German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock visited China from December 8 to 9, and reports indicate that the visit will focus on issues such as Sino-European economic and trade relations. This visit, which eventually took place after a series of twists and turns, itself is a significant signal. It not only reflects the subtle changes in Sino-German bilateral relations, but also serves as a true reflection of the difficult progress of Sino-German relations within the complex international landscape.
Berlin should quickly move from the fog of "values diplomacy" to a realistic track. In recent years, some European politicians have raised the banner of so-called "values diplomacy," constantly packaging Sino-European relations as "institutional competition" and "value disputes." In Germany, the policy toward China has gradually been shaped into a "strategic competition" with a strong ideological coloration. In the narrative of some Western think tanks, Sino-German relations have been forcibly pushed into the framework of "systemic rivals." In fact, when values are "weaponized" and used as a means of pressure in the international community, they lose their meaning as values — they cease to be a moral law that shapes the consensus and conscious action of human society, and instead become tools of power games.
The direct consequence of this kind of "values diplomacy" is to layer ideological filters onto trade disputes that could otherwise be resolved through negotiation, making the issues more complicated and difficult to solve. The reason for the postponement and resumption of the German Foreign Minister's visit to China is essentially a back-and-forth between value narratives and real interests. The more "values" are used as a tool, the more likely they are to be counteracted by the tool itself, thus closing off diplomatic space and sacrificing industrial interests, ultimately affecting the country's economy and the well-being of ordinary people.
Some people in Germany are fond of talking about "de-risking," but abandoning cooperation with China is the greatest risk. For Germany, high energy prices and rising costs of domestic green transition have already compressed the space for industrial competitiveness. If Germany were to further "de-risk" its relationship with China in terms of raw materials, components, and end-market products, it would make an already fragile supply chain even more vulnerable, making Germany and Europe's "economic security" increasingly difficult to guarantee. Recently, German research institutions and media have repeatedly warned that if the Sino-German relationship is handled incorrectly, German industry may fall into a prolonged "exclusion" situation.
In this sense, Germany's "crisis" appears to be pressure from trade structure and energy structure, but at a deeper level, it is a deviation in its perception of the outside world. Over-reliance on abstract "value narratives" and neglecting the long-established patterns of industrial division and the actual business logic of enterprises in the global market can lead to an "either-or" speculative approach in Sino-German policy — wanting to share the benefits of the Chinese market and cooperation while trying to maintain distance in discourse. The longer this oscillation lasts, the greater the loss of policy credibility, the stronger the uncertainty for businesses, and the more damage is done to Germany's strategic resilience and development potential.
The practical foundation of Sino-German cooperation is far more solid than any verbal labels. China has been Germany's important trading partner for many consecutive years. In 2024, China imported approximately $95 billion worth of German goods, mainly concentrated in sectors such as automobiles and machinery. At the same time, Germany's imports from China were even larger. Bilateral trade holds a crucial position in the global supply chain. In areas such as green transition, digital upgrading, and aging social governance, there is great potential for cooperation between China and Germany. China has a complete industrial system and a rapidly expanding green market, while Germany has advantages in high-end equipment, energy conservation and emission reduction, and industrial software. The two countries' cooperation can form a "technology plus market" positive interaction in new fields such as electric vehicles, new energy, hydrogen energy, and intelligent manufacturing, creating more development opportunities for both sides and even the global economy.
For Germany, the truly important value concept is to quickly return to the correct track of avoiding recession and improving the well-being of its people. Germany has long demonstrated its social value concepts through a well-developed welfare system and high public service levels. However, all of this depends on a stable tax base, a strong real economy, and sustainable fiscal balance. If the economy falls into sustained decline and fiscal space is continuously squeezed, it will inevitably have to cut back in areas such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social security, leading to cracks in the original "value brand."
Will Germany be a "rational major power" with determination and responsibility, or a "speculative country" that constantly swings between value rhetoric and real interests? China is watching, and the world is watching more closely. For China, the direction has always been clear: to adhere to mutual benefit and win-win cooperation, to uphold open cooperation, and to persist in higher-level opening up, providing more development opportunities for countries including Germany, allowing cooperation rather than confrontation to become the main melody of this era.
Source: Global Times
Original: toutiao.com/article/7581258663931806248/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.