By Prof. Xiaoyang Zhang

NATO and China are not allies. Nor are they on good terms as partners. This was so in history and is also the case at the present time.

Created after the World War II, NATO is a political and military coalition, embracing thirty-two member States currently, mostly from the West led by the US.  Originally, NATO was to counter-balance the Soviet Union and its satellite Eastern European countries. The bedrock principles for NATO members to adhere to could be well detected in the North Atlantic Treaty, i.e. the NATO’s founding protocol.

In light of the North Atlantic Treaty, collective defence is NATO’s lifeline, and NATO members must be in full compliance with the Charter of the United Nations as to ensure global security and justice.

New China (i.e. the People’s Republic of China) was founded by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949. Unsurprisingly, new China and its ideological mentor Soviet Union were intimate comrades for quite a long period of time.

As opposed to NATO, the Warsaw Pact was launched in the mid 1950s, standing side by side with the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, an economic inter-nation organization forged by the Soviet Union with a view to economically supporting each other within the Eastern bloc.

In this connection, the Warsaw Pact was hammered out as a staunch collective defence mechanism standing up to NATO and protecting the Eastern bloc, which was spearheaded and orchestrated by the Soviet Union. Thus, a Western bloc shielded by NATO and an Eastern bloc shored up by the Warsaw Pact appeared to balance the world’s layout then. This sort of geopolitical stand-off permeated most of the Cold War time. Notably, China did not join the Warsaw Pact, and it consistently proclaimed itself as an non-alliance sovereign nation, though a communist country in essence.  

In a strict sense, NATO is not an international organization other than a strategic alliance sharing identical ideologies. Even in today’s time, long after the collapse of the Soviet-controlled Eastern bloc and the Soviet Union itself, arresting military conflicts and collectively safeguarding peaceful territories for all NATO’s member nations remains NATO’s unaltered aim.

To that end, there have been eight Strategic Concepts in aggregate formally made public by NATO at various points in time. The NATO 2022 Strategic Concept is the latest one.

The 2022 Strategic Concept illustrates NATO’s updated tactics to deal with some of the most thorny issues in today’s world.  Previously, China had never been mentioned in any Strategic Concept which NATO officially enacted. But in the 2022 Strategic Concept, China has been manifested for the first time as one of NATO’s predominant targets to tame. The endorsed NATO 2030 agenda mentioned that initiative, too. But just a couple of years back, the relevant NATO summit communiqué and report merely unveiled their concern that the challenges stemming from China’s rapid development may menace the integrity of international orders that are highly valued by NATO members at all times. They seemed not to take such supposition too seriously.

The 2022 Strategic Concept lays bare NATO’s stance on China in a quite different way. It seems to suggest that Euro-Atlantic security is facing systemic challenges from China. And China is first of all complained about its murky military strategies, ambitions and possible expansion. China is further criticized to have somewhat leveraged some of its monopolies over science and technology, and worse still, to have utilized its economic prowess to slight well-established global principles based on universal perspectives on democracy, freedom and justice. Most startlingly, the 2022 Strategic Concept envisages the ongoing pally relations between Beijing and Moscow as a contributing factor exacerbating the problems encountered by maintaining current international order and world peace.

China vehemently impugned NATO’s admonitions. In response, China timely put forward its Law on Foreign Relations, where the three Initiatives (i.e. the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative) are incorporated.

On the whole, NATO and China both have to concede that their present relations are clearly at an arm’s length, in spite of the sad accident during the Kosovo War in 1999 when NATO forces bombed China’s Embassy in Belgrade, giving rise to horrendous staffer casualties. Nonetheless, craving peace and development and accepting the plausible complementarities that might exist between one another can be a less threatening third route. Either China or NATO members (even those de facto NATO members/partners like Australia, Japan, and the Philippines, etc.) may need to consider this option in a wisely manner.

Regardless of ideologies, NATO and China are supposedly two responsible forces in political, economical and national defence senses. They have mutual obligations to shelter natural justice and global safety from any brutal impairment. This common goal is achievable not necessarily between close military allies on the same camp, so long as NATO and China are able to eschew contending against each other and resourcefully tap into collaboration as two conspicuously useful stakeholders in stead of unreasonably irreconcilable adversaries.

About the author:

Xiaoyang Zhang, Professor, Beijing Foreign Studies University School of Law

By Ján Figeľ

The text is based on a keynote speech at the Colloquium organized on 26 May 2025 by the Institute Jean Lecanuet in Paris

The question about EU’s fading from history is a timely warning. Brexit confirmed it.

