Based on the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation that took effect in January, the EU started to investigate subsidies for Chinese electric vehicle (EV) companies. The investigation was launched 10 days before the EU-China High-level Economic and Trade Dialogue. Although Chinese and European vice presidents would continue to communicate with one another, the EU has insisted on carrying out the investigation.
Tesla’s EVs made in China and Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co, which owns Volvo Cars Corp, might also be investigated. It looks like the EU has become more high-handed. Would the bloc be able to stop relying on China?
In addition to a growing trade deficit with China, the EU realized that China has become a strong competitor. EU officials decided to confront China directly, indicating that Beijing could either collaborate or go its own way. As EU experts suggested, European nations share a large enough market and they should be fine without China.
China has expressed its concerns about the investigation, but at the same time, the EU confirmed that it would not entirely decouple itself from China. Instead, it would try to lower the risk while demanding that China “do more” to mitigate concerns about the risk it poses.
The EU described how European corporations were not satisfied with China’s lack of fair competition and its politicized business climate. Neither were they happy about China’s relationship with Russia amid the war in Ukraine. They also said that Beijing’s new Foreign Relations Act, Counterespionage Law and the Measures for the Security Assessment of Outbound Data Transfer would all increase the danger of investing in China.
Meanwhile, after Japan experienced the 2008 global financial crisis, the 2011 Tohuku earthquake and tsunami, collisions with Chinese ships in 2012, the disruption of supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic and a recent dispute over the release of wastewater from a nuclear plant, Tokyo has continued to reduce its dependence on China.
Likewise, due to the trade conflict between Washington and Beijing, 48 percent of US corporations said that they would decrease investment in China or postpone plans.
However, the EU, after having evaluated the risk, still desires access to the Chinese market and wants Beijing to be a good player. Perhaps the EU sees China as a dear friend and believes it would not experience what happened to Japan and the US.
The EU has deliberated over its dependence on China and seems to believe that the situation would not change until 2035. The EU needs rare earth minerals, solar panels, EV batteries and other key items from China. Most likely, its automaking industry would be destroyed because of China’s cheap EVs.
Confronted by the danger of national security and economic threat, the US and Japan have already turned to investment in Southeast Asia, enhancing trade ties with ASEAN and India. The EU must diversify its investments and reduce dependence on China through legislation and innovation. It also needs to reassess its subsidies strategy.
However, the EU — and Germany in particular — is still fond of big markets such as China and has failed to recognize the instability of such markets. It should remember the lesson of relying too much on Russia.
The greatest risk is that the EU might empower a rival that will one day destroy it.
The EU should recognize the truth as soon as possible.
Chang Meng-jen is chair of Fu Jen Catholic University’s Department of Italian Language and Culture, and coordinator of the university’s diplomacy and international affairs program.
Translated by Emma Liu
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS