Can China fill the transatlantic void?|Imran Khalid
Europe is experiencing a period of profound strategic turbulence. The erosion of transatlantic relations has left policymakers scrambling to redefine the continentโs role in a rapidly shifting global order. Some European security analysts have gone so far as to argue that a U.S. withdrawal from Europe would be as destabilising as a nuclear strike by Russia. While this assessment may be alarmist, it reflects an undeniable anxiety: the fear that Washington may no longer see Europe as an indispensable partner. Yet, instead of panicking, Europe must face an uncomfortable truth.
The United States is not abandoning its hegemonic role, but rather recalibrating it to serve its own interests more effectively.What Washington seeks is not a full disengagement, but rather an end to what it perceives as Europeโs cost-free ride under the American security umbrella. This new dynamic is forcing European leaders to rethink their foreign policy โ not just in relation to the United States, but also in terms of potential alternatives.
Since the end of World War II, the United States has maintained an intricate hegemonic structure with Europe at its core, anchored in military security, economic control, and political influence. But maintaining this system has become increasingly costly. Washingtonโs debt is rising, its global commitments are stretched thin, and domestic sentiment is shifting towards a more transactional approach to diplomacy.
Under the doctrine of โAmerica First,โ every international relationshipโwhether with allies or adversaries โ is now viewed through a pragmatic cost-benefit lens. Europe, long accustomed to the predictability of transatlantic solidarity, is realising that its strategic importance is now measured in financial and military contributions rather than historical
The Biden administration has maintained much of this policy framework, and following Donald Trumpโs return to the White House, the trajectory has accelerated tremendously.
The war in Ukraine has been a defining moment for transatlantic relations. Recently, renowned American economist Jeffrey Sachs labeled the conflict a โproxy warโ during a speech at the European Parliament, arguing that Washingtonโs approach has deepened Europeโs vulnerabilities. More strikingly, Sachs warned that Europe should resist the temptation to treat China as an enemy. The fact that such a message was not only delivered but also tolerated in a European forum suggests a growing openness to reassessing strategic alignments.
For years, European policymakers have clung to the belief that NATO has โnever been more united.โ But behind closed doors, tensions are growing. Washingtonโs priorities do not always align with Europeโs long-term interests. The prolonged conflict with Russia has drained European resources, severed economic ties with Moscow, and entrenched geopolitical animosities.
And yet, Europe remains uncertain about where its strategic autonomy should be anchored: in Brussels or in Washington?
Some European leaders argue that the continent must remain an integral player in the U.S.-China competition, convincing Washington that Europeโs unique value lies in shaping global dynamics. However, the United States has remained largely indifferent to these overtures. The message from Washington is clear: Europe must contribute more if it wants continued American security guarantees. This realisation has prompted a broader debate โ should Europe look beyond Washington for its strategic future? One of the fundamental tensions in transatlantic relations is the divergence in diplomatic approaches.
Europe has long championed a โvalues-based foreign policy,โ emphasising human rights, multilateralism, and rule-of-law principles. The United States, on the other hand, is increasingly embracing โtransactional diplomacy,โ where alliances are subject to economic and security calculations. This shift is particularly evident in Washingtonโs approach to NATO. The U.S. is making it clear that the transatlantic alliance is no longer about shared values โ it is about price tags.
This was evident at the recent Munich Security Conference, where the dominant question was no longer how to strengthen NATO, but rather who will lead Europe in an era of American unpredictability. Some argue that Germany should assume a more assertive leadership role, while others lament Britainโs absence from the European Union. But perhaps the most striking question raised at the conference was whether China could emerge as Europeโs new strategic partner.
As U.S.-European relations fray, China has moved with calculated precision to present itself as a reliable and stable alternative. The contrast with Washingtonโs erratic approach could not be starker. While the United States redefines its global priorities, China is offering Europe a vision of continuity and cooperation. Chinaโs engagement is not passive โ it is a deliberate strategy designed to position Beijing as an indispensable actor in global stability.
Unlike Trumpโs approach, which emphasises bullying and confrontation, China is positioning itself as a partner willing to engage in economic and strategic dialogue. And while European leaders remain wary of Beijingโs geopolitical ambitions, the economic incentives are difficult to ignore.
Washingtonโs trade wars, particularly its push to restrict Chinese technological influence, have placed Europe in a difficult position. The United States expects European alignment in containing Chinaโs rise, particularly in critical sectors like electric vehicles and digital infrastructure. But can Europe afford to fully embrace Washingtonโs containment strategy when its own economic interests are at stake? Europeโs challenge is not merely one of alliance management โ it is about defining its own agency in an evolving world order.
The Trump administrationโs approach to Ukraine, including Vice President J.D. Vanceโs speech in Munich, has sent a chilling message to European capitals: the U.S. commitment to European security is no longer guaranteed. By opening direct negotiations with Vladimir Putin, Trump has raised the possibility that Europeโs decades-old security arrangement is being rewritten without its input.
In response, French President Emmanuel Macron and British PM Starmer are trying hard to engage the fellow European leaders to find a unified response. But the question remains: does Europe have the political will to chart its own course? If the continent wants to maintain its influence, it must define its foreign relations based on its own strategic interests rather than external expectations. Chinaโs growing engagement with Europe is not about replacing the United States โ it is about filling the gaps left by Washingtonโs shifting priorities.
Beijingโs recent discussions about aligning its Belt and Road Initiative with the EUโs Global Gateway Strategy are not just symbolic gestures; they represent a real opportunity for Europe to diversify its strategic partnerships. Europe faces a choice: continue relying on a transatlantic alliance that is becoming increasingly conditional, or explore a new balance that includes greater engagement with China. The path forward is uncertain, but one thing is clear โ Europeโs future cannot be dictated by Washington alone.
Credit:The Guardian