The situation of the EU and its Member States is serious – they face war and military conflict at their doors, demographic decline, sluggish economies, growing public debts, rise of violence and new ideologies, mediocracy and frequent corruption within key institutions. All this is present at the same time instead of a focus on common good for all. Instead of shaping the future and the world they all rather speak about consumption of the future. Progressivism is on rise but Europe is not progressing.

Robert Schuman has left one of the greatest political inspirations we can find in modern history. Schuman was a true statesman in service of his nation and a peaceful Europe. He wished to have France for Europe and received back Europe for France. Schuman had a large picture and a long-term vision. His Christian faith and deep spirituality were the source of his tireless service to justice and common good, they nurtured his practical solidarity and political actions.

It is urgent to apply Schuman´s legacy for getting Europe back into the center of human history, in a positive and inspirational manner, shaping our future towards peace, security and prosperity.

Dignity

Never before was Europe fading away from history as much as in 1945, after devastating WWII. Fortunately, we had courageous, brave and hardworking Fathers of Europe like Schuman, Adenauer or De Gasperi – who refused to collaborate with inhumane ideologies of Nazism and communism but refused also a principle of revenge as well. They preferred mutual reconciliation of repeatedly belligerent nations. European founding fathers believed that lasting and true peace is a fruit of reconciliation and justice. For them human freedom, responsibility, dignity have been inseparable.

Justice today is understood as respect to fundamental rights of individuals and communities. But foundational principle of our rights is dignity of person. Human dignity represents fact from which our rights and duties are derived. Respect to HD of all is a road to peace for all. We are all equal in dignity, while all different in identity. This is the essential principle of unity in diversity, motto of the EU.

Robert Schuman and his peers – René Cassin, Jacques Maritain, Charles Malik, Eleanor Roosevelt, John Humprey, P. C. Chang and others – started postwar renewal on the foundational pillar and protection of human dignity. In Paris, under leadership of France in December 1948 UDHR was adopted. The very first sentence says: „…recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world “. Dignity is mentioned in the Declaration five times.

But for Europe, Schuman insisted (not without opposition) on the creation of a system of human rights based on the supranational rule of law, rather than a more declaratory approach of the UN. In May1949 in London Schuman signed the Statutes of the Council of Europe. This step, said Schuman, “created the foundations of a spiritual and political cooperation, from which the European spirit will be born, the principle of a vast and enduring supranational union.”

On 9 May 1950 Schuman Declaration of the French Government was adopted to create a European Community for Coal and Steel (ECSC), based on supranational principles and open to all free countries. In November 1950 in Rome the European Convention of Human Rights by Schuman and 11 other national leaders was signed.

Roots of united Europe – it is not the past – it is presence and future! We must return to our roots, revitalize them, nurture spiritual part of our individual and collective being (as communities and nations). In line with European founding fathers, we should understand the triple importance of human dignity: as a departure point, permanent criterion and unquestionable objective of our policies. Respect of dignity of everyone everywhere is a road to reconciliation, peace and stability.

Therefore, Western and Eastern Europe should avoid detrimental and divisive ideologies. They need serving leaders, who see widely and in long-term perspective. More than increased armament and defense spending Europe needs mature statecraft with wisdom, courage and perseverance to create future, not to consume it at the costs of next generations.

European Union

The ECSC, Euratom and EEC leading up to the current EU represent 75 years of experience, practical solidarity and learning together how to live, work and walk in peace.

After the Franco-German reconciliation and the expansion to six founders, France’s proposal to create the European Defense Community (EDC) was signed by four states in 1954 but was unfortunately rejected by the French Assemblée Nationale. Afterward, the European Communities witnessed and motivated collapses of military dictatorships in Greece, Spain, Portugal, the historical fall of Berlin Wall along with the demise of the Soviet Union and communism in Europe. After that, it grew into the Union of 27 members with 10 candidate countries.

EU became a soft power based on attractiveness of freedom, stability and prosperity

Brexit weakened European unity while confirming freedom of EU members to exit, to leave. After five years we see a new convergence between London and Brussels. EU was actually moving, growing and changing in times of crisis (oil, constitutional, financial and now security crises). This is fully in line with Schuman´s Plan counting on graduality of integration as a process. Concerning the future, the EU needs as much integration as necessary to achieve shared objectives of its Member States, and to guarantee as much freedom for its citizens as possible.

Four objectives are currently very urgent:

• First is a maximum support of Europe´s competitiveness through technological and systemic innovation. Innovation becomes an imperative. Europe must play in Global Champions League of new technologies, higher education, applied research and innovations.
• Second, based on current challenges, after 70 years since the collapse of the EDC proposal put forward by Pléven Government of France, it is time again to build a European Defense Union, based on the current Lisbon Treaty using the enhanced cooperation clause for likeminded and ready-to-move Member States.
• Third, the Union must maintain a constructive dialogue and develop beneficial economic and trade cooperation with all important partners and organizations, including the BRICS.
• Fourth, undelayed enlargement of the EU is a must, not a mercy of the West towards the East. I can assure you that the price of non-enlargement is much higher than enlargement expenditures. The Union with all new members is MORE EUROPEAN, more complete. WWI started in Sarajevo. Therefore, lasting peace through EU enlargement must come back to Sarajevo, the Western Balkans and Eastern Europe as well.

