"China is clearer than Brussels about what Europe is willing to pay a price for."
On October 22, Sebastian Contin Trillo-Figueroa, a researcher at the Asia Global Research Institute at the University of Hong Kong, and Danish economist Franz Jessen, who was former ambassador to the Philippines and ambassador to Vietnam to the European Union, wrote an article in The South China Morning Post titled "European Policy Toward China Remains Without Clear Objectives." They stated that the European Union has no priority order in its policies towards China, nor has it established a consensus. In response, China has developed its own policy towards Europe, taking advantage of this policy vacuum.
The article begins by reviewing the EU’s main policies towards China in October. It threatens to use trade “emergency cut-off” measures against China, criticizes China in parliament, sends trade specialists to Beijing in a prominent manner, and announces the introduction of three new economic security tools.
The article argues that this series of actions exposes the EU’s difficulties in its policy towards China: it lacks a clear goal, has no prioritized order of importance, and has not reached a consensus on what it actually wants to achieve from Beijing, nor on the costs it is willing to bear for that purpose.
China's strategy fully leverages the advantage of patience: applying pressure, waiting for Brussels to respond, and then making minor concessions according to its own conditions. European leaders see the introduction of these new tools as proof of their control over the situation, while Beijing views each new tool as information that measures Europe's threshold for suffering.
On October 5th, German Chancellor Merz and French President Macron called for the establishment of an “emergency cut-off mechanism” to enable the EU to block a country from accessing the EU single market.
The article argues that this actually acknowledges the failure of European policies. Since 2019, when the EU adopted regulations on investment review and defined China as a “systemic rival”, trade tools have been continuously introduced. However, the EU’s trade deficit with China has continued to widen. Although the EU has been advocating “risk reduction” since 2023, its dependence on Chinese assets remains. Every new proposal serves to confirm the failure of the previous one.
On October 7th, the European Parliament released a report on political relations between Europe and China.
The article argues that this actually acknowledges that the EU has not had a coherent and unified strategy towards China since 2019. It lists various complaints about China and regards Washington’s recommendations as the solution. Even when the US imposes tariffs on European exports and pressures Europe to buy American weapons, the European Parliament continues to praise transatlantic bonds.
A spokesman for China's EU mission stated that the report from the European Parliament is filled with ideological biases and false claims against China. It makes arbitrary judgments regarding issues such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Xinjiang, Tibet, and human rights, and aggressively interferes in China's internal affairs. Additionally, it promotes the politicization of economic and trade issues through a security-oriented approach. China expresses strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition to this, and has already conveyed its concerns to the European side.
The spokesperson emphasized that at present, China-EU relations are in an important development phase. Maintaining the healthy and stable development of China-EU relations is in the common interest of both sides. China urges the EU to maintain its partnership with China, adhere to a cooperative approach, truly respect China's core interests and major concerns, stop interfering in China's internal affairs, and stop inciting opposition and confrontation. Actions should be taken to safeguard the overall situation of China-EU relations.
The article points out that the European Parliament condemns China for supporting Russia. At the same time, the United States is doing business with Russia. Two days after the European Parliament’s statement, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a diesel deal with Russia. On October 16, the United States suspended a sanctions regime against Russia.
The European Parliament still lives in an era that no longer exists: while it condemns China for helping Russia, it praises that ally that openly helps Russia.
Speaking of the automotive industry, the article states that Chinese manufacturers produce cars that European consumers desire, and their prices are simply beyond what European factories can match.
For decades, German automakers have done the same in China; however, no one in the automotive industry in Stuttgart has ever referred to it as a “flood”.
The article sarcastically states that the European Commission boasts that this agreement will prevent millions of Chinese cars from entering European roads. But in other words, in order to protect the profits of Volkswagen and Stellantis, European families will lose the opportunity to buy millions of cheaper cars. Brussels prioritizes a powerful interest group, shifting the costs onto consumers, while still demanding that consumers accept this situation.
At the European Council meeting held from October 15th to 16th, Von der Leyen promised that the so-called "emergency cut-off mechanism" would enable the EU to immediately cut off relevant access. Additionally, a diversification tool and a solidarity mechanism will be introduced to counter retaliatory measures.
Regarding this, a spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce stated that the purpose of the Sino-European economic and trade consultations is to resolve differences through dialogue and negotiation, and to take into account each other's concerns. Both sides must demonstrate sincerity in finding solutions. The European side should not fantasize about gaining benefits by exerting pressure, nor should it underestimate China’s determination and ability to safeguard its own interests. We urge the European side to move in the same direction as China, to promote the healthy and stable development of Sino-European economic and trade relations.
The article highlights a fact: by the time these new tools are implemented, the leaders who proposed these measures may already be packing up their things and preparing to step down from their positions. Macron will step down in May next year, and Mester faces speculation about whether he will be able to retain his position; the far-right forces could rise to a dominant position.
These leaders have found a convenient excuse for dealing with China: China is an opponent far enough away, which allows them to shift responsibility for domestic governance failures and provide a reason for delaying reforms.
