The Irish Times view on Ireland and China: striking the right balance

The months since China abandoned its zero-Covid policy have seen a succession of European leaders visiting Beijing while senior Chinese diplomats have toured Europe. Europe’s business leaders have returned to China too, in search of fresh contracts after three years of isolation and intermittent lockdown.

As Europe re-engages with China, its leaders are trying to formulate a new strategy for relations with Beijing which have been shaken by a series of bilateral disputes and by sharply different approaches to the war in Ukraine. As tensions between China and the United States intensify, the European Union is considering how it can best protect its own interests and values.

Tánaiste Micheál Martin’s remarks on China to the Royal Irish Academy on Tuesday, the first such speech by a senior Irish political figure in many years, was a contribution to that debate. It endorsed European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s call for diplomatic and economic “de-risking” from China and her rejection of a full-scale, economic decoupling.

The speech was informed by competing interests, including Ireland’s relationships with Washington, with other EU member-states and the European institutions. It reflected Ireland’s role as a free trade advocate within the EU and the central place of multilateralism and the United Nations Charter in the history of the State’s foreign policy.

My friend has a recipe for online success, but he’s not feeling the love

---

New long-life electric car battery with 1.5m-kilometre warranty could spell end of longevity concerns

---

Olaf Scholz asks Chinese president to promote end to Russian war on Ukraine

---

Scholz visits Beijing but tensions simmer on Russia and Gaza

---

Rhetorically, Martin sounded hawkish at times, particularly in his criticism of China’s human rights abuses. He praised Germany’s foreign minister Annalena Baerbock, a critic of China, and rejected French president Emmanuel Macron’s call for European strategic autonomy to avoid being squeezed between Washington and Beijing. On the substance, however, Martin was careful to stress that “de-risking” did not mean turning away from China, adding that the Government would continue to work with Chinese companies established here. And while he said that business and academia should reflect on their relationships with China, he indicated that the Government would not coerce them into any action.

As the EU negotiates its way towards a new China policy, much of the debate will focus on the definition and scope of de-risking and on which sectors need to reduce their dependence on China. Some member-states will seek to protect their national industries by loosening state aid rules, a move that could threaten Ireland’s interests.

The Tánaiste encouraged China to use its influence over Russia to bring the war in Ukraine to a peaceful conclusion. Beijing has made clear that it wishes to play a role in facilitating an end to the conflict, a move that could see China working with EU states to end the war. Such an outcome would do more to improve the relationship between Europe and China than any amount of de-risking and Martin is right to encourage it.