China and the European Union have been trying to negotiate a trade agreement for two years, but talks haven’t seemed to get off the ground. Xiang Yu is the economic and commercial attaché at the Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the European Union. He identifies cultural differences in the way the two parties approach these negotiations and makes a plea for a better understanding and respect of each other’s cultural differences.
Mint Press News (MPN): Do you think China on the one hand and the EU and the US on the other have different visions of the world?
Xiang Yu (XY): The question is interesting. In a broad perspective, I don’t think we have a different view of the world: We share the same basic values. We all hope to live in peace, to enjoy our lives with freedom, to live outside of fear, with prosperity… We also share the idea about democracy. Chinese people want democracy as well, for China and for the rest of the world. The difference, though, may reside in the way we conceive of democracy, in the way we carry it out. Or we may simply be at different stages of evolution and have different priorities. But in the end, the objective is the same: We all want democracy, freedom, peace and prosperity.
MPN: But you think there is a cultural difference in the way the EU and China approach their trade negotiations, for example…
XY: Two years ago or so, our leaders agreed on an EU-China BIT [Bilateral Investment Treaty]. But negotiations have not started yet and we may need a few more months. The EU side has their own way of doing things: They think we should first have a clear idea about the possible results of the negotiations, what kind of topics we are going to talk about, what kind of compromises should be made by the two parties… and only then can we start the negotiations, because then the European Commission can go to European Council to ask for a negotiating mandate.
But in China, we have a very different way of doing things. We think, let’s just sit down and talk. Let’s have an exchange of views on any possible subject that may come up. So we could start negotiating right now. In this way, we could discuss any topic and only during the negotiating process itself will we be able to see which compromises we can make and what aim we can reach. It seems difficult to converge on this point though; it may be a problem between us.
MPN: Did you actually explain this to the EU?
XY: Yes. We discussed it with the person in charge of China at the EU.
MPN: How did they react?
XY: Well, I hope they understand. Each time we talk together, the two parties could maybe share their own point of view and so we could try to find a way out of the stalemate. Each party needs to take a step back so we can try to find a common way of doing things. I think it is quite necessary.
MPN: Do you think the EU has a tendency to impose its own way of doing things?
XY: When two parties decide to negotiate, each side has a tendency to emphasize their own way of doing things — this is quite natural, I think. But in the end, the final result depends on both sides. So, I think each party should have more understanding of the other party’s position. If we keep doing things the way we always have done them, i.e. our own way, there is no negotiation possible. We have to find common rules.
MPN: There is currently some tension between the EU and China because of trade issues. The EU is contemplating opening anti-dumping and anti-subsidies cases against two Chinese telecoms companies and one solar panel company, threatening with sanctions. How do you see this issue?
XY: EU industries are having a difficult time. I can understand that some resort to the EU Commission for help. But their difficulties are not due to so-called Chinese dumping. Before the sovereign debt crisis, European companies were having a good life. The European solar panel industry was receiving subsidies from their governments in the framework of the clean energy effort. But because of the crisis, many governments stopped or cut the subsidies and as a result, the European industry is now in a difficult situation. At the same time, the solar panel industry developed in China, making their lives even more difficult. But they are resorting to the wrong therapy if they cannot strengthen their own competitiveness and only try to exile Chinese products from EU markets.
There is a problem of logic here. Why would an industry dump in another country? What for? This can only exist for a short time, to exclude all other competitors and get the monopolized position for a future price hike; otherwise you end up losing money. What I mean is that it makes no sense to keep doing that for many years. So China has no reason to dump. Chinese industries are competitive. And there is no reason for us to subsidize our industries.
This is a test for both sides’ wisdom to accept a solution that suits both parties. There can be no winner and no loser here, there must be a win-win situation and this should be the least bad solution. The EU and China both want to avoid a further deterioration of relations.
MPN: How does China see the EU in general, the EU’s policies in the world, for example?
XY: I am in charge of trade and commercial issues so foreign policy is beyond my competence. But on the whole, what I can say is that a united Europe is good for China. We support a multipolar world. And the EU could be one of these poles. It may help the international democratization of world affairs.
I can understand the logic of the EU creation. Besides preventing war and disorder in Europe, single member states may feel weak and think they should unite to counterbalance other countries. This is very clear in the trade and investment field. When we negotiate with the EU as a whole, it is a very tough negotiator. And I suppose individual governments are very happy for the EU Commission to take up some issues to try and solve them.
In other sectors, they could be more efficient, because sometimes, we are still confronted with 27 member states. I think deeper integration is good for the EU people and the world. As an Asian, I admire the EU. They enjoy the fruit of integration, they are free from war in the future… Asia has still a long way to go to reach the same situation.
MPN: The United States – and the EU to a lesser extent – seem to be wary of China becoming an ever more important and powerful economic power. What is your reaction to this?
XY: Yes, I have read a few articles in the newspapers about this. I don’t think this reflects reality. China does not represent a threat to the U.S., nor to the world. The United States is the greatest power in the world. But they need to get used to the emergence of other economic powers because it is a natural evolution for middle powers to grow.
I personally believe that being the U.S.’s enemy would be a nightmare, and so does the U.S.: We should be friends. This does not mean that we necessarily should agree or have the same position on everything. We could find common views or common values wherever possible and learn to control our differences.
China does not wish to challenge the world rules, we do not contest the system put in place after the second World War; we want to reform it, yes, but we will do it in a cooperative, constructive way.
MPN: What do you mean by reforming the system? Could you give a concrete example?
XY: The IMF and the World Bank, for example, need new rules and regulations. China should have a louder voice, more voting rights. Voting power in these institutions should reflect the economic reality of the world.
MPN: What about the United Nations?
XY: I hope the UN would be more… democratic. And respect the individual countries’ rights. For example, we have our own political and economic system; and I don’t think that, as a human society, there should be only one single political system. We should accept different political systems that coexist peacefully. No system is perfect and no system is worthless. And in the UN, we should respect each other… maybe now more than ever.
MPN: Leaving apart the discussion on democracy and human rights, the West and China have different cultural orientations: The West, for example, is more individualistic, whereas China is more collectivistic, emphasizing the importance of the group, the community. This can also play a role in the interaction between them, don’t you think so?
XY: First, about democracy and human rights, I would like to mention that they are common objectives. Chinese people certainly want to enjoy them as well. This said, our understanding of these concepts and priorities may be different, but this does not mean we don’t want them.
As for having different cultural orientations, well, you are white, I am yellow, we have a different skin color — it is exactly the same with cultures. There are different cultures in the world. In some, the group, the family is more important; other societies are more individualistic. But this should not be a problem; they can co-exist. One is not better than the other and we don’t need to change one to fit the other. If we want to change the other’s ideas, if we think that because they are not like us they are not happy and we should help them, we are heading towards disaster. There is not one valid way of doing things; one vision should not conquer the whole world. Cultural diversity is natural. We don’t need to change that, while we can learn from each other the advantages of each.
In the United States, for example, I know some congressmen are very critical of China. But I hope they can come to China more often and have more contacts with ordinary Chinese people: They then might have a different view. Person-to-person exchanges may be important for a better mutual understanding.