















































1      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

European Right-Wing Populist Parties’ Approach toward China: 

Between Anti-Globalization and Appeal for Diversified 

International Partnerships 
 

Dong Tu1  and  Łukasz Zamęcki2 
 University of Warsaw and Sichuan University 

  

 

 

 

Abstract 

Despite the fact that right-wing populist parties (RPPs) have gained increased prominence in the 

last 15 years in Europe and the amount of research regarding these parties has been on the rise, 

RPPs' attitude toward the People’s Republic of China remains an understudied issue. The aim of 

this article is to examine questions that have not yet been thoroughly researched: how are the 

positions of right-wing populist parties (RPPs) on China shaped and how are they evolving, what 

causes such differing positions, and have there been any changes in the RPP’s approach to China 

since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic? This article aims to answer these questions by 

analyzing the policies toward China of selected political parties (primarily, Hungary's Fidesz, 

Italy's Lega Nord, France's Rassemblement National but also parties such as the Polish Law and 

Justice, and Germany's Alternative für Deutschland). This article underlines that RPPs’ policies 

on China are formulated based on what they perceive the development of international politics can 

do “for the people.” Their attitudes depend mainly on their stance toward free-market 

globalization, their need for alternatives in relations with the US and the EU, and their axiological 

perception of China.  

 

 

 
1 Dong Tu is an Associate Professor at the College of Foreign Languages and Cultures at Sichuan University. 
2 Lucas Zamecki is a political scientist and an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Political Science and International 

Studies at the University of Warsaw. 



2      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

Introduction 

 

 

Contrary to the prediction that following the initial shock concerning the COVID-19 pandemic 

there might be an opportunity for the European Union (EU) and the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) to strengthen their cooperation, there is a new pragmatic turn in dealing with China that is 

beginning to emerge amongst EU member states. China has seen its reputation “collapse in some 

of the EU countries that were its closest allies and partners” (Krastev and Leonard 2020, 14). This 

reputational breakdown marks a new stage in EU-China relations; however, there are great 

variations across the EU concerning the position on China. Among those, right-wing populist 

parties (RPPs)3 have gained increased prominence in the last 15 years in Europe. In a survey 

conducted for the European Council on Foreign Relations, there is an improved perception of 

China amidst the supporters of RPPs in most EU member states (Dennison et al. 2020). In fact, 

RPPs in the EU showcase a strongly diversified approach to China, ranging from the blatant anti-

Chinese agenda of France's Rassemblement National’s (RN) to the contradictory stances of Italy's 

Lega Nord (LN) and the more receptive attitude of Hungary’s Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance 

(Fidesz).  

 

As RPPs have become an important political force in the recent decades in Europe and continue 

to shape (even if indirectly) particular public policies, the main purpose of this article is to examine 

the so-far understudied attitude of RPPs toward China, shed light on their ever-changing and 

shifting position on China, explain the causes behind such differing positions and, finally, 

investigate whether there have been any changes in their approach to China since the beginning of 

the COVID-19 pandemic. Many European RPPs have a rather positive stance toward Vladimir 

Putin’s Russia (e.g. RN, Fidesz, Alternative für Deutschland [AfD]), but in the case of PRC, other 

variables are at play such as China’s position as an economic superpower, China’s communist 

ideology or Sino-US tensions. Additionally, these parties’ positions as either a governing party or 

opposition also have had an effect on their stance toward China. For example, they may employ a 

strong anti-China strategy while being an opposition party but modify or even change their stance 

completely when in power. This article intends to answer these questions by analyzing policies on 

China (mainly from Hungary's Fidesz, Italy's Lega Nord [LN], France's Rassemblement National 

[RN] with an additional examination of parties that have been omitted in research so far, such as 

Poland's Law and Justice [PiS] and Germany's Alternative für Deutschland [AfD]). These 

geographically distributed cases representing post-communist and “old EU” states guarantee a 

broad overview of the studied issue.4 Due to the limitations of the analysis, the article focuses only 

on RPPs as they gain higher support than left-wing populist parties and are perceived to be a bigger 

 
3 Researchers on European populism deploy a bewildering set of labels to classify European populist parties on the 

right (borrowing the classical left-right spectrum), such as “radical right populists,” “populist radical right,” “far right,” 

“right-wing populism,” “extreme right,” and “populist right.” In response, Pippa Norris (2019) conceptualizes two-

dimensional cleavages (Pluralism-Populism and Authoritarian-Libertarian) to categorize populist and traditional 

mainstream parties in Europe. According to this new categorization, it would be more appropriate to refer to the parties 

in question as authoritarian-populist or authoritarian-right parties. However, for the sake of convenience and clarity, 

in this article, the term right-wing populist is adopted to refer to the populist parties under investigation. For more 

details, please refer to Norris (2019). 
4 The cleavages in the post-communist societies run along slightly different lines than in the countries of Western 

Europe. An important issue of the RPPs in Central Europe is the attitude to the political system they represented before 

1989. It can be expected that the RPPs from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) put greater emphasis on the communist 

regime of the PRC than Western European parties. 



3      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

threat to the stability of European integration and politics. Nevertheless, a comparative analysis on 

the position toward China by left-wing populist parties could be an interesting future area of study 

considering their attitude toward economic globalization.  

 

Arguably, the positions of RPPs toward China are the result of populism as a “thin-centered” 

ideology (Mudde 2004). Their attitude, therefore, results from RPPs’ perception of what is “good 

for the people” in their country's relations with China and, depending on their interpretation of 

national interest, can shape various proposals of state foreign policies; foreign policy proposals of 

RPPs will vary, depending on the state, due to differing domestic, economic, and political 

situations. The article is based on secondary research as well as an analysis of statements and 

speeches of party leaders (China, in most cases, is absent in the political programs of RPPs). The 

starting point for the analysis is 2001. The level of support for right-wing populism in Europe 

increased after 1999 (TAP 2019). In 2001, China became a member of the World Trade 

Organization (WTO), which is one of the reasons that it has become one of the key trading partners 

of the EU. Therefore, in its analysis of the statements of party leaders, this article has concentrated 

on parties’ positions in the twenty-first century. 

 

The research consists of six parts. The introduction is followed by a literature review which points 

out the research gap in the studies of RPPs’ approaches toward China in the existing scholarship. 

The subsequent three parts explain the ideological content underpinning RPPs' foreign policies, 

review these parties’ approaches to China throughout history, and analyze their approach to China 

since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The conclusion presents a discussion on how the 

RPPs’ positions toward China vary among parties as an effect of their attitude to the axiological 

issues, globalization, and the perception of foreign partners (the EU, the United States [US]).  

 

What do we know about the foreign policy positions of right-wing populist parties?  

The existing literature on European right-wing populism has largely ignored RPPs’ approach to 

China. Firstly, the general foreign policies of European RPPs are an under-researched area in both 

Western and Chinese academic circles. Secondly, the discussion on the policies of these parties 

toward China is still missing, although Western academia has been making efforts to fill the 

aforementioned research gap by focusing more attention on populist politicians' foreign policy 

over the past dozen or so years (e.g. Liang 2007, Swyngedouw et al.2007, Verbeek and Zaslove 

2015).  

 

Populist parties’ international agenda toward particular countries remains largely unaddressed 

among Western scholars’ prolific work on European populism so far.  Much recent research has a 

special focus on populism’s historical origins and political platforms, its voter patterns and 

electoral success, its impact on public policy, and government participation.5 This is due to 

populism’s nature as a direct response to the perceived domestic economic and social problems as 

well as its comparative marginal place in European politics. However, the evolving party politics 

plus the increasingly blurred boundary between domestic and international politics in Europe 

require more academic attention on RPPs’ international agenda.  

 
5 Some examples of this research include Albertazzi and McDonnell 2008, Chryssogelos 2011, Liang 2007, Mudde 

2004, Mudde 2007, Norris 2019, Özdamar and Ceydilek 2019, Rivero 2019, Shields 2007, Verbeek and Zaslove 2017, 

and Zaslove 2008. 



4      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

 

The Western academic circle reacted to this trend rather rapidly as more researchers have begun 

to address RPPs’ foreign policy in the last 15 years. Liang’s edited volume (2007) deals with the 

foreign policy of RPPs in Europe such as the Austrian far-right, Belgium's Vlaams Blok (now 

known as Vlaams Belang), Denmark's People’s Party, and France's Front National (presently 

known as Rassemblement National). Angelos-Stylianos Chryssogelos’ research (2010; 2011) 

contributes to this body of knowledge by outlining RPPs’ positions on transatlantic relations, EU-

Russia relations, the Middle East, and the global economic and financial systems, focusing 

specifically on their attitudes to aid and development assistance. Verbeek and Zaslove’s work 

(2015) analyzes the relationship between populism and foreign policy in general by looking into 

the case of Italy's Lega Nord. Other research on this issue includes the examination of the impact 

of populist parties’ political radicalization on international policy developments and relations 

(Balfour et al. 2016). Two recent contributions to this area are Özdamar and Ceydilek’s empirical 

study (2019) of the foreign policy belief systems of seven European populist far-right leaders 

(Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, Jimmie Åkesson, Frauke Petry, and 

Norbert Hofer) and Escartin’s analysis (2020) of the extent to which RPPs in power shape EU 

foreign policy, which focused on the case of Italy's LN and Hungary's Fidesz. Despite all this 

research, the policy of RPPs toward China remains largely ignored. 

