Will the EU Navigate Toward China?

Jianlu Bi

 April 4, 2025
Facebook

TwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing, China, 6 April 2023 – CC BY 4.0

The transatlantic alliance, a cornerstone of the post-World War II global order, is experiencing a seismic shift. The once-unquestioned trust between the European Union and the United States is eroding, creating a vacuum that compels the EU to reassess its strategic calculations, particularly in its complex relationship with China. This evolving landscape raises a crucial question: will the EU, in its pursuit of “strategic autonomy,” lean towards China as trust in the US diminishes?

During the Biden administration, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), with its “Buy American” provisions, sent shockwavesthrough European capitals, triggering accusations of unfair competition and fears of industrial flight. European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, voiced strong concerns about the protectionist nature of the legislation, arguing that it undermined fair trade and could lead to a damaging transatlantic trade war.

The earlier imposition of U.S. tariffs on European steel and aluminum during the first Trump administration, while partially resolved, left lingering resentment and highlighted the potential for unilateral U.S. trade actions. Adding fuel to the fire, at the recent Munich Security Conference, Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a controversial speech, shifting the focus to a “threat from within” Europe. His criticisms of European democracies, citing concerns about excessive censorship and migration policies, alongside his meetings with far-right political figures like Alice Weidel, drew sharp rebukes from European officials, including German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius.

Adding to the recent tensions, a perceived divergence has emerged in transatlantic approaches to the Ukraine conflict. While some EU nations continue to emphasize unwavering support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and military resistance, the Trump administration is shifting its focus toward negotiating a settlement with Russia, potentially signaling a move away from providing Ukraine with the means to continue fighting. This perceived shift has generated concern and distrust among some European allies, who fear a weakening of Western resolve.

These public disagreements, trade disputes, and pointed criticisms are not mere diplomatic spats. They represent a fundamental erosion of trust, hindering cooperation on shared strategic goals. This erosion is forcing the EU to consider a more independent path, accelerating its pursuit of “strategic autonomy,” a concept that champions the EU’s capacity to act independently in foreign policy and economic matters.

De-risking and Autonomy

To navigate this complex terrain, the EU will likely engage in a delicate balancing act. Although the growing transatlantic fissures create opportunities for China to deepen its engagement with the EU, a complete “lean” is improbable. The EU’s strategic approach, encapsulated in the concept of “de-risking,” prioritizes diversifying supply chains, reducing dependencies, and addressing unfair trade practices, rather than seeking a complete decoupling. This “de-risking” strategy involvesinitiatives like the EU’s new anti-coercion instrument as well as the critical raw materials act aimed at reducing dependence on single suppliers.

The recent imposition of tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, which the EU argues are heavily subsidized and create an unfair competitive environment, demonstrates this approach. This move, aimed at protecting European industries from what the EU perceives as unfair competition, underscores the EU’s determination to assert its economic sovereignty.

The EU will seek to maintain crucial economic ties with China, recognizing its importance as a trading partner, while simultaneously safeguarding its security and strategic interests. Internal dynamics will also play a significant role. For example, eastern European nations often have different views than western European nations regarding their dealings with China. Notably, Hungary has actively pursued close economic and political ties with China, while Greece has prioritizedChinese investment in its infrastructure, demonstrating a focus on economic benefits. Therefore, the EU will seek a middle ground, not a full pivot, navigating a path that balances economic pragmatism with strategic caution.

Human rights remain a significant point of contention in EU-China relations, with tensions escalating last year. The European Parliament’s resolution denouncing what it called “serious human rights violations” in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and elsewhere drew strong condemnation from China. Beijing asserts the resolution lacks factual basis and constitutes gross interference in its internal affairs. It further states the EU, including its media, should abandon its ideological biases.

Fifty Years of Complex Interdependence

While EU-US relations face challenges, EU-China relations maintain their own complex dynamic. EU-China relations have a long and multifaceted history, predating the current geopolitical tensions. This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of diplomatic relations, underscoring the depth and longevity of this partnership.

Trade volume has skyrocketed from a modest $2.4 billion to a staggering $780 billion, and investment has risen from near-zero to approximately $260 billion. The China-Europe Railway Express, with over 100,000 trips, testifies to the tangible benefits of this cooperation, showcasing the connectivity and economic interdependence that has developed over the past half-century.

China has significant potential to deepen its ties with Europe in key sectors like green technologies (solar panels, wind turbines, EV batteries), infrastructure development (Belt and Road Initiative), and the digital economy. In green technologies, China’s dominance in manufacturing aligns with the EU’s ambitious climate goals. In infrastructure, the BRI, while controversial, offers opportunities for cooperation in certain regions. And in the digital economy, there are potential avenues for collaboration in areas like e-commerce and digital payments.

The EU tends to view China through a lens of suspicion, often influenced by political narratives from the United States, preventing the EU from fully recognizing the potential for mutually beneficial cooperation in areas like climate change, economic development, and global governance. The EU’s strategic calculations regarding China are inextricably linked to the evolving dynamics of the transatlantic relationship. Although tensions with the United States, including trade disputes, public criticisms, and controversial statements from high-ranking officials, may create openings for China, a full pivot is unlikely.

This first appeared on FPIF.

Jianlu Bi is a Beijing-based award-winning journalist and current affairs commentator.His research interests include international politics and communications. He holds a doctoral degree in communication studies and a master’s degree in international studies. He also writes for the SCMP, Foreign Policy In Focus, TRT World, IOL, the Citizen and others.

Tariffs Can Be Useful, But Not the Way Trump is Using Them

Sonali KolhatkarFacebook

TwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

 April 4, 2025

President Donald Trump has said “tariff” is “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” He claims tariffs will restore American trade supremacy, bring lost jobs back to the United States, and most bizarrely, replace income taxes.

Tariffs can be a useful tool to regulate global trade in the interest of jobs, wages, labor rights, the environment, and consumers — if applied correctly.

But Trump’s chaotic, overly broad tariffs are only likely to hurt working people. They won’t ensure labor rights or protect the environment. They won’t even return jobs to the U.S., if his first term tariffs are any indication.

Because new tariffs require Congressional approval, Trump manufactured a crisis about the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants across U.S. borders in order to use executive power to unilaterally impose tariffs. He insists that foreign governments and companies pay these tariffs — and that imposing them on goods from Canada, Mexico, and Chinawill solve all of the U.S.’s economic problems.

Tariffs aren’t the same as income taxes. When applied to goods being imported from, say, Canada, tariffs aren’t paid by either the Canadian manufacturer or the Canadian government. They’re paid by the U.S. importer to the U.S. government. So a company like Walmart would pay a fee in order to be able to import specific goods from Canada.

Importers will often pass increased tariffs on to consumers, resulting in higher prices. But as Hillary Haden of the Trade Justice Education Fund explained to me in an interview, that’s not a given. Sometimes tariffs are absorbed by the importer as the cost of doing business.

Unsurprisingly, the stock market is leery of tariffs, as are investors and free market champions, who’ve pushed for decades to demolish trade barriers via such initiatives as the World Trade Organization (WTO). Indeed, China has already filed a lawsuit against Trump’s tariffs at the WTO.

With the world’s free-trade-based economy teetering on a knife’s edge, Democrats are attempting to undo Trump’s haphazard tariffs, especially against our neighbors, Mexico and Canada. After all, it was a Democratic president — Bill Clinton — who signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1992, turning all three member nations into a tariff-free zone. (In 2020, Trump signed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement, replacing NAFTA.)

There’s good reason to criticize Trump’s blanket tariffs. But rather than reflexively dismiss tariffs altogether, those of us who care about sweatshop labor, plastic pollution, climate change, and other destructive by-products of tariff-free trade can still use them to demand a fairer economy.

In 1999, hundreds of thousands of activists, including union members and environmentalists, marched against the WTO in Seattle. The “Battle of Seattle,” as it came to be known, was the high point of the so-called anti-globalization movement, which sought to prioritize human rights, workers’ rights, conservation, and other considerations before corporate profits.

It was the pursuit of a “fair-trade” economy over a free-trade one.

So it’s ironic that President Trump is wielding tariffs as a central pillar of his pro-billionaire economic agenda — and his liberal opposition is championing free trade. Neither pro-billionaire trade nor unregulated trade is in the interests of working people.

Tariffs on oil imports, for example, if done correctly, can foot the bill to repair the climate destruction that fossil fuel companies profit from, and incentivize phasing out oil and gas altogether.

Similarly, tariffs on products manufactured with slave labor or underpaid labor can level the playing field for manufacturers who pay their workers a fair, living wage and ensure safe working conditions.

Rather than reflexively opposing tariffs because it is Trump’s latest fixation, we ought to demand a protectionist economy that can apply tariffs carefully, strategically, and thoughtfully in order to undo the damage of free market capitalism.

Sonali Kolhatkar is the founder, host and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV (Dish Network, DirecTV, Roku) and Pacifica stations KPFK, KPFA, and affiliates.