By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a visit to Beijing, the Spanish Prime Minister affirmed China’s crucial role in global stability and Middle East peace efforts, while simultaneously forging 19 bilateral agreements to deepen economic ties. He emphasized a “strategic dialogue,” urging China to view Spain and Europe as partners for investment and cooperation, and advocated for a pragmatic, pro-European approach to relations with Beijing. The Prime Minister also called for increased Chinese involvement in resolving global conflicts and shaping the international order.
Read the original article here
Spain’s move to bolster ties with China, particularly by endorsing Beijing’s burgeoning role in the Middle East, has sparked considerable debate and apprehension within the broader European and global political landscapes. This development arrives at a critical juncture for the European Union, which finds itself navigating a complex web of international challenges, from geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe to instability in the Middle East. In this context, China, for many observers, stands out as a significant global power that is not openly antagonizing Europe, unlike other major players. However, this perception is tempered by concerns over China’s tacit support for Moscow and its own ambitions for economic dominance.
The current international climate presents a stark reality where traditional alliances and power dynamics are being re-evaluated. Spain’s proactive engagement with China, especially its willingness to see Beijing play a more active part in Middle Eastern affairs, suggests a strategic recalibration. This move, for some, indicates a broader trend within the EU where countries are beginning to prioritize their own national interests and seek diversified international partnerships, a practice often associated with globalization. This approach, however, is not without its critics, who point to the human cost of geopolitical shifts, such as the impact on Ukraine due to China’s complex relationship with Russia.
The implications of Spain’s actions are seen by some as potentially fracturing the EU further, rather than strengthening it. There’s a palpable sense that this isn’t merely a diplomatic maneuver to counterbalance other global powers, but a move that could deepen existing divisions within Europe. Spain’s recent foreign policy decisions, including a perceived lack of robust support for Ukraine and its financial commitments to NATO, are often cited as precursors to this more independent stance. China, meanwhile, has been systematically cultivating a vision of a multipolar world order, working diligently on both its domestic and international strategies to achieve this goal.
A particularly contentious aspect of Spain’s burgeoning relationship with China is its vocal stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Spain has been among the more prominent European nations to accuse Israel of committing genocide. This position, juxtaposed with its increasing engagement with China – a nation also accused of committing genocide against its Uyghur population – has raised eyebrows and drawn sharp criticism from various quarters. The perceived hypocrisy or at least the strategic inconsistency of aligning with a state facing similar accusations is a significant point of contention for many.
These developments have led some to question the leadership within Spain, with criticisms leveled against Prime Minister Sánchez for his perceived pursuit of alliances with authoritarian regimes. Following attempts to forge closer ties with Russia and a complex, at times strained, relationship with the United States, the move towards a deeper partnership with China is seen by these critics as a further departure from democratic principles and a potentially risky geopolitical gamble. The prevailing sentiment among some is that European nations should be actively distancing themselves from authoritarian powers and instead focusing on strengthening alliances with democratic partners.
The narrative emerging is one of European nations, seemingly disillusioned with existing power structures, seeking alternative partnerships. Germany’s long-standing economic ties with China are often referenced as a precedent, suggesting that Spain might be following a similar path, even if it diverges from the interests of the United States. This trend fuels concerns about the EU’s ability to maintain a cohesive foreign policy and its potential to be increasingly influenced by actors with fundamentally different values and long-term objectives. The perception of a lack of backbone in the Spanish government’s international dealings further amplifies these anxieties.
An alternative perspective suggests that instead of relying on a single “sugar daddy” superpower, a coalition of middle-ground economies could collectively assert their independence from both the US and China. This vision speaks to a desire for a more balanced global order, where smaller and medium-sized powers have a greater say. However, the current trajectory, as exemplified by Spain’s actions, seems to be leading towards a different kind of entanglement, one that some believe is ultimately detrimental to European interests and global stability.
The idea of outside countries “meddling” in the Middle East, a region already fraught with complexity, is met with skepticism and a sense of déjà vu. When combined with Spain’s strong anti-US and anti-Israel sentiments, its outreach to China is seen by some as a contradictory or at least a poorly conceived strategy. While the intention might be to distance itself from perceived missteps by the US and Israel, the chosen path of aligning with China is viewed by many as an even more perilous one, particularly given China’s own assertive global agenda.
For some, the current international landscape forces pragmatic choices, even if those choices involve engaging with regimes that are less than ideal. The argument is made that China, despite its flaws, might be a more predictable and reliable trading partner than a US perceived as having “gone totally insane.” This utilitarian view suggests that dealing with a “somewhat evil regime” is preferable to navigating the unpredictable actions of a “complete madman.” However, this pragmatic approach is met with strong opposition from those who believe that cooperating with authoritarian powers, especially on sensitive areas like military technology, is inherently dangerous.
The notion that Spain is cooperating with China on developing military technology, potentially to be supplied to Iran, presents a grave concern for those who view this as a direct threat to international security and, by extension, to American troops in the region. This perspective highlights a deep distrust of both China’s intentions and Spain’s strategic decision-making. Conversely, some argue that this is a necessary assertion of sovereignty, a move to shake off perceived American hegemony, especially in the wake of past US foreign policy decisions.
The assertion that the unipolar world order is over and that we are now in a multipolar chess game is a common theme among those who support Spain’s actions. This view posits that engaging with China is a sensible step towards navigating this new reality. However, there are whispers of internal dissent within Spain regarding Prime Minister Sánchez’s policies, suggesting that his embrace of China might not be universally popular within his own country. The overarching desire for the EU to chart its own course and become a significant global power is a recurring sentiment, with the idea of the EU as a “third player” gaining traction.
The challenge for the EU, as articulated by many, lies in its ability to achieve genuine superpower status. This would require significant sacrifices, including potentially drastic cuts to social programs to fund military investments – a politically unpalatable prospect for most European leaders. Without this fundamental shift, the EU is seen as vulnerable, a “sitting duck” to be exploited by major global powers. The idea that China is merely “kinda” backing Moscow is dismissed as naive, with many seeing a more deliberate and self-serving alignment.
When it comes to China’s economic ambitions, the distinction between political dominance and basic economics is often blurred in these discussions. The argument is that China’s pursuit of economic profit, while seemingly normal, is intertwined with its broader geopolitical strategy. This necessitates that competitors, including the EU, must elevate their own offerings to remain competitive, ultimately benefiting consumers. However, the risks of aligning too closely with China are highlighted, with reminders of its aggressive rhetoric towards Japan and its human rights record concerning the Uyghurs and Tibetans.
The perception that China is actively working to “own” Europe, rather than merely threatening it, underpins many of the concerns about closer ties. China’s alleged fueling of Iran with more weapons is seen as a direct contributor to instability. Some suggest that the best course of action for the EU and Canada is to support a return to a pro-democracy, pro-Western United States, advocating for internal reforms to prevent future political volatility. The long-term strategy of China and its potential to “fuck the EU” is a fear that looms large for many observers.
There’s a nuanced view on China’s involvement in the Ukraine conflict, with some arguing that China’s support for Russia is primarily driven by its own interests, not necessarily a full-fledged alliance. This perspective suggests that China invests in resources and supplies technology, including drones, to both sides, aiming to profit from the situation. While acknowledging China’s crucial role in sustaining Russia’s war effort through material and technological support, some also point out that many Chinese citizens support Ukraine and that China itself is not a wealthy nation. The ability of China to “physically do anything to Europe” is questioned, but its economic leverage is seen as significant.
The economic actions of China are interpreted by some as not just about enrichment through globalization but as a form of economic domination, evident in its actions in Iran and Ukraine. This stands in contrast to the view that China’s extensive manufacturing network is simply a result of investing in itself. The notion of the United States as the sole superpower is challenged, with the assertion that China is actively working to fragment the EU by engaging with individual countries rather than the bloc as a whole, making them easier to influence and exert pressure on.
The critique of Prime Minister Sánchez as a “moron” in international politics is stark, with a contrasting argument that the EU needs to federalize, with Spain potentially at its helm, and ally with China, which is deemed the “most responsible world power today.” This is a highly controversial viewpoint, particularly given the context of Russia’s actions in Europe and China’s own geopolitical posture. The idea that supporting a country backing insecurity in Europe through Russia is not in China’s own interest is presented, suggesting a disconnect between actions and stated goals.
The observation that Spain is popular on Reddit for other stances, leading to praise for its actions, is noted, implying a potential disconnect between online sentiment and real-world geopolitical implications. The complex relationship between China, Ukraine, and Russia is highlighted, with data showing China as Ukraine’s top trade partner. This dependence is attributed to the EU’s inability to produce materials cheaply enough, forcing Ukraine to source drone components from China, even for its own domestic production. This intricate economic reliance explains why Ukraine has avoided harsh criticism of China, despite its vital role in sustaining Russia’s war effort.
The internal political dynamics within Spain are also brought to the fore, with mention of coalition parties within Sánchez’s government having previously voted against condemning Russia, tightening sanctions, or granting Ukraine EU candidate status. This suggests a broader reluctance within parts of the Spanish government to fully align with the Western consensus on Russia and Ukraine. The perceived coddling of Europe is a significant point of critique, with the notion that Ukraine is fighting Europe’s war against Russia, while some in Europe are contemplating a world order involving China, Iran, and Russia. The impatience with this perceived paralysis, even in the face of potential shifts in US leadership, is palpable.
The contrast between the relative peace experienced in countries like Finland and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is used to illustrate the sacrifices being made by Ukraine for the perceived security of Europe. Questions are raised about what Ukraine can realistically expect, especially if China’s actions negatively impact its energy supply. The characterization of Ukraine as not being part of the EU and being run by “socialist lunatics,” though controversial, reflects a certain cynical view of its political landscape and the country’s current predicament. The projection that Spain is creating difficult times for itself and will eventually face a reckoning is also put forth.
The comparison to Latin America’s past experiences of being “bullied” by the US is drawn, suggesting a historical pattern of power imbalances that Spain might be trying to navigate differently. Spain’s existing relationship with figures like Erdogan, who frequently threatens Greece, is also noted, adding another layer of complexity to its foreign policy. The argument that the EU has achieved a high quality of life under NATO and US hegemony is presented as a foundational point, suggesting that this should not be dismissed lightly.
However, the core lesson is seen as the need for “middle countries” to turn inwards and towards each other to create a balance against the major superpowers. The perceived lack of genuine cooperation among European nations, such as France’s insufficient integration with the rest of Europe, is pointed out as a missed opportunity. While a federal Europe with reduced state sovereignty is desired, the current reality of being subject to external influences and internal divisions makes the pursuit of “business on the side” with actors like China seem, to some, a pragmatic necessity. The long-standing and strong ties between Germany and China are also reiterated, suggesting that Spain’s approach might be an “Indian way” of befriending all while maintaining independence.