The dream of the Founding Fathers was: a Europe free and one, whole, from Atlantic to Ural as one Community. The collapse of the Soviet Empire was a great opportunity to speed up work for lasting peace in Europe. The West won the Cold War but did not win peace. True peace among nations is much more than absence of military confrontation. This is our hard and noble task today.

The EU as an active part of a new West-East Community

After the February 2014 revolution in Kyiv, a civil war started in the East of Ukraine. Russia took over Crimea and the Second Cold War started. In absence of true political and diplomatic effort, it turned into a tragic and full war after the Russian military invasion of the Ukrainian territory in February 2022. Instead of getting closer, we witness division between the East and the West of Europe.

This fratricidal war must be stopped as soon as possible. A solution for lasting peace should be creative and constructive, based on dignity of peoples on both sides of the front line. It is not about the future of individual political leaders. They come and go. But nations remain. 75 years ago a tragic war was over. People were longing for peace and stability. Today war is not over, killing and destruction go on, people on war-torn territories suffer and die. They equally desire and deserve peace.

Potential solution is at hand. It can be labelled as Schuman Plan #2. Clementy Foundation elaborated it during the last two years, organizing discreet dialogues among personalities from Europe, US, Russia, Asia in the Vatican. We are grateful to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for sharing its space and hospitality in order to study and apply Venerable Schuman’s legacy in our critical times.

The original role of the Franco-German rapprochement is now proposed for two major military and political powers in our civilizational space – the United States and the Russian Federation. Many in the world identified war on Ukraine as a proxy war between the two nuclear superpowers. With the exception of two cold war periods, relations between the two countries were constructive and cooperative. By the way, Russia supported the US independence. Judeo-Christian roots on both sides should nurture their global responsibility for peace and security. Desire for prosperity is close and dear to all people, East, West, North, South.

Clementy Ven. Schuman Legacy Foundation proposes to create common markets for strategic commodities and resources of both superpowers. Namely energy resources including infrastructure, raw natural materials, information technology and intellectual property. Participation must remain open and be offered to all countries and groups of countries who accept such an exceptional agreement, first of all from Europe, North America and Central Asia.

A new Community connecting Alaska with Kamchatka through Europe and Central Asia will emerge representing enormous, unprecedented economic potential. This may lay the foundations for the North Hemisphere Community or the West-East Community. This Great Deal between two superpowers will enable to find an acceptable compromise and end of the war in Ukraine faster and easier. And it will generate resources for dynamic reconstruction of all destroyed territories and infrastructure. The first reactions to this proposal from the East and the West are encouraging.

Lasting peace in Europe is possible and urgent. And it does not depend on more armaments, but on creative and constructive policy and mature leadership of relevant countries, including the European Union and its Member States. Schuman´s example and legacy can get Europe back into the center of human history, in positive and inspirational manner, shaping our common future towards peace, shared security and prosperity.It is difficult, but an achievable and rewarding task!

About the author:

Ján Figeľ is a Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the Clementy Foundation´s Chair for the Ven. Schuman´s Legacy in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the Vatican, the former EU Commissioner and Deputy Prime Minister of Slovakia, the founder of the EIT (European Institute of Innovation and Technology), the first Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU, and currently President of FOREF (www.janfigel.sk)

Published by https://europeantimes.news/2025/06/is-the-eu-fading-from-history/

By The Rt Hon Geoffrey Hoon, Former UK Secretary of State for Defence

Occasion:
“Understanding AI and Robotics”
Global Academy for the Geo-Politico-Technological Futures (GPTF) on June 12 2025

It’s a privilege to be here with defense professionals, technologists, scholars, and strategic thinkers—each committed to shaping a secure and resilient global future. I extend my sincere thanks to Professor Anis, to IFIMES, and to the Global Academy for the Geo-Politico-Technological Futures for organizing this vital series of discussion on artificial intelligence and robotics—topics that increasingly defines the trajectory of our global civilisation: the understanding—and the implications—of Artificial Intelligence.

Having spent the better part of my career immersed in questions of national defence, strategy, and governance, I have often been confronted with new technologies that force us to recalibrate both our expectations and our responsibilities. From the Cold War’s nuclear stand-off to today’s digital battlefield, each generation faces its own version of transformative risk. In our time, that risk—and that promise—carries a name: Artificial Intelligence.