 

The situation is similar in Chinese academic circles. The past 10 years saw a rapid increase in 

research of European populism among Chinese researchers. According to the database of Chinese 

National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), which is the largest and most-used online academic 

database in China, there were only six journal articles published on the subject of European 

populism between 1990 and 2010. Between January 2011 and October 2020, there were 99 articles 

on the same subject. Nevertheless, it is quite unfortunate that Chinese scholars have largely missed 

RPPs’ foreign policy.6 Given the expansion of RPPs in the European political sphere, the 

increasingly important role played by China in the globalization processes, and the growing 

significance of China as a strategic partner for the EU, it is of utmost academic urgency to research 

RPPs’ approaches and attitudes toward China.  

 

Populism and foreign policy: The increasing links between domestic and foreign policy 

Globalization in the modern world has led to a gradual disappearance of the distinction between 

domestic and international politics. Domestic events spill over into the international context, and 

at the same time, international events affect domestic and even local affairs (Verbeek and Zaslove 

2015). In the post-Cold War era, globalization has substantially increased the interdependence 

between national and foreign policies. This trend is particularly revealing in Europe where 

integration has created a multi-level decision-making and governance fabric; EU member states’ 

interdependence is institutionalized and written into legally binding treaties. The common 

currency, the European Single Market, the Schengen regime as well as the newly agreed recovery 

fund package in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have blurred the boundaries between 

regional, national, and European competencies in unparalleled ways (cf. Bache 2012). 

Furthermore, the process of European integration has turned a substantial part of member states’ 

 
6 Similar to Western scholars, Chinese academics focus most of their attention on the historical conditions of the 

European rise of populism, the variations among RPPs (for example, between left and right, Western and Eastern 

Europe), case studies in member states, its impact on European integration, etc.  



5      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

previously exclusive domestic politics into a pan-European one. For example, in recent years, 

changes in domestic politics led by Polish and Hungarian right-wing governments have provoked 

outcries from the European Union (Zamęcki and Glied 2020). In short, EU member states’ 

autonomy is “arguably constrained as the boundaries defining sovereign states have become 

blurred” (Balfour et al. 2016, 16). Regulations created at the EU level shape the framework of 

economic activity in the member states. This is often raised by populist parties, e.g., when they 

accuse the EU of its regulations facilitating the penetration of national markets by foreign entities 

or that the EU norms limit the freedom of economic activity and hinder competition with entities 

from countries that do not have such strict environmental standards (like China). 

 

Blurring boundaries is also happening in the field of foreign policy. Competing political actors and 

their differing concepts of national interest are challenging the traditional way of foreign 

policymaking (Hill 2013). In Europe, globalization and Europeanization have led to a 

“domestication” of foreign policy as external challenges become more crucial at the national level 

(Balfour et al. 2016). At the same time, political parties have also become increasingly important 

actors in foreign policymaking (Verbeek and Zaslove 2015). In that context, the influence of RPPs 

on the foreign policy of its countries can be observed, even if these parties are not part of 

government coalitions. For instance, Akkerman (2018) points out the direct and indirect influence 

of RPPs on immigration policymaking: direct influence comes through holding executive power, 

while indirect influence is due to the electoral pressure on incumbents from RPPs. The analysis of 

the position of RPPs toward China must therefore take into account whether the party is in power 

or is the opposition. The party in power has other instruments to influence public policies. In 

relation to the position on China, it is also important to note that when a party comes to power, it 

may change its stance toward such things as economic relations with China compared to the 

position it presented while in opposition. Parties in power take much more responsibility than 

when they are in the role of the opposition. Another important factor is also what the party 

competition looks like in a given party system. Fagerholm emphasizes that parties tend to “respond 

to rival parties by shifting their position in the same direction” and that niche parties, like RPPs, 

“do not generally respond to shifts in public opinion, but rather to opinion shifts among their own 

supporters” (2016, 505). 

 

In these new circumstances, European populist leaders have become known for their skills in 

localizing global complexity. Swyngedouw et al. refer to this populist strategy as “the jumping of 

scales technique” (2007, 83-84). In populist language, international migration, organized crime, 

and cross-border terrorism are national problems. For example, in the discourse of France’s 

Rassemblement National, European integration is responsible for France’s declining economy and 

the resulting immigration accounts for unemployment, crime, and the French identity crisis in 

general (Liang 2007). Consequently, once immigration is curtailed, the related domestic problems 

will be solved. Cadier (2019) emphasizes that populists in office regard foreign policy as an 

extension of domestic politics even more than mainstream political parties.    

 

The ideological attachment of RPPs’ foreign policy 

 

The most popular and concise definition of populism as a thin ideology is based on a central 

dichotomy: “the people” versus “the elite.” In the populist view, society is primarily divided into 

two homogeneous and antagonistic groups: the pure people against the corrupt elite; thus, politics 

should be an expression of the general will of the former (Mudde 2007). This thin ideology does 

not possess a fully clarified or coherent argument about the political, economic, and social issues 



6      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

in the real world. That is why populism can be attached both to “the Left” and “the Right.” It 

cannot exist without assigning itself to other, more fully-fledged political ideologies such as 

socialism, liberalism, nationalism, or radical-right ideology (Verbeek and Zaslove 2015). 

Therefore, European right-wing populism7 is based on a combination of populism, radical-right 

thinking, and authoritarianism. A large number of radical-right and far-right parties in Western 

Europe have adopted a populist worldview and succeeded in making electoral gains in the last 15 

years. Apart from populism, they adopt nativism and authoritarianism as the core of their 

ideologies (Mudde 2007). Regarding economic policies, their most visible feature is the opposition 

to economic globalization.8  

 

RPPs’ ideology is also visible in their foreign policy programs. As populism is rooted in the idea 

of the authentic voice of the people, the national interest (“people’s voice”) becomes the basic 

starting point in their conceptualization of the international political agenda (Verbeek and Zaslove 

2017); such an ideological orientation results in RPPs’ inconsistency on most international issues. 

European populists have become known for their “changing views on most foreign policy issues 

” (Özdamar and Ceydilek 2019, 138). RPPs’ positions on a certain foreign policy issue, which is 

not as straightforward as expected, is always contingent upon whether they perceive the result as 

able to benefit the “people” (Verbeek and Zaslove 2015). Such examples are easy to find. On the 

one hand, this inconsistency is obvious in these parties’ stance on general foreign affairs foreign 

issues: the French RN changed its attitudes toward Russia during and after the Cold War in a rather 

radical way (Shields 2007); the Austrian Freedom Party held contradictory positions on relations 

with the US and Russia (Meyer 2007); after the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the European 

RPP leaders downplayed their anti-Americanism and adopted more friendly attitudes toward the 

US; the Italian LN initially supported globalization when it began as a free-market, neo-liberal 

political movement claiming to represent Northeastern Italy but shifted to an anti-globalization 

stance in the late 1990s after its leaders portrayed globalization as a threat to the European-style 

welfare regime, local employment, and cultural identity (Verbeek and Zaslove 2015). On the other 

hand, these RPP attitudes toward Europe further exemplify their inconsistency in foreign policy. 

LN’s position on European integration is based on its own evaluation of the expected effect of 

integration on the northern region of Italy. It supports European integration when it is viewed as a 

strengthening factor for the region’s position in Italy and Europe. For example, the party used to 

defend the idea of a Europe of the regions, which is in sharp contrast to its current opposition to 

the integration perceived as a threat to Northern Italy’s economy and cultural identity. In a similar 

vein, France’s RN’s euro attitude has experienced a similar turn from support to opposition. In 

turn, PiS in Poland maneuvers from a position that “Polexit” is impossible to slogans that “the 

dictate of the EU” is a threat to Polish identity – a culture based on Catholicism and Poland’s 

decision-making sovereignty (GPC 2020).  

 

 
7 Similar to the controversy surrounding the name of this “family of parties,” there are a number of suggestions for 

the label of ideology espoused by these parties, such as radical-right populism or national populism. 
8 Right-wing populists differ in economic policy to a large extent. For instance, some, like the Freedom Party in 

Austria, opt for free markets but seek to retain extensive welfare benefits for existing citizens. Others, like Nigel 

Farage, argue that lower economic growth is a price worth paying if it would reduce the influx of migrants and increase 

the number of jobs for Britons. On the other hand, others, like Marine Le Pen in France and similar figures in Eastern 

Europe, propose economically left-wing policies such as more state aid for troubled industries and restrictions on the 

free flow of capital and goods (therefore, they are termed as left-wing populists by some scholars). For more 

information, please see Eatwell and Goodwin 2018; Rivero 2019; Zaslove 2008.  

https://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=zh-CN&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:


7      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

Therefore, contrary to the common understanding, RPPs are not fundamentally anti-globalist or 

anti-EU. Their positions on those issues and consequent development of international policies also 

depend on internal policy challenges (Verbeek and Zaslove 2015) and are rather contingent upon 

what they perceive as beneficial for the ordinary citizens of their countries. 

 

The RPPs’ ideologies and their approach to China  

 

When the dynamic between RPPs’ ideological attachment and foreign policy positions are applied 

to their policies toward China, a number of hypotheses can be made. Firstly, European right-wing 

populists’ anti-globalization sentiment is also valid in their approach toward China. Most RPPs 

have been firm in stating that globalization, in both economic and cultural terms, has affected local 

Europeans in a rather negative way; it is argued that neo-liberalism in the international trade regime 

destroys local production, lowers wages, and results in mass unemployment (Kriesi and Pappas 

2015; Mamonova and Franquesa 2020). Furthermore, the uncontrolled exportation of foreign 

culture can pose a threat to national traditions and identities; the massive flow of immigrants is 

argued to be another curse. All in all, the RPPs’ belief is that globalization is a threat that benefits 

the European elites and takes a toll on the livelihood of ordinary Europeans. As China’s global 

influence continues to grow in economic and trade terms, it is likely to fall victim to RPPs’ 

accusations. In their discourse, the continuous relocation of the production line from Europe to 

China and the competitive price of “Made in China” products have brought about immensely 

negative consequences to the manufacturing industry and the employment market in their own 

countries. In recent years, the rapid growth of Chinese investment in Europe is also interpreted in 

rather negative terms. Ironically, when Donald Trump was preoccupied with an anti-globalization 

agenda, China expressed its wish to push for greater openness of the global market. This simply 

goes against RPPs’ anti-globalist and protectionist agenda. It is, therefore, predictable that China 

is to blame in RPP’s negative discourse on globalization. 

 

In the second place, European RPPs pursue a foreign-policy agenda with diversified international 

partnerships, which may indicate possible positive views of China. These parties’ appeal to end 

the hegemony of the US in the international order and to build ties with Russia promises a 

relatively friendly tone for China. Cooley and Nexon (2020) rightly point out that some European 

RPPs promote an international system consisting of multiple great powers rather than one or two 

superpowers, envisioning a global order that privileges national sovereignty over liberal rights and 

values because such a multipolar international system will best serve their interests. In this sense, 

China can be perceived as effective leverage to oppose the USA and the “bureaucracy of Brussels.” 

Thus, in some populists’ view, China rises as a powerful challenging force to the current world 

order and grows to be an alternative partner (e.g., in Matteo Salvini’s and Viktor Orbán’s 

discourse).  

 

To conclude, it is expected that there is no unified approach to China among European RPPs. 

RPPs’ attitudes toward China depend mainly on their stance on free-market globalization, the 

perception of the need for alternatives to relations with the US and the EU, and their axiological 

assessment of the PRC’s political system. 

 

A historical review of RPPs’ approach to China 



8      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

The relation between the ideological identification and the foreign policy orientations of European 

RPPs indicates that their positions on China are also contingent upon the extent to which China’s 

presence enhances or hinders their perceptions of the “interests of the people.” Variations are 

expected among these parties, and changes are possible within one party over time since RPP’s 

agendas in various European states are determined by national conditions.  

 

The main dimension of attitudes toward China is likely to be grounded in economic terms. The 

past three decades witnessed a sharp increase in trade between the EU and China. The European 

Commission data shows that the PRC is the EU’s largest source of imports and its second-largest 

export market as of February 2021 (Eurostat 2021). This “Chinese import shock” is seen as largely 

responsible for the increase in support for nationalist and radical-right parties (Colantone and 

Stanig 2018a). Globalization, by means of the Chinese import shock, also acted as a key structural 

determinant of the Brexit vote in that “the Leave share was systematically higher in regions that 

have been more exposed to the Chinese import” (Colantone and Stanig 2018b, 201).  

 

Initially, the European RPPs did not take China seriously in foreign policy, given the latter’s 

comparatively minor influence. Especially since for RPPs, the more important issue was migration 

from the Middle East and Africa. However, along with China’s expansion in the global economy 

since its entry into WTO in 2001, extensive investment policy by the PRC’s government and its 

growing importance as an economic partner for the EU, these parties began to address China in 

their political agenda. Still, important factors shaping the attitude of particular RPPs toward China 

are domestic issues, including the structure of the national economy and inter-party relations in 

the party system of the state. 

 

Fidesz 

 

The Hungarian Fidesz is one of the European RPPs that hold a friendly stance toward China. 

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was among the few European leaders who attended the 

Second Belt and Road Forum on International Cooperation in 2019, and Hungary was the only EU 

member state that did not sign the joint statement denouncing China’s Belt and Road Initiative 

(BRI) for hampering free trade (Elmer 2018). The Hungarian government claims that national 

interest is above anything else, and it shall not accept any kind of external ideological pressure 

from the EU. During the 2019 forum in Beijing, Orbán stated that the Chinese Belt and Road 

Initiative coincides entirely with Hungarian national interests because the cooperation proposed 

under the Initiative is an important guarantee for maintaining the order of free trade and the 

freedom of the world economy (Government of Hungary 2019). 

 

Building close ties with China is part of Hungary’s “Eastern opening” strategy. In a speech 

delivered in 2010 after becoming Prime Minister, Orbán stated that there should be no doubt that 

Hungarians belong to the Western world, but from then on, this fact would imply another 

connotation: “we are sailing under the western flag, but in the world economy an eastern wind 

blows. And the sailor that does not take into consideration according to which wind to rotate the 

sails will doom himself and his cargo” (Jacoby and Korkut 2016, 500). China is, in fact, among 

the four pillars of Hungary’s “Eastern opening” and is a primary target in Orbán’s goal of re-

framing Hungary’s geopolitical associations to diversify exports and attract investment in 

infrastructure projects (Jacoby and Korkut 2016). Since Fidesz came into power in 2010, the 

Hungarian government has been building stronger economic and political ties with China by 



9      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

facilitating Chinese business and investment, encouraging Chinese tourism in Hungary, and 

offering China its political support on certain international issues.9  

 

Fidesz’s rapprochement with China under the leadership of Orbán can be interpreted as an act of 

Euroscepticism (Hargitai 2020) and an effort to manage the pressure from the EU over his 

undemocratic changes. Politically speaking, China, along with Singapore, India, Russia, and 

Turkey, are models of successful illiberal and non-democratic countries for Viktor Orbán (Jacoby 

and Korkut 2016). Economically speaking, closer links to China promise to offer an alternative to 

European resources (the Hungarian order of Chinese vaccines in 2021 can serve as an example 

here). It somewhat complements Hungary’s simultaneous movements away from the EU (Jacoby 

and Korkut 2016). As Orbán said in 2019, Chinese companies are making a substantial 

contribution to the modernization of the Hungarian economy, with Chinese investments in 

Hungary amounting to a record high of approximately USD 4.5 billion (Government of Hungary 

2019). Therefore, China is part of Fidesz’s appeal for diversified international partnerships.  

 

It should, however, not be forgotten that Fidesz did not always hold a positive opinion of China. 

Its Sinophile approach is, in fact, a shift from its earlier Sinophobic one. For a long time, Fidesz 

presented a rather skeptical stance toward China and Chinese activities in Hungary. For example, 

in their unsuccessful campaign in the 2006 election, Orbán called for restrictions on Chinese 

immigration in Hungary. Later, in 2008, he demanded the Hungarian government caution China 

against its human rights record and make Tibet an issue in Hungary-China diplomatic relations 

(Jacoby and Korkut 2016). In addition, on more than one occasion, Fidesz representatives have 

blamed Chinese merchants for causing social and economic problems such as smuggling or illegal 

immigration (Nyíri 2007). Nevertheless, since returning to power in 2010, Fidesz has considerably 

softened its anti-Chinese populist rhetoric and downplayed or even dropped its previous harsh 

criticism of China. Orbán’s position should therefore be seen as purely populist, resulting from the 

actual needs and the assessment of benefits and thus a disregard for a clear ideological position. 

As discussed earlier, as of the end of 2021, Fidesz regards China as both an alternative partner to 

the West and a significant guarantee for the interest of the Hungarian people.   

 

The opposition parties’ policy proposals toward China also affect Fidesz. In Hungary, the 

opposition did not play the Chinese card in the previous electoral campaigns10; interestingly, the 

far-right Jobbik has the most consistent anti-Chinese stance among the main opposition parties. 

When in 2022, the united Hungarian opposition began to criticize Fidesz’s Chinese policy 

(including support for the establishment of a branch of the Fudan University in Budapest), and a 

change in public opinion regarding China began to be noticeable (Dubravčíková et al. 2020; 

Koleszár 2021), Viktor Orbán softened his clearly pro-Chinese stance in the campaign (Standish 

 
9 Hungary was the first European country to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative in 2015. It also opposed the EU 
using any strong language in its statement on the South China Sea the next year. In 2021, Hungary blocked the 

European Union’s proposed statement criticizing China over Hong Kong. 
10 The domestic political situation regarding the direct electoral competitor matters in RPP’s China policy. The 
challenges posed by Eric Zemmours for RN, the Forum voor Democratie for the Party for Freedom (PVV), the Fratelli 

d'Italia for LN are cases in point. RN, PVV and LN constantly modify their discourses on China according to the 

extent their rivals are questioning the China issue and competing for the dominating discursive power. The situation 

in Hungary is somewhat different. As the governing party, Fidesz is supposed to answer the challenges on 

governments’ policy toward China raised by opposition parties. Nevertheless, the subject of China was largely missing 

in the previous electoral campaigns in Hungary over the past decade.  

https://chinaobservers.eu/author/rekak/
https://www.rferl.org/author/reid-standish/tt_uqi


10      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

and Szalai 2021). This sort of departure is in line with the findings demonstrated in studies on 

RPPs' change in policy positions (Özdamar and Ceydilek 2019; Verbeek and Zaslove 2015).  

 

Lega Nord 

 

Italy’s LN stands out as an interesting contrast to Fidesz, not only because of its anti-China position 

but also due to the consistency in its policy toward China. Founded in 1991, the Lega Nord per 

l'Indipendenza della Padania (rebranded as “Lega” in 2018 without changing the official name of 

the party) is a right-wing populist party advocating more autonomy for the country’s wealthier 

northern region (Padania). In its populist rhetoric, the protection of Padania’s interest was the 

primary goal of the party. As discussed in the previous part, LN shifted from a pro-globalization 

and pro-EU position to its current anti-globalization and Eurosceptic stance out of the concern that 

Padania’s declining global and European competitiveness made it a victim of globalization and 

EU’s politics. Its founder and former leader, Umberto Bossi, portrayed globalization as a threat to 

local production and local traditions (Verbeek and Zaslove 2015). By similar logic, China is an 

object of LN’s accusations. At the end of the 1990s, Bossi and other leaders of LN began to worry 

about China’s upcoming entry into the WTO. They saw Chinese textile exports as a grave threat 

to Italy’s local textile production. Bossi underlined the process of moving Italian manufacturing 

abroad. Thus, LN was irritated by the EU’s push to abolish tariffs that, according to them, would 

expose European countries to competitors like China, and, as a result, European nations would not 

be able to protect their industries (Woods 2009). Next to immigration, protectionism became the 

primary concern of LN and the party called for the defence of Italian businesses from China 

(Albertazzi and McDonnell 2005). During its time in power in the coalition government led by 

Silvio Berlusconi between 2001 and 2006, LN made frequent requests to pass protectionist 

measures by introducing high tariffs against products (i.e. from China) (Albertazzi and McDonnell 

2008). Furthermore, in 2009, Roberto Cenni, supported by LN, became the first conservative 

mayor of Prato, Tuscany, and after taking office, he backed stricter regulations on Chinese trade 

and law enforcement officers’ raids on Chinese garments companies (Esparraga 2017). LN has 

often raised the issue of Chinese counterfeits of Italian products. 

 

Since taking the party leadership from Bossi in December 2013, Matteo Salvini persisted in LN’s 

Sinosceptic tone. During his time in office as Deputy Prime Minister between June 2018 and 

September 2019 in the coalition government of LN and the Five Star Movement (M5S), he was 

quite suspicious of, if not outright opposed to Italy’s rapprochement with China. When asked about 

his attitude toward China, he mentioned that “China is not a democracy and has a certain spirit of 

imperialism and control” (Reuters 2019). Salvini thus identifies with the Atlanticist position, at 

the same time disagreeing with M5S’ argument stating that close ties with China safeguard Italy’s 

national interest. Moreover, Salvini frequently comments that “Italy is China’s colony,” arguing 

that Italy joining the Belt and Road Initiative is an attempt by China to colonize it in economic 

terms (Giuffrida 2019). Regarding the issue of Huawei, Salvini staunchly opposes Chinese 

companies’ involvement in Italy’s 5G network (O’Neal 2020). In fact, he proposes to suspend 

Italy’s relations with China altogether. Nevertheless, when he was in power and was asked about 

his inconsistency by journalists (that he claims to be against China but takes part in some joint 

activities with the PRC), he explained that “it is fine to encourage an economic understanding 

between our businesses, but this cannot be a Trojan horse that indulges Beijing’s geopolitical 

projects” (Lanzavecchia 2020). 

 



11      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

In 2020, in addition to blaming China for the COVID-19 pandemic, Salvini also supported Hong 

Kong on his social media channels. Currently, LN has the sharpest position toward China among 

the main political parties. To sum up, Italy's LN is a case of a European RPP that holds a rather 

negative but consistent position on China, with the cause of their concerns being focused on the 

regional labour market and the economy. Complaints about “Chinese imperialism” mainly stem 

from economic anxieties but an axiological element in LN’s rhetoric is also noticeable.  
 

Rassemblement National 

 

France's Rassemblement National (previously known as Front National [FN]) is another European 

RPP that holds a consistent anti-China position. Established as a far-right party, RN incorporated 

a series of populist elements in its subsequent development. Since the 1980s, FN/RN has made 

immigration its core concern, focusing on French culture and tradition with a definition of national 

identity that stresses ethnicity rather than values. Meanwhile, the idea of protecting French 

people’s interests motivates RN to be vocal on a wide range of issues such as European integration, 

law and order, and France’s high rate of unemployment. Since the 1990s, RN has gradually shifted 

to a right-wing populist ideology that combines nationalism and authoritarian political values with 

strong populist rhetoric.  

 

When it comes to relations between France and China, the word “protectionism” dominates RN’s 

discourses. China is described as a “thief,” an enemy, and a threat. RN’s Sinophobic position can 

be regarded as an extension of its Euroscepticism. In condemning the EU’s commercial policy, 

RN’s former leader Jean-Marie Le Pen accuses the EU of promoting an extremely liberal agenda 

that fails to protect European industries and instead supports the benefits of the countries outside 

Europe, particularly China (Vasilopoulou 2010). According to RN, the open border policy 

practiced by the EU exposes French interests to excessive competition with the US and China 

(Stockemer 2017). RN, under the new leadership of Marine Le Pen, persists in its hardline stance 

toward China. In her book published in 2012, Marine Le Pen accuses the elites (at both the French 

and EU levels) of negating the manufacturing industry’s relocation from Europe to China over the 

past 30 years; in her opinion, the reality is dramatic and has, in fact, involved all economic sectors 

in France (Le Pen 2012). According to Le Pen, China is the culprit behind the massive 

unemployment and income decline in France (2012). In addition to the social dumping, Le Pen 

argues that China practices monetary dumping with erratic measures, which consequently results 

in imbalances in the international monetary system. She refuses to recognize Beijing as a market 

economy, complaining that the absurd EU rules do little to protect the European market (Front 

National 2015b) and argues that “quasi-free trade with China has been devastating to the French 

and European industries”; moreover, the huge discrepancies in legal, social and environmental 

standards between China and Europe are responsible for the millions of European jobs losses 

subsequently replaced by Chinese workers (Le Corre 2017). Thus, in her rhetoric, China is not 

simply a threat but a crisis (“la crise chinoise”) (Front National 2015a). 

 

In recent years, RN has emphasized the excessive dependence of the supply chain of goods on 

China and the need to protect the French market against goods from the PRC (Chenu 2019; 

Androuet 2020). Given the changing attitudes of French political parties and the French public 

toward China, RN’s position is not so different from the political mainstream.  

 

 

 



12      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

Other cases of RPPs 

The above-mentioned cases illustrate the very typical stances of RPPs toward China and the 

arguments for the anti- or pro-China position. However, other RPPs are also worthy of attention. 

In 2016, Britain's UKIP, a forerunner for the Leave campaign before Brexit, claimed that what 

China had been and will be doing would impoverish the British people by their control of British 

companies and the consequent creation of unemployment. The British National Party, a far-right 

nationalist grouping, also depicts China as the enemy (Esparraga 2017). Their position stems from 

reluctance toward “laissez-faire globalism.” In contrast, Germany's AfD stresses the positive 

impact of Germany’s partnership with China: its representatives believe that the rise and revival 

of China is an imminent reality and that good relations with China are beneficial for Europe. In 

their view, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a valuable addition to the global economy and brings 

development to the continental countries. A member of the European Parliament from AfD stated 

that “if Europe wants to be an independent global player” instead of “an American vassal,” “it 

must nurture a good relationship,” “trustful partnership,” and even “true friendship” with China 

(Free West Media 2020). Criticism of China also appears in AfD’s discourse in the context of 

economic competition and fears of “selling off” the German economy to China (Weidel 2019). 

This may give the impression of inconsistency in AfD's appeal. However, apart from slogans about 

the need to protect the national economy, which is typical for RPPs, AfD’s Members of the 

European Parliament (MEPs) opposed the resolutions condemning China (Becker and Hail 2020). 

Another noteworthy RPP is Poland's PiS, whose stance on China is an interesting example of pulls 

and pushbacks. Different from some populist parties in Europe, PiS’ more multi-faceted stance 

stems from the fact that it is the ruling party. With its potentially important role in the Belt and 

Road Initiative, Poland was interested in closer cooperation with China, which was exemplified 

by the visit of the President of the Republic of Poland, Andrzej Duda, to China and his good 

relationship with President Xi Jinping. However, there are politicians within PiS that are reluctant 

to China (e.g. former Minister of National Defence, Antoni Macierewicz); this fact, coupled with 

the lower-than-expected investment benefits from the BRI, bring some doubts about closer 

cooperation with China, even on barely economic grounds. In addition, relations with the PRC 

have been worsened by PiS due to the US' position on Huawei’s investments in 5G infrastructure 

in recent years. Poland remains under the significant influence of the United States, which is 

considered the most important ally on account of the threat from Russia. Therefore, we can observe 

an internal tension in the policy toward China in PiS (Bachulska 2021). One faction that is keener 

to cooperate with China argues on the basis of economic terms. This group sees the PRC entities 

as potential new investors in numerous (and usually large-scale) investment projects of PiS' 

government. This is particularly true if the Polish government foresees a likely reduction in the 

investment flows from the EU. Possible investments by the PRC in transport infrastructure 

including the New Central Polish Airport, located 40 km from Warsaw, were considered. Their 

hope is that Poland could play the role of a broker for Chinese investments and therefore benefit 

from Chinese activities in the EU. The reluctant faction emphasizes China’s incompatibility with 

the international security architecture based on the dominant role of the US, as the latter is seen as 

crucial in Poland’s security.  

The two RPPs in Eastern Europe, Hungary's Fidesz and Poland's PiS, are expected to be more anti-

communist and hence more anti-China, given their historical experience. Nevertheless, these two 

parties’ present approaches toward China showcase an interesting contrast. Regardless of their 



13      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

rather similar axiology-based anti-China tone in earlier days, Fidesz and PiS hold different 

perceptions of China at the moment. The former proposes to build closer ties with China and hopes 

to bring huge economic benefits for the Hungarian people (though Orbán also refers to China to 

support Hungary’s illiberal democratic regime as an alternative to that of Western Europe). 

Compared to Fidesz’s rather positive stance toward China, PiS seems more reserved. This contrast 

could be attributed to PiS’ added emphasis on the axiological differences between China and the 

West, as well as Poland’s strong inclination toward the US.  

 

In conclusion, European RPPs’ policies toward China demonstrate two remarkable features. 

Firstly, there is no unified approach to China among the right-wing populists in Europe, even 

though they share similar ideological underpinnings. Secondly, an individual party may change its 

position on China quite drastically. Moreover, the pro- or anti-China stances presented by these 

parties indicate that, on the one hand, their Sinophobia is an extension of their anti-globalization 

sentiment in which China is primarily portrayed as a threat to the local production and the root 

cause for the sluggish local economy. On the other hand, the Sinophile orientation is a reflection 

of their appeal for diversified international partnerships in which China could act as an alternative 

partner to Western hegemony. Likewise, for some Eurosceptical RPPs, China is a counterbalance 

to Brussels. Additionally, one can notice that both the pro- and anti-China camps use the economic 

benefit/national interest argument to defend their approaches; such is the nature of populism. 

Populists are eventually constrained by the electorate. All in all, “the appeal to the masses will not 

be made on ideological lines, but on what attracts most votes: Chinese direct investment in Poland 

or the fear of the Dragon taking French jobs” (Esparraga 2017, 3). The attitudes of RPPs toward 

China also clearly show the inconsistency in the appeal of RPPs, resulting from the blurred 

ideological foundations of populism. 

 

Thus, another variable that exerts even more impact on the changes of attitude toward the PRC 

other than nativist, anti-immigrant, axiological perspectives, or the geopolitical and economic 

situation of the state is RPPs’ position in the government, especially if it is a ruling party. For 

example, Fidesz changed its stance after becoming the governing party; it also partially happened 

with Poland's PiS. Even Matteo Salvini, who presented himself as a consistent opponent of the 

PRC, began to conduct business with China during his term in government.11 Finally, the attitude 

of RPPs toward China is heavily contingent on the RPPs’ earlier attitude toward the USA. Parties 

that are keen to cooperate strongly with the US (especially under Trump’s presidency) are less 

favorable to China.   

 
11 Another Italian populist party – leftist Five Star Movement (M5S) – can also be used as a case of a shift in policy 

toward China upon becoming the governing party. Starting from its establishment in 2009 to 2018, the M5S had a 

rather skeptical attitude toward China. The M5S founder, Beppe Grillo, shared skepticism of the Italian government 

on Chinese takeovers in strategic sectors and strongly protested against China’s trade practices in the past (Garcia-

Herrero and Sapir 2017). However, after coming into office in June 2018, M5S led an unprecedentedly active policy 

toward China (Poggetti 2018), i.e., the government set up a special “China Task Force” under the Ministry of 

Economic Development and made explicit its intent to position Italy as a leading European partner in cooperation 

with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. In August 2018, Italy signed four bilateral agreements with China (Buzzetti 

2018) and became the first G7 country that signed a memorandum of understanding on the Belt and Road Initiative 

with China (Horowitz 2019). As M5S’ members in Italy’s populist government argue, collaboration with China 

promises to revive the sluggish Italian economy, create its own opportunity, and serve the interest of the Italian people. 

Italy’s officials from the M5S also appreciate China’s efforts to provide medical supplies (Coratella 2020). 

Furthermore, as recently as August 2020, Grillo criticized Italy’s realignment with the US and pushed for 

strengthening ties with China.  



14      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

Although the positions of RPPs on China vary among the parties, a recent turn toward a more 

hostile attitude is observable. This can be interpreted with the use of axiological arguments and by 

applying a geostrategic logic. From the axiological point of view, amongst the frequently raised 

issues are matters of communism, human rights, and authoritarianism.12 

 

 

RPPs’ policy toward China in times of COVID-19 

Against the backdrop of increasing distrust toward China among European citizens and the 

hardening tone toward China by certain European politicians, some RPPs, although not having 

undergone a dramatic shift, have gradually turned to a more critical stance toward China, e.g. 

France's RN and the Netherlands' PVV. This is in line with the falling public assessment of China 

during the months since the pandemic outbreak (Silver et al. 2020). The assessment of China 

during the COVID-19 pandemic has worsened (Krastev and Leonard 2020), however, the 

“coronavirus diplomacy” of the PRC might have created some minor exceptions to this trend. For 

example, China’s medical equipment sales have been initially well-received by parts of Europe.13 

The right-wing populist politician who praised the Chinese support the most is probably the 

founder of the Serbian Progressive Party and the President of Serbia, Aleksandr Vucić.  

On the one side are the Sinophobic parties. LN has continued its anti-China rhetoric during the 

COVID-19 pandemic. Its leader Matteo Salvini doubted the good intentions with which China sent 

the urgently needed medical advisory group and resources to Italy in March 2020. On March 25, 

he and his LN colleague Giorgia Meloni posted on their personal social media accounts a piece of 

unconfirmed information claiming that a news program aired in 2015 about Chinese lab 

experiments and research on other coronaviruses was “proof that the novel virus had originated in 

that same lab” (Nardelli and D’Urso 2020). A few days later, Salvini took things one step further 

and stated that “if the Chinese government knew [about the virus] and didn’t tell it publicly, it 

committed a crime against humanity” during a debate session in the Senate (Ferraresi 2020). In 

regard to this conspiracy theory, Marine Le Pen did not express a clear opinion but stated that it 

was legitimate to wonder if the virus had escaped from a laboratory. At the same time, she was 

quite aware that 40% of her supporters in the first round of the presidential election in 2017 

believed that the coronavirus was intentionally made, and 15% believed that it was accidentally 

made (Lepelletier 2020). Other representatives from France's RN underlined the danger of 

excessive dependence on a foreign country in supplies of medicine and medical protective 

equipment (Bardella 2020). Though not explicitly stated, it is obvious that China is viewed as an 

unreliable partner, which highlights the thesis that China is critically regarded as the Trojan horse 

of economic globalization.  

 
12 It is also visible among other RPPs not studied here. For example, the Netherlands' Party for Freedom (PVV) and 
Geert Wilders have questioned the fairness of competing with Chinese companies. PVV underlines the systemic 

rivalry and the differences in values, implying that the Chinese engage in industrial espionage while emphasizing the 

threats associated with Chinese investments. Wilders refers to China as the “Trojan dragon” in Europe (PVV 2019). 

Recently, RPPs presenting axiological challenges have exposed the issue of Hong Kong and Huawei’s 5G 

infrastructure. In turn, the True Finns party in Finland mentions the concerns for the natural environment due to the 

activities of the Chinese. Britain's UKIP presents a broader axis of geopolitical concerns, with Nigel Farage calling 

for a “more tough” stance against China – a stance that can be understood through his ties with the former President 

of the US, Donald Trump. 
13 E.g., reactions of Polish citizens on social media when President Xi Jinping promised to support  Poland in a phone 

discussion with President Andrzej Duda. 

https://plus.lefigaro.fr/page/uid/3108481


15      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

In contrast, on the other side are the pro-China parties. In March 2020, the Hungarian Prime 

Minister Orbán welcomed the flight from China that brought supplies to help Hungary battle 

COVID-19, expressed his gratitude for China’s contribution to containing the spread of COVID-

19, and communicated his hopes for future bilateral economic cooperation. This type of discourse 

indicates that the appreciation of Chinese aid and its efforts in combating the pandemic offer more 

justification for their quest for a partnership with China that would serve as an alternative to a 

partnership with the West. At the same time, other RPPs’ critique of China proved even more valid 

since China’s global oligopoly of the production of medical resources weakened the capacity of 

European countries to effectively respond to the virus (such voices were particularly loud in the 

early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe). Both of these narratives claim to protect 

people’s interests, i.e. the health and security of the public during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

 

 

Discussion and Conclusions 

 

Additional research on European RPPs’ policies on China is necessary as these types of parties 

have seen greater electoral success and have entered mainstream politics at a time when relations 

between the European Union and China have become increasingly multi-faceted. The analysis in 

this article has demonstrated the following: European RPPs do not hold a unified position on 

China, and their positions on China are contingent upon whether they interpret relations with China 

as benefiting or damaging “the well-being of the people.” Their either pro- or anti-China position 

is based on the argument that engagement with China either enhances or harms people’s well-

being: China can be perceived as a threat to the national economy and (increasingly) as an 

axiological rival or an alternative partner to the US and the EU in international relations. Another 

important variable turns out to be the position of a given RPP in government and its current attitude 

toward the US. 

 

This logic is also true of RPPs’ approach toward China during the COVID-19 pandemic. From the 

early days of the chaotic competition for medical equipment to the subsequent efforts to acquire 

COVID-19 vaccinations in Europe, both pro- and anti-China voices can be heard among the RPPs. 

The parties’ pro or anti-China positions have been strengthened during the crises caused by the 

pandemic. What is noteworthy is that Europe, in general, has toughened its attitude toward China 

since the beginning of the pandemic. Within such an environment, the anti-Chinese voices seem 

to be taking the lead not only among mainstream politicians but also among RPP leaders, at least 

for the moment. For some European right-wing populists, “the threat of China” might be exploited 

as a new source of political power.  

 

This research mainly deals with these parties’ preferences in their policy toward China, but it is of 

equal or even more significance to investigate the effect of RPPs on the policies toward China at 

both the state and European levels. Firstly, as evidence shows, the mainstream in Europe has been 

absorbing the national-populist and right-wing agenda over the past decades, which “in whatever 

form, will have a powerful effect on the politics of many western countries for many years” 

(Eatwell and Goodwin 2018, 207). The issue of immigration serves as a salient case for this point. 

Being a rather marginal subject in the closing decades of the 20th century, immigration has now 

successfully found its way into the political agenda of almost every EU member state, a result 

attributable primarily to the efforts of RPPs. Another example is the never-to-be-underestimated 

role of Britain's UKIP in bringing about the Brexit vote. Secondly, RPPs in government can exert 

a direct impact on policy outcomes. For instance, a pro-China stance by an RPP in government has 

https://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=zh-CN&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:


16      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

the capacity to determine the decision-making at both the state and European levels. Such 

examples are not difficult to find. Besides, the ongoing debate over sanctions on Russia provides 

a very recent case. Apart from the above-mentioned research possibility, it must be admitted that 

this research’s scope omits to encompass certain points. Firstly, RPPs’ voices about China’s stance 

on issues such as Taiwan, human rights, and climate change are absent. Secondly, there are 

intricate differences between RPP parties in government and those in opposition as their different 

statuses exert influence on their rhetoric on China. Those limitations, however, create opportunities 

for more nuanced and meticulous future research endeavours.  

 

 

  



17      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

REFERENCES 

Androuet, Mathilde. 2020. “Notre souveraineté pharmaceutique est aussi un impératif” [Our 

pharmaceutical sovereignty is also an imperative]. Rassemblement National. Accessed 

May 26, 2022. https://rassemblementnational.fr/communiques/notre-souverainete-

pharmaceutique-est-aussi-un-imperatif/. 

Akkerman, Tijitske. 2018. The Impact of Populist Radical-Right Parties on Immigration Policy 

Agendas: A Look at The Netherlands. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. 
 

Albertazzi, Daniele, and Duncan McDonnell. 2005. “The Lega Nord in the Second Berlusconi 

Government: in a League of Its Own.” West European Politics, 28 (5): 952-972. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380500310600. 

Albertazzi, Daniele, and Duncan McDonnell, eds. 2008. Twenty-First Century Populism: The 

Spectre of Western European Democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Bache, Ian. 2012. “Multi-Level Governance in the European Union.” In The Oxford Handbook of 

Governance, edited by David Levi-Fau, 628-641. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Bachulska, Alicja. 2021. “What’s Behind Poland’s Sudden Change of Heart About China?” China 

Observers in Central and Eastern Europe, July 21, 2021. Accessed July 22, 2021. 

https://chinaobservers.eu/whats-behind-polands-sudden-change-of-heart-about-china/. 

Balfour, Rosa, Janis A Emmanouilidis, Catherine Fieschi, Heather Grabbe, Christopher Hill, Timo 

Lochocki, Marie Mendras, et al. 2016. “Europe’s Troublemakers. The Populist Challenge to 

Foreign Policy.” European Policy Centre. https://www.epc.eu/en/Publications/EUROPES-

TROUBLEMAKERS--The-p~257da8.  

Bardella, Jordan. 2020. “Relocaliser la production : il y a urgence!” [Relocate production: it is 

urgent!]. Rassemblement National. Accessed May 28, 2022. https://rassemblementnational. 

fr/communiques/relocaliser-la-production-il-y-a-urgence/ 
 

Bechis, Francesco. 2020. “Italy in Love.” The Center for European Policy Analysis. Accessed May 

16, 2021. https://cepa.org/italy-in-love/.  

Becker, Von Andrea, and Georg Heil. 2020. “Chinas Freunde bei der AfD” [China's friends at the 

AfD]. Tagesschau, November 25, 2020. Accessed May 27, 2022.https://www.tagesschau.de 

/investigativ/kontraste/afd-china-101.html. 
 

Buzzetti, Eugenio. 2018. “Quali accordi ha già sottoscritto Tria con i cinesi” [What agreements 

has Tria already signed with the Chinese]. Agenzia Italia, August 21, 2018. Accessed April 

21, 2021. https://www.agi.it/economia/tria_cina_accordi_pechino-4327570/news/2018-08-

31/. 

Cadier, David. 2019. “How Populism Spills over into Foreign Policy.” Carnegie Europe. Accessed 

May 10, 2021. https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/78102. 

 

https://rassemblementnational.fr/communiques/notre-souverainete-pharmaceutique-est-aussi-un-imperatif/
https://rassemblementnational.fr/communiques/notre-souverainete-pharmaceutique-est-aussi-un-imperatif/
https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380500310600.
https://chinaobservers.eu/whats-behind-polands-sudden-change-of-heart-about-china/
https://www.epc.eu/en/Publications/EUROPES-TROUBLEMAKERS--The-p~257da8
https://www.epc.eu/en/Publications/EUROPES-TROUBLEMAKERS--The-p~257da8
https://rassemblementnational./
https://rassemblementnational./
https://cepa.org/italy-in-love/
https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/kontraste/
https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/kontraste/
hthttps://www.agi.it/economia/tria_cina_accordi_pechino-4327570/news/2018-08-31/
hthttps://www.agi.it/economia/tria_cina_accordi_pechino-4327570/news/2018-08-31/
https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/78102.


18      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

Chenu, Sebastien. 2019. “Pénurie de médicaments, un enjeu de souveraineté sanitaire” [Shortage 

of medicine, an issue of health sovereignty]. Accessed May 27, 2022. https://rassemblement 

 national.fr/communiques/penurie-de-medicamentsun-enjeu-de-souverainete-sanitaire/. 

Chryssogelos, Angelos-Stylianos. 2010. “Undermining the West from Within: European 

Populists, the US and Russia.” European View 9 (2): 267-277.  https://doi.org/10.1007%2 

Fs12290-010-0135-1 

Chryssogelos, Angelos-Stylianos. 2011. “Old Ghosts in New Sheets: European Populist Parties 

and Foreign Policy.” Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies. Accessed April 20, 

2021. https://www.martenscentre.eu/publication/old-ghosts-in-new-sheets-european-

populist-parties-and-foreign-policy/. 

Colantone, Italo, and Piero Stanig. 2018a. “The Trade Origins of Economic Nationalism: Import 

Competition and Voting Behavior in Western Europe.” American Journal of Political 

Science 62 (4): 936-953.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12358. 

Colantone, Italo, and Piero Stanig. 2018b. “Global competition and Brexit.” American Political 

Science Review 112 (2): 201-18. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000685. 

Cooley, Alexander, and Daniel Nexon. 2020. “Why Populists Want a Multipolar World.” Foreign 

Policy, April 15, 2020. Accessed April 22, 2021. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/25/ 

populists-multipolar-world-russia-china/. 

Coratella, Teresa. 2020. “The dangers of crisis diplomacy: Italy, China, and Russia.” European 

Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed May 20, 2021. https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_ 

the_dangers_of_crisis_diplomacy_italy_china _and_russia/. 
 

Dennison, Susi, and Pawel Zerka. 2020. “Together in Trauma: Europeans and the World after 

COVID-19.” European Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed May 24, 2021. 

https://ecfr.eu/publication/together_in_trauma_europeans_and_the_world_after_covid_19/ 

Dubravčíková, Klára et al., 2020. “Hungarian Public Opinion on China in the Age of COVID-19 

Enthusiasm Overshadowed by Skepticism?” Central European Institute of Asian Studies. 

Accessed June 20, 2021. https://ceias.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/HU-poll-report.pdf. 

Eatwell, Roger, and Matthew Goodwin. 2018. National Populism: The Revolt against Liberal 

Democracy. London: Penguin Books. 

Elmer, Keegen. 2018. “EU Presents (Nearly) United Front Against China’s ‘Unfair’ Belt and Road 

Initiative.” South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), April 20, 2018. Accessed April 5, 2021. 

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2142698/eu-presents-nearly-

united-front-against-chinas-unfair. 

