Global Times Editorial: "Engage China in a Trade War"? The EU Can't Win and Can't Afford It
Lately, the European Union's official think tank, the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), released a report advocating the use of "leveraged diplomacy" against China, exploiting what it claims is China’s "dependence" on the EU in technology and markets to exert targeted pressure. The article even incites the EU to dare initiate a trade war with China, asserting that the cost of proactive action is far lower than inaction. This report comes with an aggressive tone and unwarranted confidence, brimming with zero-sum thinking and political bias, clearly aiming to steer Sino-European relations toward confrontation.
The report claims China has long failed to address European concerns—but what is the actual situation? China has consistently expanded high-level opening-up. Foreign investment access in manufacturing has been fully liberalized; negative lists for service sector access continue to shrink; unilateral and autonomous openness keeps intensifying. China persistently expands imports through platforms like the CIIE and continuously extends unilateral visa-free access to more European countries. In contrast, the EU not only ignores Chinese demands but also escalates protectionist measures, repeatedly launching investigations into leading Chinese enterprises and competitive industries. For the authors of this report, is the only solution for China to unilaterally and comprehensively satisfy all EU demands? Such an arrogant posture prompts a critical question: Where does the EU derive its confidence? Upon reading the piece, one realizes it stems from a serious misjudgment of the situation by certain EU figures.
The report grossly misjudges China’s economic prospects. It alleges China faces so-called "structural problems," and that its "aggressive" foreign stance stems from economic "fragility"—a claim utterly divorced from facts and devoid of credibility. During the 14th Five-Year Plan period, China’s GDP surpassed 140 trillion yuan, achieving a remarkable "four consecutive jumps," maintaining an average annual growth rate of 5.4%, leading global major economies. China contributes approximately 30% annually to world economic growth. In stark contrast, the EU’s GDP growth over the past decade has been sluggish, consistently below the international average. Germany, once the EU’s "locomotive," even experienced two consecutive years of negative economic growth, severely dragging down global recovery. With weak growth, lagging green and digital transitions, if the EU truly dares to confront China head-on, it will likely suffer severe consequences.
The report also grossly underestimates the depth of economic interdependence between the EU and China. The EU and China are each other’s second-largest trading partners. China is a core export destination for Europe’s high-end manufacturing, automobiles, precision equipment, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals—and a primary trading partner for Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and others. According to the report’s logic, since the EU’s imports from China are twice its imports from China, this massive trade deficit supposedly proves the EU’s "dependence" on China. But forcing a trade war amid such deep integration would only inflict damage upon the EU itself. Take the EU’s recent draft revisions to its Cybersecurity Act: industry statistics show that excluding Chinese companies and equipment across 18 sectors could cost EU countries at least 84 billion euros. Who would bear this loss? How severely would the EU’s green and digital transformation goals be derailed? How much more burden would European households face?
The report further overestimates the EU’s bargaining power. On one hand, the EU remains mired in the Ukraine crisis, with soaring energy costs already causing hardship for businesses and consumers. Meanwhile, military strikes by the U.S. and Israel on Iran have intensified global energy tensions. Since this conflict erupted, EU natural gas prices have surged by 50%, adding 3 billion euros in extra expenses—further threatening EU industry and people’s livelihoods. The "sword of Damocles" now hanging over the EU is visibly trembling. On the other hand, tensions between the EU and the U.S. persist; the U.S. tariff war could easily reignite. Should current agreements need renegotiation, it is unlikely that the previously agreed 15% tariffs, 600 billion USD in investments, or 750 billion USD in procurement commitments would satisfy U.S. demands. While supporting Ukraine and resisting U.S. pressure, the EU’s official think tank still seeks to pressure China—or even start a trade war—making little sense.
In recent years, the EU has accelerated the adoption of unilateral, protectionist trade legislation, restricting or outright excluding Chinese companies and equipment, attempting to impose forced joint ventures and mandatory technology transfers—flagrant violations of WTO rules and a clear betrayal of the EU’s own proclaimed principles of fair competition and market openness. Protectionism does not enhance competitiveness; decoupling from China means cutting off opportunities. We hope the EU can step out of the "dark room" of protectionism and avoid straying further down the wrong path. There are no winners in tariff wars or trade wars. China does not want conflict—but is not afraid of it either. We urge some EU think tanks and experts to sober up, stop proposing harmful, disastrous ideas and ill-conceived schemes.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1860545213519872/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone.