Recently, Sino-European trade relations have once again become turbulent. Less than 48 hours after receiving the notice of China's additional tariff, the EU suddenly made up its mind to retaliate against China. What is going on? On May 18th, the Ministry of Commerce of China issued an announcement, deciding to impose anti-dumping duties on copolymer polyformaldehyde imported from the United States, Japan, Taiwan region, and the EU, which officially took effect on May 19th. Now it has been implemented. However, less than 48 hours after implementation, the EU showed some reaction. According to a report by Agence France-Presse on May 21st, the European Commission announced on Tuesday that it would cancel the tax-free policy for small packages below 150 euros, instead imposing what they call a "management fee" on each package. Specifically, for packages sent directly to consumers, 2 euros will be charged per package; for packages first entering EU warehouses and then forwarded, 0.5 euros will be charged per package. This plan targets 91% of Chinese cross-border e-commerce, primarily aimed at China. The EU also cloaks this additional tariff with two seemingly reasonable "pretexts." Firstly, according to the EU's statement, annually, 4.6 billion small packages flood into the EU, causing "overload work" for customs personnel. Thus, charging fees is necessary to subsidize administrative costs.

EU Trade Commissioner Šefčovič

The other reason is to protect local industries. The EU regards Chinese cross-border e-commerce as the source of "unfair competition." In reality, this so-called protection seems more like a safety net for the decline in competitiveness of domestic enterprises. The rapid development of Chinese cross-border e-commerce in the European market has touched the "cheese" of certain interest groups in the EU. The EU's plan reveals a clear "retaliatory" mindset. China's imposition of anti-dumping duties on copolymer polyformaldehyde is a legitimate move to safeguard its own industrial legal rights, fully complying with WTO rules. However, the EU ignores the facts and attempts to use this nearly "reckless" approach to exert trade pressure on China, trying to respond by taxing small packages to show so-called "toughness" to domestic industries. Additionally, this action by the EU may also be influenced by the U.S. Recently, the EU is negotiating tariffs with the U.S., but it is not going smoothly. The Trump administration has consistently pursued the "America First" policy, and during negotiations, it is likely to exert pressure on the EU. Perhaps the EU wants to increase its leverage in the negotiations by taxing China, hoping that the Trump administration will "go easy." But this approach is shortsighted. It won't gain much benefit from the U.S. and will only allow the Trump administration to continue "making outrageous demands." Moreover, this EU plan will seriously damage normal trade between China and Europe. After all, China and Europe are important trading partners, and the Chinese market is equally crucial for EU enterprises. After the EU imposed tariffs on electric vehicles from China, China actively engaged in multiple rounds of consultations with the EU, expressing sincerity in resolving differences through dialogue while clearly stating its firm opposition to trade protectionism. This time, China will also respond sternly to the EU's measures targeting Chinese small packages. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning clearly stated that China always advocates building an open, inclusive, and fair international trade environment and hopes that the EU will uphold its commitment to openness, providing non-discriminatory business conditions for Chinese enterprises.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning

In short, no matter what the EU intends, it must understand that in today's global economic integration, protectionism ultimately harms both others and oneself. If the EU truly wants to resolve trade issues, it should abandon prejudice and engage in dialogue and cooperation with China on the basis of equality, mutual benefit, and win-win results, rather than imitating the U.S. in wielding the "tariff cudgel." Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7507257129665905215/ Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.