This article was originally published by China Dialogues at LSE Ideas and is republished here with the permission of the author. The article is part of an ongoing collaboration between LSE Ideas and CHOICE.
The ancient Chinese political text Guanzi likens the stability of a state to the health of a human body: the ruler’s presence in the capital is like the heart’s presence in the body. This metaphor offers a useful lens for modern EU-China relations. If European capitals are the limbs through which diplomacy moves, Brussels serves as the heart that regulates the flow of power.
As China’s economic stake in the EU has deepened, so too has its diplomatic investment in this institutional center of gravity. Beijing now pursues a carefully calibrated “twin-track” strategy: sustaining deep engagement with the EU’s central regulatory organs while simultaneously cultivating key member states to influence the broader European pulse. Managing this dual architecture has become increasingly complex as geopolitical tensions rise and the EU’s economic security agenda expands. The challenge for Beijing is no longer merely diplomatic: it is structural. To maintain its economic circulation within Europe, China must now master the politics of the heart to navigate the modern mechanics of European diplomacy.
The Heart’s Pulse: From Cooperation to Regulation
After diplomatic relations were established in 1975 between the European Community and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), cooperation expanded steadily across trade, climate policy, science and technology, and industrial exchange. The relationship was largely framed as mutually beneficial economic integration, even as structural imbalances and regulatory frictions began to surface.
However, over the past decade, the tone has shifted. Strategic rivalry, technological competition, and concerns about economic dependencies have reshaped the institutional framework. The EU has moved toward a structured risk management and regulatory oversight model. In this framework, Brussels occupies a central position as the regulatory hub where critical decisions on trade defense, investment screening, and export controls are formulated.
As the EU strengthens its economic security toolkit, China’s engagement must increasingly pass through these institutional procedures rather than informal political understandings. This centralization means that the heart now sets the principles that the limbs (member states) are expected to follow. Yet, as consensus within the EU becomes harder to build, this dialogue is frequently interrupted by internal friction, setting the stage for a more fragmented and mechanical engagement.
The Mechanics of the “Twin-Track” Strategy
The Guanzi notes that order depends on each part performing its function – much like officials with defined responsibilities. In the European context, this translates into a division of labor between the supranational institutions and member states. The European Commission regulates the internal market; the Council represents national governments; the Parliament shapes political direction. China’s diplomacy in Brussels reflects a close reading of this institutional anatomy.
Consequently, Beijing operates a “twin-track” strategy. One track is directed toward the institutional heart. The Mission of the PRC to the EU functions as the primary interface, monitoring and sustaining technical dialogue. Here, diplomacy is procedural and legalistic. Access to committees and investigative processes can matter as much as leader-level signaling.
A notable success in this track occurred in late 2025, when Ambassador Cai Run oversaw the resumption of the China-EU Inter-Parliamentary regular exchange after a seven-year hiatus. While this restored high-level access to the European Parliament’s political groups, the dialogue remains fragile. In February 2026, Ambassador Cai emphasized that the pulse of this relationship depends on “mutual respect,” cautioning that the EU must respect China’s “core interests” in “Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xizang, Xinjiang, and human rights.” While this can sound like a hard line, it can also be read as boundary-setting: defining the political conditions under which Beijing agrees to maintain the fluidity of institutional circulation.
The second track targets the limbs: individual member states whose economic weight or political positioning can influence the heart. Beijing calibrates bilateral incentives such as visa facilitation or targeted trade responses according to national positions.
The regulation of Chinese electric vehicles provides a concrete illustration of these two tracks in conflict. Acting as the regulatory authority, the Commission finalized definitive countervailing duties in late 2024. By early 2026, it transitioned to “price undertaking” agreements – legalistic solutions where companies like Volkswagen (Anhui) commit to minimum import prices to bypass duties. The vote exposed a fractured body. Germany, acting as a limb dependent on its own automotive exports, pushed for continued negotiations, with Chancellor Olaf Scholz warning that the EU’s response “must not lead to us harming ourselves.” Meanwhile, France took a more defensive stance. By February 2026, French strategic advisors were even proposing a common 30 percent tariff on Chinese goods to shield the EU’s industrial core.
China responded along both tracks simultaneously: engaging in technical price negotiations in Brussels while using bilateral pressure to leverage these internal divisions. This episode did not paralyze the system, but it revealed how institutional authority and national interests can produce a systemic arrhythmia.
Adaptation: The Body in a Changing Environment
As the global geopolitical climate hardens, the European organism is forced to develop a more autonomous immune system. While the US pursues rapid decoupling, deploying punitive tariffs and secondary sanctions, the EU has opted for a more calculated de-risking strategy. This shift is driven by a critical erosion of mutual confidence in the transatlantic alliance. As Washington prioritizes Asia and presses Europe for trade concessions, Brussels must assume greater responsibility for its own economic resilience.
Consequently, Beijing views Brussels as indispensable. It is no longer just a diplomatic posting, it is the primary regulatory hub where the EU’s response to American demands is forged. To operationalize this resilience, the European Commission launched the RESourceEU Action Plan in December 2025. This plan is a mechanical intervention designed to reduce reliance on China by 30-50 percent in key value chains (such as batteries and rare earths) by 2029. A critical structural evolution is the recent creation of the European Critical Raw Materials Centre in early 2026. This new organ will coordinate intelligence, joint procurement, and strategic stockpiles. This represents a significant centralization of power: the Brussels heart is no longer just regulating trade, it is actively steering where EU-financed output must be delivered.
While the twin-track strategy attempts to keep the institutional mechanics moving, the relationship often suffers from a total breakdown in communication regarding governance. This is most evident when the EU exercises its role as a normative power through the European External Action Service (EEAS). On February 9, 2026, the EEAS issued a sharp statement regarding the 20-year sentencing of Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong. The Chinese Mission’s response was swift and categorical, accusing the EU of “grossly meddling” and “disregarding facts and legal principles.” This clash illustrates the limits of the twin-track strategy: while the heart and limbs may negotiate on technical trade, the nervous system remains in a state of chronic inflammation over values and human rights.
Mastering the Technique
“If the heart does not interfere in the specific affairs of the senses, the senses can each perform their functions. However, if the heart is filled with selfish desires, it will cause the eyes to fail to see passing objects and the ears to fail to hear incoming sounds.”
Following this Guanzi wisdom, the future of EU-China relations depends on whether the EU can maintain functioning authority. Brussels must ensure that its nine-aperture system remains free from the interference of external pressures: a challenge that will be tested during President Trump’s scheduled visit to Beijing in April 2026.
China’s twin-track strategy is a sophisticated response to this anatomy. It acknowledges that while the limbs may provide immediate economic movement, the heart sets the rhythm of the entire system. Beijing’s ability to stabilize these institutional links shows a deep understanding of the European circulatory system. Ultimately, for the European organism to survive the accelerating US-China decoupling dynamics and risk-reduction, it must achieve a state of internal balance. Only by mastering its own internal technique can the EU maintain its stability and autonomy, ensuring that the heart continues to beat with a pulse that is distinctly European.
Written by
Marie Hiliquin
Dr Marie Hiliquin is a researcher in Political Geography at the Institute for Strategic Research (IRSEM Europe) in Brussels and TVES Laboratory (ULR 4477) of Lille University. She holds a PhD in Geography, specialising in China’s international strategy and the geopolitical implications of the BBRI. Her research focuses on EU–China relations, economic security, and geoeconomic competition.
