Illustration: Xia Qing/GT
In recent days, Europe’s China policy has once again stirred waves over issues such as the EU’s new technology transfer requirements, the UK’s unilateral sanctions on certain Chinese entities, and the recent Nexperia contention. China has maintained a clear and consistent position on cooperation with Europe, supporting trade and investment cooperation between Chinese and European companies based on market principles and for win-win results. China opposes forced technology transfer against WTO rules, interference in companies’ normal operations, and protectionist and discriminatory practices taken under the pretext of enhancing competitiveness.
At present, the overextension of "security exceptions," the intensifying protectionist impulses, and the politicization of market principles are collectively squeezing the space for multilateral rules, which now face increasing marginalization. What Europe should do is to stay committed to policy consistency and avoid allowing "willful" policy shifts to disrupt the business strategies and compliance expectations of companies in the region.
The key weakness in Europe’s industrial development lies not in whether it is "secure enough," but in how "security" is governed. The Nexperia semiconductor case fully exposed that security reviews were coerced under the US "piercing rules," leaving no room for strategic autonomy. These reviews have been distorted into post entry barriers, targeting Chinese enterprises while undermining Europe’s own business environment.
Bundling "market access" with "technology transfer" essentially amounts to disguised forced technology transfer, which not only violates WTO rules but also runs counter to Europe’s long-standing narrative of openness and innovation. The UK’s unilateral sanctions against China constitutes "extraterritorial jurisdiction" and lacks any foundation in international law. Such actions only heighten compliance uncertainty and raise the institutional costs of cross-border trade and investment, eroding regulatory credibility and dampening business confidence.
The true driving force behind Europe’s industrial development lies in improving total factor productivity, with innovation-driven growth at its core - not market protection through barriers. The 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to the theory of "innovation-driven economic growth," which fully reflects that, even amid the current surge of protectionism, what is most valuable is respect for the spirit of contracts, economic laws, and the continuous advancement of technology.
Technological progress requires stable institutional expectations and policy expectations. Arbitrary intervention in enterprises under the pretext of a "generalized concept of security" only leads to more pessimistic expectations, higher transaction costs, slower diffusion of technology, and weaker accumulation of knowledge - ultimately undermining the momentum of economic development.
Technological progress requires robust market competition. However, when "enhancing competitiveness" becomes an excuse for forced technology transfers, it squeezes the marginal returns of corporate R&D, distorts price signals and resource allocation, and over time leads to "inefficiency lock-in," weakening the momentum for innovation and development. Technological progress requires broad international cooperation. Europe’s industrial development, especially the advancement of green and digital economies, is the result of interdisciplinary, cross-enterprise, and cross-border knowledge integration. Only through predictable cross-border collaboration can the spread of knowledge accelerate, and industries grow in a healthy and sustainable way.
China and Europe have long maintained a deeply interdependent relationship, with their interests closely intertwined. In sectors such as semiconductors, new energy, pharmaceuticals and healthcare, high-end equipment manufacturing, and green and low-carbon technologies, their industrial and supply chains are highly interconnected. Chinese and European enterprises cooperate closely along the value chain, sharing both opportunities and benefits. Today, the global economy is experiencing severe turbulence, with recovery weak and growth especially difficult. The real risk to China-EU economic and trade cooperation is not the so-called "mutual dependence," but rather using "de-risking" as a pretext for "de-cooperation" and even de-sinicization. Europe’s development dilemma does not lie in compliance and adherence to rules, but in arbitrary restrictions and in building barriers under the guise of "de-risking."
What enterprises desire most is certainty, what the enterprises hope for most is positive expectations, and what is most crucial in policy is stable boundaries. Europe needs to clearly define security boundaries and lay out procedural rules. Only in this way can cooperation operate within a workable framework, competition return to a fair track, and enterprises gain room to grow.
Overall, the European side should turn its "security anxiety" into rational, rules-based institutional dialogue, and put aside short-term tug-of-war for lasting mutual benefits. China’s policy stance has been consistent: it prefers to resolve issues on the basis of equality, and to manage differences within the framework of laws and rules. For non-compliant practices, China has both the capacity and the resolve to reciprocate; for constructive cooperation, China has ample sincerity and space to engage positively.
The sooner Europe returns to genuine multilateralism, the greater the room for China-EU cooperation, the stronger the resilience of European industries, and the greater the confidence in global markets.
History has repeatedly shown that only a policy mix grounded in rules, multilateralism, and cooperation first can weather economic cycles, stabilize expectations, and secure the future. As long as both sides approach issues with openness, resolve differences professionally, and use institutional tools to consolidate consensus, China and Europe will be fully capable of pulling their relationship back from the edge of contention to the center of rationality, making "anchoring in multilateral rules and focusing on cooperation" not just a declaration, but a tangible and actionable institutional reality.
原文地址：http://en.people.cn/n3/2025/1017/c90000-20378463.html