTA could potentially double bilateral trade within five years and unlock new areas of cooperation. Digital trade stands out as a particularly promising domain, given India's prowess in IT and the EU's technological depth. Moreover, both partners are committed to climate goals under the Paris Agreement. This opens avenues for collaboration in green hydrogen, solar energy, electric vehicles, and circular economy models. Strategically, the India–EU partnership also serves as a hedge against rising protectionism and supply chain vulnerabilities. Amid growing geopolitical uncertainties, a robust India–EU economic corridor would not only strengthen regional stability but also reinforce global rules-based trade. The FTA, once concluded, could serve as a model for equitable, development-friendly trade agreements between developed and emerging economies. In conclusion, the proposed India–EU Free Trade Agreement holds transformative potential. While there are several hurdles to overcome, the long-term strategic and economic benefits make a compelling case for its early conclusion. A well-designed FTA would not only boost trade and investment but also enhance innovation, sustainability, and geopolitical cooperation. With sustained political will, stakeholder engagement, and creative diplomacy, the India–EU FTA could emerge as a landmark pact, reshaping global trade dynamics and advancing shared prosperity.

Why manufacturing consent for war with Iran failed this time
Why manufacturing consent for war with Iran failed this time

Al Jazeera

time7 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Why manufacturing consent for war with Iran failed this time

On June 22, American warplanes crossed into Iranian airspace and dropped 14 massive bombs. The attack was not in response to a provocation; it came on the heels of illegal Israeli aggression that took the lives of 600 Iranians. This was a return to something familiar and well-practised: an empire bombing innocents across the orientalist abstraction called 'the Middle East'. That night, US President Donald Trump, flanked by his vice president and two secretaries, told the world 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace'. There is something chilling about how bombs are baptised with the language of diplomacy and how destruction is dressed in the garments of stability. To call that peace is not merely a misnomer; it is a criminal distortion. But what is peace in this world, if not submission to the West? And what is diplomacy, if not the insistence that the attacked plead with their attackers? In the 12 days that Israel's illegal assault on Iran lasted, images of Iranian children pulled from the wreckage remained absent from the front pages of Western media. In their place were lengthy features about Israelis hiding in fortified bunkers. Western media, fluent in the language of erasure, broadcasts only the victimhood that serves the war narrative. And that is not just in its coverage of Iran. For 20 months now, the people of Gaza have been starved and incinerated. By the official count, more than 55,000 lives have been taken; realistic estimates put the number at hundreds of thousands. Every hospital in Gaza has been bombed. Most schools have been attacked and destroyed. Leading human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have already declared that Israel is committing genocide, and yet, most Western media would not utter that word and would add elaborate caveats when someone does dare say it live on TV. Presenters and editors would do anything but recognise Israel's unending violence in an active voice. Despite detailed evidence of war crimes, the Israeli military has faced no media censure, no criticism or scrutiny. Its generals hold war meetings near civilian buildings, and yet, there are no media cries of Israelis being used as 'human shields'. Israeli army and government officials are regularly caught lying or making genocidal statements, and yet, their words are still reported as the truth. A recent study found that on the BBC, Israeli deaths received 33 times more coverage per fatality than Palestinian deaths, despite Palestinians dying at a rate of 34 to 1 compared with Israelis. Such bias is no exception, it is the rule for Western media. Like Palestine, Iran is described in carefully chosen language. Iran is never framed as a nation, only as a regime. Iran is not a government, but a threat —not a people, but a problem. The word 'Islamic' is affixed to it like a slur in every report. This is instrumental in quietly signalling that Muslim resistance to Western domination must be extinguished. Iran does not possess nuclear weapons; Israel and the United States do. And yet only Iran is cast as an existential threat to world order. Because the problem is not what Iran holds, but what it refuses to surrender. It has survived coups, sanctions, assassinations, and sabotage. It has outlived every attempt to starve, coerce, or isolate it into submission. It is a state that, despite the violence hurled at it, has not yet been broken. And so the myth of the threat of weapons of mass destruction becomes indispensable. It is the same myth that was used to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. For three decades, American headlines have whispered that Iran is just 'weeks away' from the bomb, three decades of deadlines that never arrive, of predictions that never materialise. But fear, even when unfounded, is useful. If you can keep people afraid, you can keep them quiet. Say 'nuclear threat' often enough, and no one will think to ask about the children killed in the name of 'keeping the world safe'. This is the modus operandi of Western media: a media architecture not built to illuminate truth, but to manufacture permission for violence, to dress state aggression in technical language and animated graphics, to anaesthetise the public with euphemisms. Time Magazine does not write about the crushed bones of innocents under the rubble in Tehran or Rafah, it writes about 'The New Middle East' with a cover strikingly similar to the one it used to propagandise regime change in Iraq 22 years ago. But this is not 2003. After decades of war, and livestreamed genocide, most Americans no longer buy into the old slogans and distortions. When Israel attacked Iran, a poll showed that only 16 percent of US respondents supported the US joining the war. After Trump ordered the air strikes, another poll confirmed this resistance to manufactured consent: only 36 percent of respondents supported the move, and only 32 percent supported continuing the bombardment The failure to manufacture consent for war with Iran reveals a profound shift in the American consciousness. Americans remember the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that left hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis dead and an entire region in flames. They remember the lies about weapons of mass destruction and democracy and the result: the thousands of American soldiers dead and the tens of thousands maimed. They remember the humiliating retreat from Afghanistan after 20 years of war and the never-ending bloody entanglement in Iraq. At home, Americans are told there is no money for housing, healthcare, or education, but there is always money for bombs, for foreign occupations, for further militarisation. More than 700,000 Americans are homeless, more than 40 million live under the official poverty line and more than 27 million have no health insurance. And yet, the US government maintains by far the highest defence budget in the world. Americans know the precarity they face at home, but they are also increasingly aware of the impact US imperial adventurism has abroad. For 20 months now, they have watched a US-sponsored genocide broadcast live. They have seen countless times on their phones bloodied Palestinian children pulled from rubble while mainstream media insists, this is Israeli self-defence. The old alchemy of dehumanising victims to excuse their murder has lost its power. The digital age has shattered the monopoly on narrative that once made distant wars feel abstract and necessary. Americans are now increasingly refusing to be moved by the familiar war drumbeat. The growing fractures in public consent have not gone unnoticed in Washington. Trump, ever the opportunist, understands that the American public has no appetite for another war. And so, on June 24, he took to social media to announce, 'the ceasefire is in effect', telling Israel to 'DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS,' after the Israeli army continued to attack Iran. Trump, like so many in the US and Israeli political elites, wants to call himself a peacemaker while waging war. To leaders like him, peace has come to mean something altogether different: the unimpeded freedom to commit genocide and other atrocities while the world watches on. But they have failed to manufacture our consent. We know what peace is, and it does not come dressed in war. It is not dropped from the sky. Peace can only be achieved where there is freedom. And no matter how many times they strike, the people remain, from Palestine to Iran — unbroken, unbought, and unwilling to kneel to terror. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store