The French president’s three-day state visit to Beijing and Guangzhou ends on Friday. According to Marc Julienne, head of China activities at the Asia center of Ifri, nothing went as planned for the French head of state.
This trip aimed to renew face-to-face dialogue, after three years at a distance due to the health crisis. Emmanuel Macron’s state visit to China ends on Friday April 7 with a stopover in Canton, where he will have dinner one last time with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Accompanied by a large delegation, the French head of state met on several occasions with his counterpart, in particular on the war in Ukraine, alongside the head of European diplomacy Ursula von der Leyen. What can we learn from these exchanges? Franceinfo interviewed Marc Julienne, head of China activities at the East Asia centerFrench Institute for International Relations (Ifri) to answer them.
Franceinfo: Emmanuel Macron had made the war in Ukraine one of the priorities of this trip. What came out of it, in your opinion?
Marc Julienne: Ukraine is an unavoidable subject, but it should not have been put at the top of the agenda. It was illusory to seek a solution to the war from Beijing. All the analyzes were unanimous in saying that Emmanuel Macron would get nothing, and he got nothing. Xi Jinping has no interest in finding a political solution to this conflict, just as he has no interest in supporting Vladimir Putin militarily.
The French president, however, urged him not to deliver weapons to Moscow, as reported by a French diplomat on the spot…
The analysis of the Elysée is not clear on this subject. Is Xi Jinping a potential mediator or potential military support for Russia? It is surprising that we do not know how to make a choice between these two postures. By not understanding China’s position, France is sending a rather negative signal to our partners in terms of credibility. Emmanuel Macron no doubt believed that he could change things and it might be worth a try. But after his attempt to dissuade Valdimir Putin from invading Ukraine, it is a second failure on the diplomatic scene. It’s expensive in terms of image.
Xi Jinping nevertheless said he was ready to call his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky. Is this a sufficient gesture, in your opinion?
It is the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who reported in a press conference, after the meeting with Xi Jinping, that the latter was ready to call the Ukrainian president. And that he would when the conditions were right. He had said it before, just like his statement about the fact that “Nuclear weapons [pouvaient] not be used”. It is a principle of general policy.
Was the presence of Ursula von der Leyen, at the initiative of Emmanuel Macron, a good thing?
It was a good initiative, but nothing went as planned. Between the time when Emmanuel Macron invited her and that of the visit, Ursula von der Leyen gave a lucid and firm speech on March 30 with regard to China. She sent a signal perceived as negative by Beijing and this had two effects: the Chinese were not very happy that she was coming and, by contrast, Emmanuel Macron’s position appeared timorous in the face of that, very confident and demanding, of the President of the European Commission.
Emmanuel Macron nevertheless had the ambition to “be a voice that unites Europe”, which is why he says he invited the President of the European Commission to accompany him…
France claims to be a leading power in Europe, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a driving force in the “Indo-Pacific”. However, it remains deaf and dumb in the face of the paramount security issue in this region, namely stability in the Taiwan Strait. The Elysée had made it known that the question would not be addressed, except at the initiative of China, which is rather surprising. If tomorrow, we can no longer travel through the strait, an international trade route, France will be directly affected. Emmanuel Macron wanted to stay on a positive line, but that will not improve our relations with China, which respects the balance of power.
Didn’t the French president also want to embody a “third way” between the United States and China?
We talk a lot about this third way, indeed. But this can be interpreted as an equidistance of France between the United States and China and this position lacks clarity. Emmanuel Macron spends a lot of time marking his non-alignment with the United States. It’s a good thing, but it’s easier to tell them their four truths, because they are our allies. The problem is that the French president does not do the same with China. We must be just as frank, even severe with Beijing. Disagreements should not be swept under the rug.
Was this French visit, in which many entrepreneurs took part, still profitable from an economic point of view?
Signing contracts for French companies is profitable, yes. But here again, Emmanuel Macron has evaded a very serious subject of concern for France and Europe: the trade deficit with China. Ursula von der Leyen recalled the unequal access to the Chinese market due to protectionism. There is no reciprocity in mutual trade and investment. The French head of state, he remained in a position of VRP of French companies to promote economic ties. But this is a strategic error.