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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS