Editor's note: Jonathan Arnott is a former member of the European Parliament. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The "curious incident of the dog in the night-time" holds a special place in Western popular culture. It originates from a short story about the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. The famous detective solves the case because of this "curious incident." His companion is surprised, because the dog did nothing. But, in this case, nothing spoke volumes. A dog would bark when faced with an unknown intruder. The detective could deduce that there was, in fact, no such intruder.

If you want to understand international relations and diplomacy, it's often best to apply this principle. If a meeting has no action, then it can often be deduced that there was no consensus. The lack of news is, in itself, the key.

For that reason I was unsurprised by what I saw from the G7 summit and the Munich Security Conference "special edition" earlier today. The stark contrast between the two, however, shows how modern politics often plays out.

At the G7, mention of China was limited. The official press release used muted language, a clear reflection of the competing interests of the G7 countries. Absent an agreed political "line," it said nothing of any note: "we will engage with others, especially G20 countries including large economies such as China. As Leaders, we will consult with each other on collective approaches to address non-market oriented policies and practices."

It was hardly a stinging criticism, having all the hallmarks of a statement designed by committee. All countries represented could agree to "engage" with China, whilst the comments on "policies and practices" is intentionally ambiguous. It's today's first example of this simple principle: in politics, what is said and done is often less important than what remains unsaid and what is not done.

This online G7 summit, as I predicted in my previous article, would not be the time for any such battles to be fought. Indeed, even the rhetoric was sidestepped. With the Munich conference occurring on the same day, the political leaders' speeches there – without the need for an unanimous approach – shone a light on attitudes towards China and world affairs. A decision had clearly been taken to use Munich, not the G7, as the vehicle for any anti-China rhetoric.

Joe Biden, the new American President, made sharper remarks in his Munich speech: "we must prepare together for a long-term strategic competition with China." He spoke of "pushing back" against "economic abuses" and "coercion," speaking of building a U.S.-EU partnership to counter China.

His words have caused something of a furore in the British press – not for his comments on China, but for his snub to the United Kingdom.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has put significant effort into building relations with the new U.S. administration. Biden's speech spoke of "Europe" repeatedly, name-checked European leaders and even the capital city of Latvia, yet completely ignored the United Kingdom. Such a decision must have been calculated: clever speechwriters know perfectly well what they are doing, and speeches are repeatedly checked by many people. It's a second example of the same principle: the words which are not said are far more instructive than those which are.

The United Kingdom's own language on China was clear, with Boris Johnson using language such as "repression" and "violation." This was not unexpected, but equally there was nothing new: it was merely a reiteration of the same position.

Most curious of all, though, was the President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. She said that a "more assertive China has shown robust economic growth, despite the pandemic." There was no other direct mention of China in her speech, although she did suggest that the United States and Europe should join forces – with, perhaps, an implication that it is in response to a changing international situation, including China's economic growth.

I suspect this indicates the brinkmanship of the European Union's intended approach on China. The European Union wishes to rebuild relations with the United States, whilst not jeopardizing the potential for increased trade with China. Ursula von der Leyen is not a particularly impressive politician in many ways: she lacks the strong interpersonal skills of her predecessor Jean-Claude Juncker. But she got the job, in essence, because she was a compromise candidate who would offend neither side.

Knowing when to "say nothing" is a common (and under-rated) skill amongst such politicians. In today's case, the silence merely underlines von der Leyen's strategic approach – a clear attempt to keep a foot in both camps.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)