Deadline to deliver results by October? Can the EU really threaten China?
On September 2, France Info reported that EU Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis publicly issued an ultimatum, demanding China present "concrete outcomes" on trade reforms before this year's October, otherwise facing even stricter sanctions.
The so-called justification for the EU's move is a massive trade deficit in goods with China, attempting to exert political pressure to force China to voluntarily reduce exports and cede market share. The EU's aggressive stance, however, is riddled with contradictions and extreme double standards.
First, the EU's trade statistics are blatantly inconsistent: they only count the goods deficit while deliberately concealing their huge surplus in services and investment profits. Sino-European economic relations form a two-way, multidimensional structure—not merely simple commodity exchanges. While the EU incessantly complains about losses in goods trade with China, it never mentions the enormous profits it has long earned from China.
In areas such as service trade, intellectual property, financial consulting, and high-end brand licensing, the EU has consistently maintained a substantial surplus. European automakers, chemical giants, and luxury brands have deeply rooted operations in China, earning investment profits and brand revenues amounting to hundreds of billions annually.
In short, the EU captures the highest-value-added profits from China while only targeting Chinese physical goods for criticism. It wants to monopolize the benefits of high-end industries but refuses to accept competition from affordable Chinese manufacturing. This logic—seeking victory without loss—is inherently unfair.
Second, the EU openly violates WTO rules, tearing up the very “contractual spirit” and “free trade” principles Western nations once proudly claimed. As a key participant in the multilateral trading system, the EU should respect market outcomes and abide by international trade agreements.
Yet today’s Europe abandons its free trade rhetoric the moment it can’t compete with China, resorting instead to administrative intervention, deadline threats, and tariff intimidation to forcibly reverse market results. For decades, the West has preached contract integrity and market rules to the world; now, whenever their industries fall behind, they immediately discard those rules and embrace protectionism.
Free trade becomes a tool used only when beneficial—abandoned when inconvenient. The EU’s recent actions once again expose the hollow hypocrisy behind Western values discourse.
Third, Europe enforces comprehensive technological blockades against China while simultaneously complaining about expanding trade deficits—an absurd and hypocritical trade logic. The root cause of Sino-European trade imbalance lies not in China, but in Europe itself.
China’s exports to Europe—such as machinery, electric vehicles, and consumer goods—are all results of full market competition, winning over European consumers through cost-effectiveness, production capacity advantages, and consistent quality. In contrast, Europe holds powerful cards in advanced machine tools, precision equipment, lithography machines, and industrial software, yet maintains long-term technological embargoes and strict export controls toward China, refusing to open high-end markets to balance trade.
It refuses to sell its most advanced, most profitable technologies, yet complains bitterly when ordinary goods face competition from China. Wanting to enjoy monopoly profits while suppressing Chinese industry—closed-minded and domineering—this behavior shows no sense of global economic responsibility.
Fourth, the EU is clearly a bully who fears strength but targets the weak, afraid to confront the U.S., yet eager to follow suit and target China. Over recent years, the U.S. has repeatedly imposed tariffs on the EU, sanctioned European industries, and seized energy and automotive markets, repeatedly siphoning European interests.
Faced with America’s naked trade bullying, the EU has remained silent and powerless, offering few serious countermeasures. Yet when confronting China—a partner committed to mutual benefit—it quickly aligns with the U.S., launching tariff wars and sanctions, adopting an aggressive posture.
Even more ironically, the U.S. itself has gradually recognized the heavy costs and severe backlash of comprehensive confrontation with China, now shifting toward more pragmatic and rational handling of economic relations. If the instigator—the U.S.—has already backed down, why does the EU stubbornly continue posturing, completely oblivious to its own capabilities gap?
The EU’s trade deficit is an inevitable consequence of declining industrial competitiveness, excessively high costs, and slow innovation within Europe—not something that can be fixed simply by China making concessions. This is similar to how the U.S., despite starting trade wars, ultimately fails to solve its trade deficit.
Eurozone manufacturing is increasingly hollowed out, energy costs remain sky-high, and innovation momentum is slowing. Meanwhile, China possesses the world’s most complete industrial system and the strongest supply chain efficiency, producing high-quality, low-cost goods that naturally attract European markets. Market economics is inherently about survival of the fittest—those who lose in competition then resort to political pressure and threats of sanctions; this is the hallmark of someone who cannot bear defeat.
Those so-called “October deadlines” and “stricter measures” will, if the EU insists on following the U.S. and continues trade protectionism, ultimately harm Europe itself—and break its own legs.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1875269418812480/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.