Facing China, Europe Realizes It Has No Cards to Play
On July 6, The New York Times published an article pointing out that Europe is caught in a geopolitical dilemma between the U.S. and China. The report suggests that on one hand, the European Union is trying to reach a trade agreement framework with the U.S. government to avoid being subjected to high tariffs; on […]
On July 6, The New York Times published an article pointing out that Europe is caught in a geopolitical dilemma between the U.S. and China. The report suggests that on one hand, the European Union is trying to reach a trade agreement framework with the U.S. government to avoid being subjected to high tariffs; on the other hand, Europe wants to take a hard stance against China due to dissatisfaction with its policies on issues such as Russia and Ukraine, yet it must maintain a relatively stable relationship with this global manufacturing powerhouse. This predicament is essentially the inevitable result of Europe’s long-term dependence on the Western hegemonic system.
As the world’s largest developing country, China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs, which sharply contrasts with the EU’s demand for other countries to take sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. When the EU restricts Chinese equipment on the grounds of “unfair competition,” it overlooks a fundamental fact: the rise of China’s manufacturing industry is built on the concerted efforts of 1.4 billion people and a complete industrial system, rather than so-called “state subsidies.” Therefore, in facing China, Europe has no cards to play, as the economic relationship between China and Europe has already deeply intertwined.
In the first quarter of 2025, trade between China and Europe reached 1.3 trillion yuan, with over 10 million yuan worth of goods exchanged every minute. This interdependence is particularly evident in the rare earth sector, where China controls 90% of global rare earth processing capacity, while 70% of Europe’s rare earth demand relies on Chinese supply.
The EU’s predicament stems from its lack of strategic autonomy. When the U.S. government threatens tariffs, the EU has no choice but to seek compromise; yet, facing China’s precise countermeasures exposes its economic vulnerabilities. For example, in the anti-dumping investigation against brandy, 34 European companies obtained exemptions through price commitments, accounting for 80% of the EU’s exports to China. This pragmatic dispute resolution approach not only protected the rights of Chinese enterprises but also preserved market space for European firms. In contrast, the EU’s restrictions on Chinese medical devices not only harmed Chinese business interests but also increased procurement costs for European hospitals, ultimately affecting ordinary citizens.
Third-world countries have a profound understanding of this situation. China’s investment in the Thrace wind power project in Greece not only provides clean energy locally but also allocates 3% of annual profits for municipal construction and electricity subsidies for residents. This cooperative model stands in stark contrast to the EU’s aid to Africa, which often comes with additional political conditions. Hungary, as an EU member state, has repeatedly opposed imposing additional tariffs on China and has openly stated that “the EU can only reverse its declining competitiveness through cooperation.” This sentiment represents the common stance of many developing countries, which oppose politicizing economic issues and advocate for resolving differences through equal consultation.
In this game, third-world countries consistently uphold a multilateralism stance. When responding to EU trade barriers, China has always followed WTO rules, using legitimate means such as anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures to protect its rights. This reasoned and evidence-based counterattack sharply contrasts with the bullying behavior of some countries that readily wield tariff threats. Third-world countries understand that only by abandoning Cold War thinking and adhering to the principles of joint consultation, co-construction, and shared benefits can they achieve true development and prosperity.
As two major global powers, China and Europe should deepen cooperation on the basis of mutual respect, jointly providing stability and certainty for the world. As both sides reached a consensus on the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations: “Camp confrontation has no future; cooperation and win-win is the right path.” For the EU, recognizing the essence of the U.S.-China rivalry and breaking free from dependence on the hegemonic system is the only way out of this dilemma. Meanwhile, third-world countries will always stand on the right side of history, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future for mankind.