Recently, exchanges between China and Western countries have resumed rapidly, and a number of dignitaries from the United States, Australia, and the European Union have visited China.
Not long ago, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that she would visit China in early December to attend the annual China-EU summit. On December 5, von der Leyen also publicly stated that she would not tolerate a "growing imbalance" with China, but that the EU would prefer to resolve the issue through negotiations.
By "imbalance", von der Leyen is referring to the deficit between China and Europe. According to the data released by the European Union, in 2022, the amount of the 27 EU countries against China will reach 856.3 billion euros, and the deficit will reach 395.7 billion euros
The figures for 2023 are not yet available, but based on the current situation between China and Europe, this figure is expected to expand significantly. Von der Leyen declared that the EU's ** deficit with China this year has approached 400 billion euros.
In fact, it is not only the European Union, but the United States has often used this issue to put pressure on China more than a decade ago.
Or it can be said that with the exception of a few countries like Australia, which sells ores and agricultural products, most of the developed economies in the West are in deficit with China. ** The deficit has become the number one excuse for European and American countries to attack China in the past decade or so.
But there are two problems to pay attention to here, first of all, the ** deficit cannot be simply understood as "suffering", nor can it be directly linked to the level of economic development, in that case, it will be a common sense mistake. **Surpluses and deficits are mainly caused by different economic structures.
Western countries have been transferring manufacturing abroad for decades, and only some high value-added industries have been left in their countries, so the ** deficit is inevitable. Or it can be said that the ** deficit is the result of the adjustment of the EU's own industrial structure. China has also repeatedly stated that it will not deliberately seek a surplus.
Second, if it is China's fault that there is too much surplus, then how should we evaluate the time when China sold hundreds of millions of pairs of socks in exchange for a plane from a Western country?At that time, I didn't see the EU being grateful to China.
When you are in surplus, you pretend not to know;If they have a deficit, they will pour dirty water on China, and with such a strange logic, it is no wonder that European and American countries cannot solve their own economic problems. Without rational cognition, any policy can deviate.
Von der Leyen's visit to China this time will focus on discussing the issue of deficit with China. In fact, it is not difficult to solve this problem, and the EU can export more high-tech products to China, so that it can look much better on the books.
In addition, the EU should also open more markets to China to attract investment from Chinese companies, and Chinese companies will gradually narrow the deficit if they achieve localized operations in the EU.
But how does the EU operate in reality?Exactly in the opposite direction. China originally had a huge demand for high-tech products such as lithography machines, but the EU followed the United States and imposed restrictions on China, which is tantamount to cutting off its own advantageous projects
Chinese companies originally had a great interest in investing in the EU, but many countries in the EU passed legislation to prevent China from investing in the EU.
In fact, these are very common economic common sense, and EU politicians and financial ** really don't understand it?Of course they do, so there are often people in industry who stand up and call on the EU to increase exchanges and cooperation with China, but politicians will pretend not to understand.
Because "opposing the deficit" has become the mantra of politicians in Europe and the United States, and it is a regular practice for them to attack China. If this problem is solved, how can they still talk about it?If you don't talk about it, what about the votes of politicians from **?To put it bluntly, this matter has nothing to do with China, it is tossed up by EU politicians themselves.
The EU's psychology towards China is now complicated, even a little distorted. There is no conflict between China and the EU, and they are ideal partners.
Intellectually, EU politicians know that normal relations with China must be maintained;But from a political standpoint, they need to attack China to assert their uniqueness and maintain their political status. Von der Leyen has repeatedly said that cooperation with China should continue, but it should also be de-risked.
It's okay to de-risk, China is also de-risking. After the United States provoked the Sino-US war and disrupted the global economic order, almost the whole world was de-risked. But when it comes to the question, what is de-risking?Strengthening cooperation with China, jointly promoting technological progress, and strengthening the EU's own strength is the real de-risking.
Simply excluding Chinese companies is not de-risking, it is increasing risk. The EU is small, resource-scarce, and poorly resilient to risks, and it should respond to the shock by strengthening its engagement with China, rather than building a wall for itself.
Objectively speaking, von der Leyen's visit to China is an opportunity for the EU. If a series of agreements can be reached with China to inject vitality into the EU economy, then the EU may be able to get out of its current predicament. If it continues to be the same as before, then the EU will continue to suffer the consequences of the economic downturn.