The role of "human rights" and "Taiwan policy" in European relations with Beijing is best described as a complex blend of genuine principled stance and strategic, selective deployment, reflecting the internal divisions and the inherent conflict between European values and economic interests.

While these issues are often sincerely rooted in European democratic identity, their application in diplomatic practice can be intermittent, making them appear tactical to critics.

Human Rights: A Principled Foundation with Diplomatic Compromises

Europe’s stance on human rights in China—covering issues like the persecution of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, and the lack of civil liberties—is fundamentally genuine for the EU as an institution.

The Genuine Stance: Values and Institutional Mandate

• Core EU Identity: The European Union is legally and politically founded on the values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. The Lisbon Treaty mandates that the EU's external action must be guided by these principles.

• The European Parliament: The most consistent and outspoken voice is the European Parliament (EP), which functions as a "principled watchdog." The EP has repeatedly adopted strong resolutions, issued stern condemnations, and even imposed sanctions on Chinese officials involved in human rights abuses (e.g., in Xinjiang). The EP’s decision to effectively freeze the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) in 2021 was a direct, substantive action driven by human rights concerns and reciprocal sanctions from Beijing.

• Consistent Dialogue: The EU maintains an annual EU-China Human Rights Dialogue, a formal structure that, while often criticized for a lack of concrete results, signifies a continuing commitment to raising the issue at the highest diplomatic level.

The Strategic/Tactical Application: The "Trade-Off"

Despite the principled institutional mandate, the executive bodies (the European Commission and the European Council, which represents member states) often display greater pragmatism, leading to a perception of tactical weakness:

• Compartmentalization: For many years, the EU attempted to compartmentalize human rights, separating the annual dialogue from high-stakes economic negotiations. This approach essentially sidelined the issue, prioritizing the colossal trade relationship.

• Economic Interest Over Values: Major EU member states, particularly those with large export-driven economies (like Germany), have often been accused of softening their human rights rhetoric to avoid jeopardizing lucrative market access in China. The sheer volume of €1.7 billion per day in EU-China trade provides Beijing with immense leverage, turning principled declarations into a difficult political tightrope walk.

• A Tool of Leverage: When the EU does take a firm human rights stand, as with the CAI freeze or the imposition of sanctions, it becomes a powerful piece of economic leverage to signal that Beijing's actions have consequences for its commercial access to the EU market. However, this leverage is only deployed when China's actions become egregious enough to overcome the internal political inertia of the member states.

In essence, the EP's stance is genuine, but the collective EU's implementation is often constrained by the economic realism of its member states, making its public deployment seem strategic or selective.

Taiwan Policy: Shared Values with Calculated Ambiguity

Europe’s relationship with Taiwan is characterized by a strong convergence of values and increasingly strategic economic interests, yet its official policy is constrained by the diplomatic necessity of adhering to the "One China" policy.

The Genuine Stance: Democracy and Security

• Like-Minded Partner: The EU consistently refers to Taiwan as a "like-minded partner" that shares its core values of democracy, rule of law, and human rights. This is not a bargaining chip but an acknowledgment of Taiwan's successful democratic transition.

• Security Concerns: The EU views peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait as a critical geopolitical concern, not just for the Indo-Pacific but for global security and trade—a stance that hardened following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The European Parliament has repeatedly condemned China’s military provocations and called for the EU to formulate a coordinated deterrence strategy.

• Economic Reliance: Taiwan's indispensable role in the global semiconductor supply chain (e.g., TSMC) has made the island a vital economic security partner. The EU's desire to collaborate on building a resilient tech supply chain (e.g., under the European Chips Act) provides a genuine, strategic underpinning to its engagement.

The Strategic Application: Calculated Ambiguity

• The "One China" Policy: The EU and its member states officially recognize the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China and do not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taipei. This is the necessary diplomatic concession to Beijing that prevents a complete rupture of relations.

• Deepening Unofficial Ties: Europe's strategy is to increase "substantive" engagement with Taiwan within the confines of its unofficial relationship. This includes:

  • High-Level Political Signals: Visits by European Parliament members and former officials, which are not bound by the executive’s formal protocols, serve as strong political signals of support to Taiwan and symbolic defiance of Beijing.

  • Support for International Participation: The EU actively supports Taiwan's meaningful participation in non-state-based international bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO), often challenging Beijing's efforts to isolate Taiwan diplomatically.

• Deterrence Signal: By calling for a clear signal that any unilateral change to the status quo by force would incur "high costs" (including consideration of economic sanctions), Europe is using its Taiwan policy to establish a credible, value-based deterrent against military aggression. This is a strategic move to protect its own economic and security interests by preserving the status quo.

In sum, Europe's Taiwan policy is genuinely supportive of its democratic partner and the necessity of peace in the Taiwan Strait. However, the use of non-diplomatic channels and sanctions threats serves as the strategic layer of a policy constrained by the formal "One China" framework, allowing the EU to act on its values without completely abandoning its diplomatic access to the PRC.