The Strategic Importance of Understanding AI

When I first entered public service, technology was already beginning to reshape military doctrine. Precision weaponry, network-centric warfare, unmanned systems—these were harbingers of a revolution in defence affairs. But Artificial Intelligence is different. It is not merely another instrument in our arsenal; it is a force multiplier, a decision-maker, and potentially, a policy-shaper in its own right.

AI systems can now interpret satellite images with greater accuracy than human analysts. They can autonomously monitor cyber threats, control drone swarms, and conduct real-time logistics coordination with minimal human oversight. In the future, they may be entrusted with decisions that bear lethal consequences. The strategic implications are profound, and they extend well beyond the battlefield.

But AI is not limited to defence. It is woven into our healthcare systems, financial institutions, transport networks, and increasingly, our democratic processes. In short, the domain of AI is the domain of governance itself.

During my time in the UK Parliament, particularly as Secretary of State for Defence from 1999 to 2005, I had the responsibility of overseeing some of the nation’s most significant investments in military research and emerging technologies. I worked closely with our scientific communities, defence contractors, and NATO partners to integrate innovation into national security policy. Even then, we saw the early seeds of what AI could become—tools that could enhance decision-making, protect lives, and redefine modern warfare. Today, that frontier has expanded dramatically, making it even more vital that we understand the forces now shaping our world.

The Necessity of Ethical and Democratic Oversight

Let me be blunt: technology does not arrive with a built-in moral compass. AI is created by people—trained on data often riddled with bias, shaped by the commercial priorities of powerful companies, and deployed in contexts where transparency is elusive.

This demands rigorous ethical scrutiny. What are the principles that should guide the development and deployment of AI? Who decides when an AI system is sufficiently trustworthy to make decisions about a person’s freedom, livelihood, or security? These are not questions for engineers alone. They require the active engagement of policymakers, ethicists, civil society, and above all—citizens.

As a former Defence Secretary, I know that in moments of crisis, decisions are made at pace. But speed must never come at the expense of accountability. Any military or governmental use of AI must be embedded in clear lines of democratic control, oversight, and public legitimacy.

The Geopolitical Landscape

We must also view AI through the lens of geopolitics. The global race to develop and dominate AI is often framed as a contest between great powers. The United States and China are investing vast sums into AI research, with Europe seeking to carve out a third way—one rooted in human rights, privacy, and regulatory rigor.

This is not just a technological competition; it is a clash of values. If we believe in democracy, in individual liberty, and in the rule of law, we must build AI systems that reflect and reinforce those values. That means resisting the temptation to adopt opaque surveillance models in the name of efficiency or control.

It also means forging international agreements to prevent the weaponisation of AI in ways that could destabilise global security. Just as we established treaties around nuclear arms, we must now consider similar frameworks for autonomous weapons, algorithmic warfare, and the misuse of AI in hybrid or information conflicts.

AI and the Future of Work

Of course, the AI revolution will not remain confined to governments or tech giants. It is already changing the way ordinary people live and work. Some fear that AI will replace jobs wholesale—drivers, accountants, even journalists. And there is truth in that concern. But we should not be paralysed by fear.

Instead, we must invest in education and retraining, so that the workforce of the future is equipped to work alongside AI—not be displaced by it. If AI can automate tedious tasks, then human beings can focus on what we do best: creative thinking, empathy, leadership, and moral judgment.

But this transition must be managed. Governments have a duty to anticipate the social impact of AI and to cushion the blow for those who may be left behind. A just transition, not an abrupt upheaval, is the imperative of our time.

A Call to Informed Citizenship

Ultimately, the “Understanding of AI” must be a societal project. It is not enough for a handful of experts or regulators to understand these systems. Every citizen deserves to know how decisions that affect them are being made. Every student should learn not just how to use AI, but how it works—and why that matters.

This is why this programme is so important. By fostering public literacy in AI, we strengthen the democratic foundations of our society. We make ourselves more resilient to manipulation, to inequality, to authoritarian misuse.

In the years ahead, we will need more than innovation. We will need wisdom—collective wisdom. We will need leadership that understands that the choices we make now will echo for generations. And we will need vigilance. Because the stakes are high.

Let me close with a reflection.

When I served in government, we faced threats that were visible, tangible, and in some cases, predictable. AI is different. It is diffuse, embedded in code, and often acts invisibly. But its effects will be anything but hidden.

As I explore in more detail in my recent book, See How They Run, leadership today demands both foresight and humility. We have a choice. We can treat AI as an opaque force that simply happens to us. Or we can understand it, shape it, and guide it in accordance with our deepest values.

Let this be the moment we choose understanding over ignorance, governance over chaos, and humanity over hubris.