During the recent Phil debate “This House Believes The EU Should Side With China Over The US” students came up with some pretty edgy analogies for what is objectively a challenging decision. I can certainly relate to the difficulty of choosing between two equally bad options, but my mind never went: bipolar mom and alcoholic dad. Still, it made me think. In 2012, economists Levitt and Dubner posited that the only three words harder to say than ‘I love you’ are ‘I don’t know.’ In the realm of decision making I can say that I am not like other girls – I am a chronically indecisive individual.

Who am I kidding? Indecision is a common flaw among Trinity students. It isn’t exclusive to us, but as we are learning to define ourselves we feel the effects all the greater. After all, we are living in a world defined by minor choices that simultaneously mean cumulatively everything and nothing in terms of determining our futures – it’s no wonder we are frequently mired in self-doubt. For instance, I struggle on a daily basis whether to splurge on overpriced coffee. I also deliberate on the weekly whether attending Phil debates in the name of journalism is really worth standing in that line only to have to stand in a separate room with a TV screen that keeps malfunctioning. Perhaps the media that best encapsulates this dilemma is Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight saga, which features a chronically indecisive heroine. Many young women have hated on her. We have also found her indecision painfully relatable. 

Over the course of the series, Bella struggles whether to go with Edward (hot tortured vampire) or Jacob (hot tortured werewolf). It is easy to get decision paralysis based on fear of choosing the wrong option, especially when both options can kill you. I can relate, as my friends and I haunt the same three overpriced coffee shops. Death to the wallet. Stalling for this eventuality, we claim to not know where we will go. Indecision demarcates an endless cycle as if we are tragic heroes resigned to dismal fates – paying for a seven dollar latte – instead of people with autonomy. Yet is this really a problem?

Ultimately, this seeming lack of character is quite common on both a personal and geopolitical basis. Within the EU, for instance, member states seem unable to reach a definitive consensus on China and US relations. The Phil debate was entertaining precisely because people on both sides understood that the motion was inherently flawed for indicating a black-or-white choice. “America bad” said the proposition in a chic, minimalistic response to the topic. This, however, assumes that smaller states are passive and irrelevant to larger conflicts, presuming the US and China are like Edward and Jacob from cinematic masterpiece Twilight and Bella is a helpless damsel suspended between them for four books and more than four movies. 

This presumption is irritating because in reality, the EU is aligned with the US in principles already.  Rather, as a powerful actor in its own right, the EU has no obligation to cut ties with China. Its perceived indecision is not an excuse to evade action but an argument for promoting democratic values within an interconnected framework. Perhaps the pop culture equivalent for the EU’s position is Bella who combines ‘I love you’ and ‘I don’t know’ in her outlook on life. Annoyingly, she does not have to make a move but nevertheless exerts tremendous power over two supernatural beings. In fact, through not making a decision she has power over both.  If she realised her self worth, she could be a political player. Likewise, the EU really has no obligation to cannot and should not have to choose between these proposed suitors, instead opting to play the field with an independent agenda. That said, obviously there is one side that sparkles more than the other.

Given their shared values, the EU does not have an incentive to actively choose the US. This is because the The EU is closely allied with the US already. Throughout the tumultuous saga, the EU aligns with the US on issues of security and membership in international organisations. Most temptingly, the US is not an autocratic regime and EU member states are also not autocratic regimes. Can I make it any more obvious? A formal commitment does not have to be stated when the EU and US share a mutual understanding on a democratic basis.

Still, the EU must retain its autonomy. You thought that vampire from the movie was tortured? As we are all aware, the US political landscape remains a deeply unpredictable beast. Even positive provisions such as Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), America’s most significant climate legislation, demands that [clean energy] products be “assembled in the United States to qualify for tax credits – provisions which likely discriminate against European exporters,” says the European Council on Foreign Relations. Even this, a positive change overall, can accelerate the deindustrialisation process in Europe. Announcing an exclusive alignment with US foreign policy is a mistake. French President Emmanuel Macron may have attracted controversy by calling the US “brain-dead.” He also touched a nerve; and again when he enumerated that “Europe must resist pressure to become ‘America’s followers.’ In fact, it is true that it is harder for the EU to exert itself as a ‘third superpower’ without maintaining an independent agenda. 

Critics of the Twilight saga have cited our heroine’s overreliance on the men in her life as a detrimental quality. Expectations linked to decisions can lead to disappointing outcomes. It is certainly embarrassing to be over reliant on a partner, or expect really great things such as productivity from an overpriced cup of coffee. Likewise, it would be equally embarrassing for the EU to rely on its principal ally. The US has its own life. Going along with everything the US prioritises, like “China-bashing trade agreements” on steel and “wildly unrealistic” policies proposed by politicians with dubious orange spray tans would render the EU a similar target for disdainful ire. Except the EU is not a 16 year old girl and should really know better; it should stop “flapping around incompetently,” says the Financial Times, and grow up.

Conversely, it wouldn’t make sense for the EU to align with China based on the state’s dubious values. The process of liberalisation has been overturned since the ascent of Xi Jinping. China aims to approach the EU through the lens of the war in Ukraine, itself staring creepily towards Taiwan who shockingly, isn’t into it. Far less attractive than the vampire in your science class, China “repeatedly has deployed military aircraft and naval vessels to areas near Taiwan as part of its intimidation campaign”. While the EU doesn’t recognise Taiwan as a country, the takeover of Taiwan would, like Ukraine, signify an undeniable decline in democratic principles. This tactic follows China’s general history of disregarding human rights. In orienting policy to favour China, the EU would expressly be condoning violations ranging from the forced labour and disappearances of people who criticise the government and Uighur Muslims. While the US has had many monstrous policies, it drinks blood in a less explicit context than China which, from the EU’s perspective, is all weird about it. Now, at least the US is embarrassed about its problems and has actively attempted to resolve them. Whereas China is the kind of drinker that doesn’t admit it has a problem.

