French President Emmanuel Macron has called for Europe to become a stronger geopolitical and economic power in response to growing pressure from China and increasing uncertainty from the United States, but the argument presented in this analysis is that Europe’s economic security strategy remains incomplete without a firm human rights foundation. It contends that European discussions about unfair competition from China often focus too narrowly on subsidies and industrial policy, while overlooking how China’s economic model is also sustained by systemic human rights abuses that suppress dissent, weaken labour protections, and allow the state to reshape industries with little resistance.
The article argues that China’s economic rise has been supported by a system in which independent labour organizing is banned, migrant workers remain structurally disadvantaged under the household registration system, and forced labour continues in places such as Xinjiang. These conditions, it says, create a large, vulnerable workforce with limited bargaining power and few legal protections, helping to drive down labour costs and reinforce an economic model that would be difficult to replicate in democratic societies governed by stronger rights protections.
It also highlights how the Chinese state uses coercive powers over land, infrastructure, and legal institutions to accelerate development. Local authorities can reportedly seize land, displace communities, and approve major projects without meaningful consultation, while courts are described as serving state power rather than acting as an independent check on abuses. According to the analysis, this combination of political repression and economic control has allowed China to expand industrially while silencing workers, villagers, entrepreneurs, and activists who challenge official decisions.
The piece rejects the long-held assumption that economic integration would lead China toward political liberalization, arguing instead that economic growth has strengthened an increasingly authoritarian system. It points to extensive internal security spending, advanced surveillance technologies, censorship, and digital monitoring tools that help prevent labour protests and social discontent from developing into broader organized movements. Under these conditions, individuals seeking justice are often isolated and unable to challenge the state or powerful employers effectively.
The analysis further notes that the social consequences of this model are becoming more visible inside China, with growing disillusionment among younger people reflected in trends such as “lay flat” and “let it rot,” which symbolize quiet resistance to exploitative work and social expectations. These sentiments are presented as signs that the human cost of China’s development model is substantial, even if it is often obscured by its economic performance.
Against this backdrop, the article argues that Europe and other democracies should integrate human rights more directly into economic and foreign policy rather than treating them as a secondary concern. It points to measures such as corporate due diligence laws and forced labour bans as important steps that should be strengthened rather than diluted. It also calls for democratic governments to use labour standards in international agreements to press China on issues such as the hukou system and the prohibition of independent unions, while restricting business ties with entities linked to repression, surveillance, or forced labour.
Beyond trade, the piece stresses that transnational repression by China—including pressure on diaspora communities, interference in academic freedom, and intimidation of activists abroad—should be treated not only as a human rights issue but also as a national security concern. Protecting universities, research spaces, and diaspora rights is presented as essential to safeguarding Europe’s broader resilience in the face of strategic competition with Beijing.
Although some critics warn that tying human rights to economic policy could raise costs or provoke retaliation, the article argues that ignoring these issues creates greater long-term dangers. It says that allowing coercive supply chains, surveillance-linked technologies, and abusive business relationships to deepen can expose Europe to national security vulnerabilities, reputational harm, and political instability. In that sense, the central message is that a Europe that systematically embeds human rights into trade, procurement, migration, and security policy would not only uphold its values but also build a more credible, resilient, and secure economic future.