Escartin, Adria Rivera. 2020. “Populist challenges to EU foreign policy in the Southern 

Neighborhood: an informal and illiberal Europeanisation?” Journal of European Public 

Policy 27 (8): 1195-1214.  

https://rassemblementnational.fr/communiques/penurie-de-medicamentsun-enjeu-de-souverainete-sanitaire/
https://rassemblementnational.fr/communiques/penurie-de-medicamentsun-enjeu-de-souverainete-sanitaire/
https://doi.org/10.1007%252
https://doi.org/10.1007%252
https://www.martenscentre.eu/publication/old-ghosts-in-new-sheets-european-populist-parties-and-foreign-policy/
https://www.martenscentre.eu/publication/old-ghosts-in-new-sheets-european-populist-parties-and-foreign-policy/
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12358
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000685
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/25/
https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_dangers_of_crisis_diplomacy_italy_china%20_and_russia/
https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_dangers_of_crisis_diplomacy_italy_china%20_and_russia/
https://ecfr.eu/publication/together_in_trauma_europeans_and_the_world_after_covid_19/
https://ecfr.eu/publication/together_in_trauma_europeans_and_the_world_after_covid_19/
https://ceias.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/HU-poll-report.pdf.
https://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=zh-CN&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2142698/eu-presents-nearly-united-front-against-chinas-unfair
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2142698/eu-presents-nearly-united-front-against-chinas-unfair


19      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

Esparraga, Frank. 2017. “Rhetoric of the Right: European Populist’s View of China.” Institute for 

Security and Development Policy, 205, September 27, 2017. https://isdp.eu/content/uploads/ 

2017/09/2017-205-right-wing-populist-view-china.pdf. 
 

European Commission. 2019. EU-China – A Strategic Outlook. March 12, 2019. 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/communication-eu-china-a-

strategic-outlook.pdf. 

European Commission. 2020. “EU-China Summit: Defending EU interests and values in a 

complex and vital partnership. June 22, 2020.” Accessed April 23, 2021. 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1159. 

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). 2020. Coronavirus COVID-19 Outbreak 

in the EU – Fundamental Rights Implications. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_ 

uploads/denmark-report-covid-19-april-2020_en.pdf. 
 

Eurostat. 2021. “China-EU – international trade in goods statistics.” Accessed May 28, 2022. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=China-EU_-_international 

_trade_in_goods_statistics. 
 

Fagerholm, Andreas. 2016. “Why Do Political Parties Change Their Policy Positions? A Review.” 

Political Studies Review 14 (4): 501–11.  https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1478-9302.12078. 

Ferraresi, Mattia. 2020. “China Isn’t Helping Italy. It’s Waging Information Warfare.” Foreign Policy, 

March 31, 2020. Accessed April 23, 2021. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/31/china- 

isnt-helping-italy-its-waging-information-warfare/. 
 

Free West Media. 2020. “German politician: ‘Why should we risk our relations with China?’” May 

20, 2020. Accessed April 15, 2021. https://freewestmedia.com/2020/05/20/german- 

politician-why-should-we-risk-our-relations-with-china/?from=timeline. 
 

Front National. 2015a. “Communiqué du Press” [Press release]. August 25, 2015. Accessed April 

20, 2021. https://rassemblementnational.fr/communiques/une-strategie-nationale-face-a-la- 

crise-chinoise/. 
 

Front National. 2015b. “Communiqué du Press” [Press release]. November 9, 2015. Accessed May 

27, 2022. https://rassemblementnational.fr/communiques/lue-ne-doit-pas-accorde 

r-le-statut-deconomie-de-marche-a-la-chine/. 
 

Garcia-Herrero, Alicia, and Andre Sapir. 2017. “Should the EU Have the Power to Vet Foreign 

Takeovers?” Bruegel. Accessed June 21, 2021. https://www.bruegel.org/2017/09/should-

the-eu-have-the-power-to-vet-foreign-takeovers/. 

Giuffrida, Angela. 2019.“Italy Rattles US and EU with Likely Support for China’s Belt and Road.” 

The Guardian, March 20, 2019. Accessed April 17, 2021. https://www.theguardian. 

com/world/2019/mar/20/italy-rattles-us-and-eu-with-likely-support-for-chinas-belt-and-

road. 

https://isdp.eu/content/uploads/
https://isdp.eu/content/uploads/
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1159
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/denmark-
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/denmark-
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=China-EU_-_international
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=China-EU_-_international
https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1478-9302.12078
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/
https://freewestmedia.com/2020/05/20/
https://rassemblementnational.fr/communiques/une-strategie-nationale-face-a-la-crise-chinoise/
https://rassemblementnational.fr/communiques/une-strategie-nationale-face-a-la-crise-chinoise/
https://rassemblementnational.fr/communiques/lue-ne-doit-pas-accorder-le-statut-deconomie-de-marche-a-la-chine/
https://rassemblementnational.fr/communiques/lue-ne-doit-pas-accorder-le-statut-deconomie-de-marche-a-la-chine/
https://www.bruegel.org/
https://www.theguardian./
https://www.theguardian./
https://www.theguardian./


20      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

Government of Hungary. 2019. “The Belt and Road Initiative coincides with Hungarian national 

interests.” April 25, 2019. Accessed March 10, 2021. https://2015-2019.kormany.hu/en/the-

prime-minister/news/the-belt-and-road-initiative-coincides-with-hungarian-national-

interests. 

Gazeta Polska Codziennie (GPC). 2020. "Weto. Non Possumus! Interwiew with Jarosław 

Kaczyński." [Veto. We cannot. Interview with Jaroslaw Kaczynski] October 14, 2020. 

Accessed April 21, 2021. https://gpcodziennie.pl/780485-weto-non-possumus.html. 

Happold, Matthew. 2000. “II. Fourteen against One: The EU Member States' Response to Freedom 

Party Participation in the Austrian Government.” The International and Comparative Law 

Quarterly 49 (4): 953–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300064770. 

Hargitai, Tibor. 2020. “How Eurosceptic is Fidesz Actually?” Politics in Central Europe 16 (1): 

189-209. https://doi/org/10.2478/pce-2020-0009. 

Hill, Christopher. 2013. The National Interest in Question. Foreign Policy in Multicultural 

Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Horowitz, Jason. 2019. “Defying Allies, Italy Signs on to New Silk Road With China.” The New 

York Times, March 23, 2019. Accessed April 13, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/ 

23/world/europe/italy-china-xi-silk-road.html. 
 

Jacoby, Wade, and Umut Korkut. 2016. “Vulnerability and Economic Re-orientation: Rhetoric 

and in Reality in Hungary’s ‘Chinese Opening.’” East European Politics and Societies 30 

(3): 496-518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325415604355 

Koleszár, Réka. 2021. “Hungary-China Relations: Is It Time for a Change?” China Observers in 

Central and Eastern Europe, October 28, 2021. https://chinaobserververs.eu/hungary-china-

relations-is-it-time-for-a-change/. 

Krastev, Ivan, and Mark Leonard. 2020. “Europe’s Pandemic Politics: How the Virus Has 

Changed the Public’s Worldview.” European Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed 

March 20, 2021. https://ecfr.eu/publication/europes_pandemic_politics_how_the_virus_ 

has_changed_the_publics_worldview/. 
 

Kriesi, Hanspeter, and Takis S. Pappas, eds. 2015. European Populism in the Shadow of the Great 

Recession. Colchester: ECPR Press.  

Lanzavecchia, Otto. 2020. “China Deserves a Nuremberg trial, Italy’s League Leader Says.” 

Formiche, June 12, 2020. Accessed April 17, 2021. https://formiche.net/2020/06/china-

nuremberg-trial-italy-league-leader/. 

Le Corre, Philippe. 2017. “Future of French Engagement with Asia Rides on Vote.” Nikkei Asia, 

May 3, 2017. Accessed April 23, 2021. https://asia.nikkei.com/Viewpoints/Philippe-Le-

Corre/Future-of-French-engagement-with-Asia-rides-on-vote?page=1. 

Lepelletier, Pierre. 2020 “Coronavirus : Marine Le Pen trouve légitime de se demander si le virus 

ne s'est pas «échappé» d'un laboratoire” [Coronavirus:  Marine Le Pen finds it legitimate to 

https://2015-2019.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/news/the-belt-and-road-initiative-coincides-with-hungarian-national-interests.
https://2015-2019.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/news/the-belt-and-road-initiative-coincides-with-hungarian-national-interests.
https://2015-2019.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/news/the-belt-and-road-initiative-coincides-with-hungarian-national-interests.
https://gpcodziennie.pl/780485-weto-non-possumus.html
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300064770
https://doi/org/10.2478/pce-2020-0009
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325415604355
https://chinaobservers.eu/author/rekak/
https://chinaobservers.eu/hungary-china-relations-is-it-time-for-a-change/
https://chinaobservers.eu/hungary-china-relations-is-it-time-for-a-change/
https://cmailcarletonca-my.sharepoint.com/personal/heatherpyman_cunet_carleton_ca/Documents/CJERS%20from%20V/CJERSV/CJERS%20Unassigned%20Volume%20Articles/Zamecki%20and%20Dong/2022-9-20+Tu+Zamecki+Kozlova+Edit%20JD%20Oct%2011.docx
https://cmailcarletonca-my.sharepoint.com/personal/heatherpyman_cunet_carleton_ca/Documents/CJERS%20from%20V/CJERSV/CJERS%20Unassigned%20Volume%20Articles/Zamecki%20and%20Dong/2022-9-20+Tu+Zamecki+Kozlova+Edit%20JD%20Oct%2011.docx
https://formiche.net/
https://asia.nikkei.com/
https://plus.lefigaro.fr/page/uid/3108481


21      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

wonder if the virus did not "escape" from a laboratory]. Le Figaro, March 30, 2020. 

Accessed May 28, 2022. https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/coronavirus-marine-le-pen-

trouve-legitime-de-se-demander-si-le-virus-ne-s-est-pas-echappe-d-un-laboratoire-

20200330.  

Le Pen, Marine. 2012. Pour que vive la France [For France to live]. Paris: Éditions Grancher. 

Liang, Christina Schori, ed. 2007. Europe for the Europeans: The Foreign and Security Policy of 

the Populist Radical Right. Aldershot: Ashgate.  

Mamonova, Natalia, and Jaume Franquesa. 2020. “Populism, Neoliberalism and Agrarian 

Movements in Europe. Understanding Rural Support for Right-Wing Politics and Looking 

for Progressive Solutions.” Sociologia Ruralis, 60 (4):710-731. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru. 

12291. 

Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico. 2018. “MISE: costituita la Task Force Cina” [MISE: China 

Task Force established]. August 20, 2018. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.mise.gov. 

it/index.php/it/194-comunicati-stampa/2038553-il-mise-lancia-la-task-force-cina. 

Meyer, Berthold. 2007. “Austria between Felt Permanent Neutrality and Practiced European 

Engagement.” Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, Research Paper No. I/10–2007. 

https://www.hsfk.de/fileadmin/HSFK/hsfk_downloads/Austria_10.pdf. 

Mudde, Cas. 2004. “The Populist Zeitgeist.” Government and Opposition, 39 (4): 541–63. 

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x. 

Mudde, Cas. 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Nardelli, Alberto, and Joey D’Urso. 2020. “Italy’s Far-Right and Nationalist Leaders Are Pushing 

Debunked Conspiracy Theories about the Coronavirus to Millions of Followers.” BuzzFeed 

News, March 26, 2020. Accessed April 23, 2021. https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/ 

coronavirus-matteo-salvini-giorgia-meloni-conspiracy. 

Norris, Pippa. 2019. “Varieties of Populist Parties, Philosophy and Social Criticism.” Philosophy 

and Social Criticism, 45 (9-10): 981-1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719872279. 

Nyíri, Pal. 2007. “Chinese Entrepreneurs in Hungary.” In Hand-book of Research on Ethnic 

Minority Entrepreneurship, edited by Leo-Paul Dana, 534-554. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.  

O’Neal, Adam. 2020. “Matteo Salvini’s European Vision.”, Wall Street Journal, September 11, 

2020. Accessed April 17, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/matteo-salvinis-european-

vision-11599849126. 

Özdamar, Özgür, and Erdam Ceydilek. 2019. “European Populist Radical Right Leaders’ Foreign 

Policy Beliefs: An Operational Code Analysis.” European Journal of International 

Relations 26 (1): 137-162. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1354066119850254  

https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/coronavirus-marine-le-pen-trouve-legitime-de-se-demander-si-le-virus-ne-s-est-pas-echappe-d-un-laboratoire-20200330
https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/coronavirus-marine-le-pen-trouve-legitime-de-se-demander-si-le-virus-ne-s-est-pas-echappe-d-un-laboratoire-20200330
https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/coronavirus-marine-le-pen-trouve-legitime-de-se-demander-si-le-virus-ne-s-est-pas-echappe-d-un-laboratoire-20200330
https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12291
https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12291
https://www.hsfk.de/fileadmin/HSFK/hsfk_downloads/Austria_10.pdf
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x
https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/coronavirus-matteo-salvini-giorgia-meloni-conspiracy
https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/coronavirus-matteo-salvini-giorgia-meloni-conspiracy
https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719872279
https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719872279
https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719872279
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1354066119850254


22      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

Parenti, Fabio Massimo. 2020. “Cina-UE-Italia: contenere l’irresponsabilità statunitense” [China-

EU-Italy contain US irresponsibility]. Il Blog di Beppe Grillo, August 27, 2020. Accessed 

April 21, 2021. https://beppegrillo.it/cina-ue-italia-contenere-lirresponsabilita-statunitense. 

Poggetti, Lucrezia. 2018. “Italy Charts Risky Course with China-Friendly Policy.” Mercator 

Institute for China Studies. https://merics.org/en/analysis/italy-charts-risky-course-china-

friendly-policy. 

Party for Freedom (PVV). 2019. “Notaoverlag China” [Note China]. October 3, 2019. Accessed 

April 23, 2021.https://pvv.nl/37-fj-related/raymond-de-roon/10039-notaoverleg-china.html. 

Reuters. 2019. “Italy's Salvini Says China Cannot be in Control of Sensitive Data.” May 20, 2019. 

Accessed April 21, 2021. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-italy-china-salvini-

idUKKCN1SQ0SN. 

Rivero, Ángel. 2019. “Populism and democracy in Europe.” In Routledge Handbook of Global 

Populism, edited by Carlos de la Torre, 201-215. London: Routledge. 

Shields, James G. 2007. The Extreme Right in France: From Petain to Le Pen. London: Routledge. 

Silver, Laura, Kat Devlin, and Christine Huang. 2020. “Unfavorable Views of China Reach 

Historic Highs in Many Countries.” Pew Research Center. Accessed June 26, 2021. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-Views-of-china-reach-

historic-highs-in-many-countries/. 

Standish, Reid, and Szalai Balint. 2021. “Orban Walks Tightrope on China Ahead of Hungarian 

Elections.” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, November 22, 2021. Accessed May 26, 2022. 

https://www.rferl.org/a/hungary-china-orban-election/31573850.html. 

Stockemer, Daniel. 2017. The Front National in France: Continuity and Change Under Jean-

Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen. Cham: Springer. 

Swyngedouw, Marc, Koen Abts, and Maarten van Craen. 2007. “Our Own People First in a Europe 

of Peoples: The International Policy of the Vlaams Blok.” In Europe for the Europeans: The 

Foreign and Security Policy of the Populist Radical Right, edited by Christina Schori Liang, 

81-102. Aldershot: Ashgate. 

Timbro Authoritarian Populism Index (TAP). 2019. Timbro Authoritarian Populism Index 2019. 

https://populismindex.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/TAP2019C.pdf.  

Vasilopoulou, Sofia. 2010. “Euroscepticism and the Radical Right: Domestic Strategies and 

Party System Dynamics.” Accessed April 21, 2021. 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/16390512.pdf. 

Verbeek, Bertjan, and Andrej Zaslove. 2015. “The Impact of Populist Radical Right Parties on 

Foreign Policy: The Northern League as a Junior Coalition Partner in the Berlusconi 

Governments.” European Political Science Review 7 (4): 525–46. 

http://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773914000319. 

https://beppegrillo.it/cina-ue-italia-contenere-lirresponsabilita-statunitense
https://merics.org/en/analysis/italy-
https://pvv.nl/37-fj-related/raymond-de-roon/10039-notaoverleg-
https://www.reuters.com/article/
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1354066119850254
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1354066119850254
https://www.rferl.org/author/reid-standish/tt_uqi
https://www.rferl.org/author/balint-szalai/jtkuqt
https://www.rferl.org/a/hungary-china-orban-election/31573850.html.
https://populismindex.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/TAP2019C.pdf.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/16390512.pdf.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773914000319.


23      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

Verbeek, Bertjan, and Andrej Zaslove. 2017. “Populism and Foreign Policy.” In The Oxford 

Handbook of Populism, edited by Cristobal Kaltwasser, Paul Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo, 

and Pierre Ostiguy, 384-405. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Weidel, Alice. 2019. “China düpiert die Elektroauto-Planwirtschaft in Deutschland und der EU” 

[China duped the electric car planned economy in Germany and the EU].December 13, 

2019. Accessed May 26, 2022. https://www.afd.de/alice-weidel-china-duepiert-die- 

elektroauto-planwirtschaft-in-deutschland-und-der--eu/. 
 

Woods, Dwayne. 2009. “Pockets of Resistance to Globalization: The Case of the Lega Nord.” 

Patterns of Prejudice 43 (2): 161-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313220902793906. 

Zamęcki, Łukasz, and Viktor Glied. 2020. “Article 7 Process and Democratic Backsliding of 

Hungary and Poland. Democracy and The Rule of Law.” Online Journal Modelling The New 

Europe, 34: 57-85. https://doi.org/10.24193/OJMNE.2020.34.03. 

Zaslove, Andrej. 2008. “Exclusion, Community, and a Populist Political Economy: The Radical 

Right as an Anti-globalization Movement.” Comparative European Politics 6 (2): 169-189.  

 

 

  

https://www.afd.de/alice-weidel-china-duepiert-die-
https://www.afd.de/alice-weidel-china-duepiert-die-
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313220902793906
https://doi.org/10.24193/OJMNE.2020.34.03


24      Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 15(2) 2022: 1-24 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

Published by the Centre for European Studies at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada 

 

Available online at: https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index 

 

The Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies (CJERS – formerly Review of European 

and Russian Affairs) is an open-access electronic academic peer-reviewed journal: articles are 

subject to double-blind peer-review. Topics relate to the European Union, its Member States, the 

former Soviet Union, and Central and Eastern Europe. The journal is published by the Centre for 

European Studies, an associated unit of the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at 

Carleton University. 

 

CJERS aims to provide an accessible forum for the promotion and dissemination of high quality 

research and scholarship.  

 

Contact: 

Carleton University 

The Centre for European Studies 

1103 Dunton Tower 

1125 Colonel By Drive 

Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 

Canada 

 

E-mail: CJERS@carleton.ca 

 

Creative Commons License 

 

 
 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 

 

This Working Paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial- 

No Derivs 4.0 Unported License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).  

 

Articles appearing in this publication may be freely quoted and reproduced, provided the source is 

acknowledged. No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial purposes. 

 

ISSN: 2562-8429 

© 2019 The Author(s) 

 

https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index
mailto:CJERS@carleton.ca
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

