Analytical readings from Chinese think tanks and strategic circles, such as the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) indicate that the European Parliament’s vote on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, in favor of the new legislation on the forced deportation of migrants is not merely a passing legal or security measure, but rather a reflection of a deep structural crisis affecting the European Union’s values and its political, economic, and legal framework. The perspective of Chinese think tanks and strategic and political circles, such as the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the China Institute of International Studies, regarding the European Parliament’s vote in favor of the new legislation on the forced deportation of migrants, is based on a pragmatic reading that analyzes the dimensions of the structural crisis within the European Union itself and presents, in contrast, Beijing’s approach to development, security, and mechanisms for South-South cooperation. Meanwhile, Chinese strategic circles and think tanks analyze the tightening of European laws, the establishment of offshore detention centers in Europe, and the adoption of forced deportation policies as a reflection of the shortcomings of Western-centric approaches and a disregard for the developmental roots of migration crises. Instead of policing solutions, Beijing proposes an alternative approach based on the twin initiatives of global security and development put forward by Chinese President Xi Jinping and the strengthening of South-South cooperation to address the root causes of displacement. The pragmatic Chinese perspective on this European move and the proposed Chinese solutions is based on several key dimensions and approaches, as follows:
– First: The Chinese strategic reading and analysis of the crisis of deporting migrants and refugees from Europe, as voted on by the European Parliament, and the dimensions of the structural crisis within the European Union (according to the Chinese perspective)
1) The view of Chinese circles and think tanks regarding the erosion of the Western moral model in the face of the refugee and migrant crisis:
Chinese circles believe that Europe’s resort to forced deportations and the tightening of asylum policies represent a clear retreat from the slogans of human rights and universal humanitarian values that the West has long used as a tool for moral and political pressure on other countries. This shift reveals, from Beijing’s point of view, a pragmatic double standard that emerges when principles clash with domestic interests.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
2) The Chinese Perspective on the Political Rise of the Far Right in Europe as a Reason for the Inhumane Treatment of Refugees and Migrants:
Chinese researchers analyze this legislation as a direct result of increasing pressure from far-right and conservative parties in Europe. Chinese think tanks believe that ruling elites in Europe have become hostages to domestic electoral concerns, stripping common European policies of their traditional liberal character and pushing them toward nationalist isolationism.
3) Beijing’s Perspective on the Causes of Economic and Demographic Deficits in Europe and Their Relation to the Migrant and Refugee Crisis:
Beijing views the crisis not merely as a human influx but as a reflection of the inability of European economic structures to integrate migrants and utilize them to address the demographic aging crisis. This inability stems from slowing economic growth, high inflation rates, and pressure on social welfare systems.
4) Chinese circles and think tanks link the identity crisis and the rise of the right wing in Europe to Europe’s declared humanitarian commitments regarding migrant issues:
Chinese circles believe that the European Parliament’s vote of 418 to 218 to tighten laws on asylum and migration is a direct reflection of popular pressure and demonstrations that swept through European capitals. Beijing considers this shift an indication of the fracturing of the Western liberal model and its inability to balance declared humanitarian commitments with internal stability and economic growth.
5) China’s Strategic Analysis of the Moral and Political Exposure in Europe and Double Standards Regarding Refugee Issues:
Chinese political elites believe that Europe’s resort to stringent options, such as establishing return hubs outside the borders of the European Union, reflects a clear double standard. The West exerts continuous human rights pressure on developing countries (including China) while resorting to harsh exceptional measures when its internal security is threatened.
6) China’s Strategic Link to the Refugee and Migrant Crisis in Europe and its Relationship to Trade and Political Issues:
This cautious Chinese perspective coincides with other political and economic tensions with Brussels, as the European Parliament recently adopted sharp reports criticizing Beijing on trade and political matters. Therefore, Chinese circles view the internal European crisis as an opportunity to demonstrate that the Western model is not the ideal model for managing societal development.
– Second: Proposed Chinese Solutions to Europe’s Migration and Asylum Crises and Beijing’s Alternative Approach (Security and Development)
Chinese think tanks, through their political and economic literature, such as their vision of the South-South Cooperation Principle, present an alternative model based on the prevailing Chinese philosophy. In contrast to what Chinese circles perceive as Europe’s inadequate and violent security approach, Beijing’s think tanks propose the Chinese approach based on security through development, as follows:
1) Presenting China’s Global Development Initiative (GDI) as an Alternative Solution to Europe’s Migration and Asylum Crisis:
The Chinese perspective asserts that the migration and asylum crisis is a symptom of a fundamental problem of poverty, instability, and wars in the countries of origin (the Middle East and Africa). China presents its development initiative as a means to address the economic roots of the crisis by building infrastructure and providing job opportunities in developing countries, thus eliminating the need for its citizens to undertake illegal migration.
2) Proposing China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI) as an alternative and effective approach to resolving refugee and migrant issues in Europe:
Beijing believes that past Western military interventions in the Middle East and Africa are primarily responsible for the waves of refugees. Therefore, China proposes an approach based on common and sustainable security and respect for the sovereignty of states, instead of regime change policies that lead to state collapse and refugee flows.
3) China’s approach to addressing the root causes of the migration and refugee crisis in Europe (China’s Global Security and Development Initiative):
Beijing believes that the migration crisis cannot be solved through deportation centers or security fences. The Chinese proposed solution is peaceful development addressing the root causes, meaning investing real capital and building infrastructure in the countries of origin of migrants (Africa and the Middle East) through China’s Belt and Road Initiative to create job opportunities that prevent migration flows in the first place.
4) Chinese think tanks and circles call for strengthening stability in Europe through strict central planning to address the refugee and migrant crisis:
Chinese circles consistently contrast the unrest and violent demonstrations in Europe with a model of stability based on long-term central planning and effective political control of public affairs. Beijing proposes that its international partners adopt robust national development approaches that protect the social fabric and prevent social disintegration.
5) China rejects the European approach of politicizing refugee and migrant issues and advocates for equitable economic cooperation with host countries:
China calls for an end to the use of human rights and migration issues as tools for political pressure and a shift towards implementing comprehensive and equitable economic agreements that guarantee the rights of both host and origin countries, moving beyond the political factional conflicts (right and left) that paralyze European decision-making.
– Third: The Chinese Strategic Circles’ Vision of South-South Cooperation Mechanisms in the Face of European Approaches to Migrant and Refugee Issues
Chinese strategic circles are exploiting Europe’s hardline stance towards migrants (most of whom come from the Global South) to bolster the Chinese narrative advocating for South-South solidarity through:
1) Presenting China as a reliable alternative partner: Chinese think tanks emphasize that Beijing deals with African, Asian, and Latin American countries on the basis of equality and mutual benefit without imposing political or cultural conditions, unlike the conditional European approach.
2) Activating South-South frameworks to counter Europe’s inhumane treatment of refugees and migrants: The Chinese vision calls for strengthening cooperation through mechanisms, such as the BRICS group, China-Africa Forum (FOCAC), and Belt and Road Initiative. The goal is to empower countries of the Global South to build their own capacities and achieve economic independence, thus giving them a stronger position to counter restrictive and unjust Western policies that harm their citizens, as well as immigrants and refugees.
Based on the previous strategic analysis to understand the position of China and its think tanks and analytical and strategic circles regarding the European approach to the issue of asylum and migrants, Chinese think tanks believe that the European Parliament’s decision to expel refugees is practical evidence of the decline of Europe’s normative influence and a diplomatic and strategic opportunity for Beijing to consolidate its leadership of the Global South bloc by presenting an alternative development model that transcends the narrow Western security perspective.
