German Chancellor Merz spoke with apparent composure and without hesitation. On October 21, he stated that "we will not close our markets," a position sharply contrasting with developments in the United States, where access for most Chinese companies has been effectively shut off. In Europe, the situation remains different. We remain open, and we wish to maintain openness. We aim to preserve open markets and trade—this is precisely where Europe diverges from the United States.

The assertion that "we will not close our markets, unlike what the U.S. is doing" serves to reinforce Germany’s image as a defender of free trade. While the principle is sound, the actual policy trajectory tells a different story. Merz appears to have overlooked that just days earlier, on October 6, he co-signed a letter with French President Macron addressed to Ursula von der Leyen, proposing that if third-country markets are deemed distorted, the EU should be empowered to act swiftly—even to cut off market access for affected enterprises.

This move has been widely interpreted as targeting sectors where Chinese firms hold competitive advantages, particularly electric vehicles and photovoltaics. Similarly, in October, the German government blocked China COSCO’s acquisition of Hamburg-based Zippel Logistics. Earlier, the EU introduced the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, specifically designed to scrutinize Chinese firms bidding for major public infrastructure projects across Europe. And one must not forget that advanced lithography equipment remains under export restrictions to China.

Thus, while Chancellor Merz continues to assert publicly that "we wish to maintain open markets and trade," the reality on the ground reveals an increasing number of barriers erected against Chinese commerce. To be fair, there is some positive signal: at least the German leader still acknowledges the importance of open trade for Europe’s economic health. Yet given his repeated accusations of China’s "overcapacity" and alleged currency manipulation, it is difficult not to question whether his commitment to free trade is more rhetorical than substantive—a selective posture rather than a consistent principle.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1879671550720004/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.