These values are not to consider China’s own unwillingness to bargain with European powers, as to cite China research scholar Ivana Karaskova: “China has not offered Europe anything that could prompt it to begin considering the issue of strategic realignment.” Karaskova argues that Beijing had many opportunities to form a positive relationship with the EU, and could have “offered Europe fair and open access to the Chinese market […] could have continued on the path of gradual socialisation into the international order […] could have benefitted from having no direct strategic or security clash with Europe.” Unfortunately, hopes of a neat happy ending were put to rest. China opted to be both aggressive and distant. Red flags include: not opening its economy while benefiting from access to EU markets, introducing a social credit system in China injuring European business activity, not protecting intellectual property rights and copycatting products. Whatever your stance is, you have to admit these comprise an alarming number of red flags, which is why the will-they-won’t-they has remained a most likely ‘won’t they’ due to the proliferation of these aggressive signifiers.

We all know the importance of choosing the right partner. If it wasn’t apparent already, China is one manipulative son of a werewolf. From infiltrating media narratives to threatening EU member states and accelerating pollution, what message would it send to the world if the EU decided to ‘end up’ with China? It is unlikely the EU would ever be able to fully trust a country with such obviously misaligned qualities. Critics of the Twilight saga have enumerated the dangerous influence Bella’s decision would have on young women susceptible to the influence of toxic men. Likewise, this choice of suitor would set a terrible precedent for the rest of the international community to nurse a collective facepalm at.

It is perhaps more crucial to note that the EU has nothing to gain from choosing China because China is dependent on the EU for support. China wants to align with the EU against the US in a time of increased tensions, especially when the US has “introduced measures to crackdown on the share of advanced technology to China,” according to the Financial Times. This one-sided desire places the EU in a position of power, the position to negotiate with China on trade and human rights issues without declaring in its favour. China also relies on the EU as one of the major markets for its technologies and the bloc’s largest trading partner.

Simultaneously, the EU has negotiating power with the US for the same reasons. Experts in international relations recognise “the most effective US policy takes allies interests into account” which is to say that the US needs actors like the EU to create an effective China policy. In prioritising strategic autonomy, the EU can maintain the security alliance with the US while agreeing to terms that both force the EU to sharpen and unify definitive action plans.

It is true that due to the interconnectedness of the international landscape, a definitive break up with China is unlikely. This lack of clear preference doesn’t mean the EU is a passive actor. According to a Reuters report, “Although the European Union wants to retain its industrial edge and competitiveness in a world shifting to more digital and green products” it has “found itself worryingly dependent on others particularly China for crucial minerals”. The EU is currently attempting to de-risk their dependence on these minerals, citing climate concerns that make stepping away from the lithium that powers electric vehicles a priority. The goal is to boost domestic extraction and recycling of these raw materials by mid-2024. It is clear that taking steps away from a dependence on China, which processes “nearly 90% of rare earth elements and 60% of lithium globally” is a priority, as it should be to establish further autonomy. However, it is impossible for the EU to disengage just as it is impossible for a vampire to survive without blood, or for this writer to survive without her morning coffee.

The break would heighten geopolitical tensions to a dangerous extent. Frankly, we have a messed up world without the vampires and werewolves going to (cold) war. Amid rising tensions on both sides, a self-fulfilling prophecy may be enacted if the EU takes a rigid stance. It is also indisputable that the greatest issues of the present, such as the climate crisis, cannot be resolved without collaboration with China, one of the world’s greatest industrial contributors to climate change. In a July 2023 speech, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock summarised the need for balancing priorities: “Without China we will not succeed in curbing the climate crisis, nor in achieving more fair prosperity in the world.”

That said, a relationship with China risks causing great unrest and is not in the EU’s best interest not either. Perhaps EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said it best: “China tells us all the time we are strategic partners and not rivals. In reality, we are both. We are partners and we are rivals, and we’re also competitors, in some areas.” There is power in prioritising one’s goals without relying on either party, and the EU should refrain from depending on an authoritarian state without rhetorical condemnation just yet. Independence rather than explicit multilateralism is necessary as a declaration for multilateralism would connote an implicit disregard for China’s authoritarianism. Therefore this ‘indecision’ is the only natural solution. 

Essentially, the lack of decision between two ideas is not tantamount to indifference. It can imply a rejection of binary oppositions, a refusal to choose between two equally insufficient candidates. It implies someone is thinking through their options. It can imply action rather than passivity, the forging of an individual path through the weighing of options. Similarly, when my friends propose two coffee shops, I am indecisive not out of moral weakness but because I definitely have a third option in mind. 

Returning to our other silly analogy, one must tread carefully when choosing between a werewolf and a vampire (again, both can kill you). When our heroine explicitly chooses one, she makes the other angry and has to become monstrous herself. When she over relies on one, this leads to anguish. By contrast, when her preference is clear but maintains the illusion of hope for the other (and the continuation of the series), both hot if morally dubious suitors (along with the stream of cash flowing into the author’s pockets) are under control.

In 2021, the Hist and DU Film screened the cinematic masterpiece. The takeaway is obvious and The Phil take notes: “Student debaters would benefit from rewatching Twilight.” They would uncover not only the skillful romantic deployment of language in lines such as “Hold on tight, spider monkey” and “I like watching you sleep” but lessons in the nuances of navigating complicated political entanglements. Unlike our erstwhile protagonist, the EU should embrace an autonomous outlook. Setting an independent agenda, member states can recognise their alignment without outright declaring for one or the other. Tensions may run high. But for the EU, there can also be sparkles (sorry – or maybe I’m not).