The EU plans to convene an Indo-Pacific summit in Brussels, inviting foreign ministers from more than 70 countries to participate. Surprisingly, neither the Chinese nor the U.S. foreign minister was invited to the summit. This decision has aroused widespread concern and questioning. The explanation for EU diplomacy** is that China has not sought cooperation in line with their Indo-Pacific concept and was therefore not invited. This has led to reflections on the so-called "Indo-Pacific concept" of Europeans, which seems to involve an ancient concept: "national liberation movements".
The national liberation movement refers to the struggle of colonial and semi-colonial peoples for national independence and liberation. During this historical period, especially from the end of World War II to the 90s of the last century, colonies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America became independent one after another, and a number of new national independent states emerged. In the context of this period, China became one of the most successful examples, not only winning independence, but also becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council, with a political status that surpassed that of the vast majority of European countries.
The EU's choice to dominate the Indo-Pacific summit without inviting China and the United States may have something to do with their understanding of the national liberation movement. In the past collapses, the United States played an important role in supporting the independence of many colonies. And the European powers were clearly not grateful for the collapse of this period. With this, the hegemony of the United States and the reorganization of the world's resources displeased Europe, so the EU did not invite the United States at the Indo-Pacific summit, perhaps out of concern about American intervention.
This move to exclude China and the United States seems meaningless on a practical level. The past two EU-led Indo-Pacific summits have failed to produce substantive results, and the United States has shown contempt for the lack of representation at the first summit. China has also not shown any importance to the summit, perhaps because of the EU's long-standing anti-China stance, and its participation may be targeted.
The EU's discussions on the Indo-Pacific region seem to lack substantive results. At past summits, attempts have been made to get Indo-Pacific countries to stand with Europe on a number of issues, but this goal has not been achieved. In its statement, the EU did not dare to criticize Russia, nor did it touch on the Taiwan issue, but only called on all parties to the South China Sea issue to "exercise self-restraint". At the 2024 summit, the EU and ASEAN also did not agree on issues such as Gaza, Myanmar and North Korea. This seems to suggest that the summit may still be a waste of time.
The EU's Indo-Pacific summit decision has sparked reflection on its Indo-Pacific concept and its exclusionary attitude toward China and the United States. History has proven that excluding China and the United States may not be an effective way to solve Indo-Pacific problems, and the collapse of European powers over the past should not be a stumbling block to international cooperation.
In this regard, what do you think in front of the screen, please leave a message in the comment area to discuss!
*All from the Internet, if there is any infringement, please contact to delete.