The EU's sanctions on China over issues like Hong Kong and Xinjiang have been ineffective in directly shaping Beijing's internal behavior on these core "sovereignty" issues.

Their primary effectiveness has been internal to the EU, serving as a signal of values, strengthening transatlantic alignment, and, most significantly, leading to the suspension of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI).

1. Minimal Direct Impact on Beijing's Policy

The sanctions imposed by the EU in March 2021—which targeted four individuals and one entity in connection with human rights abuses in Xinjiang under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (GHRSR)—are widely considered to have had no observable effect on China's policy in either Xinjiang or Hong Kong.

Core Chinese Interests are Non-Negotiable

Beijing views policy in Xinjiang (related to counter-terrorism, domestic stability, and the security of the Belt and Road Initiative) and Hong Kong (related to national security and territorial integrity) as "core interests" that are non-negotiable and vital to the survival and power of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

• The CCP's Red Line: China’s authoritarian nature means that domestic stability and control override virtually all foreign pressure, especially when the economic cost of the sanctions is low. The EU's measures were symbolic and narrowly targeted at provincial-level officials, not the top leadership or major financial institutions, making a policy reversal by Beijing highly improbable.

• Continuation of Abuses: Since the sanctions were imposed, reporting on the Uyghur situation has not indicated any significant policy shift, and democratic freedoms in Hong Kong have continued to deteriorate under the National Security Law.

China's Asymmetrical and Decisive Retaliation

Beijing's immediate and aggressive counter-sanctions effectively nullified the EU's attempt to use sanctions as a simple foreign policy tool:

• Targeting the Policymakers: China sanctioned ten individuals and four entities within the EU, notably targeting five sitting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights, and prominent China think tanks like the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS).

• A "Deterrence" Signal: This disproportionate response was not an effort to change the EU's behavior, but a powerful signal of deterrence. It aimed to intimidate Europe's critical voices and raise the political cost for the EU to ever consider imposing further human rights sanctions. It forced Europe to recognize that future human rights action would be met with an immediate, damaging, and politically toxic counter-reaction.

2. Significant Secondary Impact: The Death of CAI

The single most effective outcome of the sanctions was not a change in Beijing's behavior, but a change in the EU's policy towards Beijing, leading to the indefinite suspension of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI).

The Sanctions' Unintended Consequence

The CAI, finalized "in principle" in late 2020 after seven years of negotiation, was a major pillar of EU-China relations aimed at opening up China's market and leveling the playing field for European investors.

• Parliamentary Obstruction: By sanctioning sitting MEPs, China directly attacked the European Parliament, the very body whose ratification was legally required for the CAI to enter into force.

• Political Condemnation: The sanctioned MEPs and the Parliament's main political groups declared that they would not proceed with the ratification of the CAI as long as the counter-sanctions against their members remained in place. This move, driven by the need to defend the Parliament's integrity, effectively froze the deal indefinitely.

• EU Strategy Shift: The demise of the CAI was a pivotal moment, shifting the EU's overall approach from prioritizing economic engagement (the traditional German model) toward a greater emphasis on "de-risking" and treating China more forcefully as a "systemic rival." The sanctions, therefore, had a profound strategic impact on the EU's China policy framework, forcing a value-based alliance between the pragmatic EU Commission/Council and the principled European Parliament.

3. Effectiveness as a Signaling and Alignment Tool

While failing to change Chinese policy on the ground, the sanctions were effective in fulfilling other key, non-policy-changing objectives for the EU.

Upholding Norms and Values (Signaling)

The EU's decision to use the GHRSR was its first major, coordinated human rights sanction against China since the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989.

• Defending the Norm: The sanctions served to signal to the world (and to the EU's own citizens) that gross human rights violations are not acceptable and will incur a diplomatic cost, thereby upholding the EU's identity as a normative power.

• Symbolic Moral Pressure: Against a major world power like China, the sanctions were primarily a symbolic act of moral condemnation. This moral pressure contributed to the creation of a general public and corporate environment in Europe that is increasingly wary of doing business in, or with, Xinjiang (e.g., supply chain diligence concerns).

Strengthening Transatlantic Coordination

The EU's move was coordinated with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

• Joint Action: This transatlantic coordination sent a strong message to Beijing that major Western powers were unified on the issue of human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

• Countering Chinese Objectives: Beijing's counter-sanctions, ironically, served to push the EU and the US closer together on China policy, achieving the exact opposite of China's long-standing goal of driving a wedge between the two democratic blocs.

In summary, the EU sanctions on China for Hong Kong and Xinjiang issues have a paradoxical effectiveness:

The sanctions ultimately failed to achieve their stated goal of improving human rights on the ground, but they profoundly restructured the politics of the EU-China relationship and signaled the end of the previous era of unconditional economic engagement.