On February 28, local time, the European Union voted on a high-profile bill, and the "**chain bill" called the "Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive" failed to pass, which attracted widespread attention. The reasons behind this decision include Sweden's opposition and the abstention of Germany, Italy and other countries. The core requirement of this bill is that major EU companies should conduct "due diligence" when choosing a business to ensure that there is no "forced labor", child labor, environmental damage and other problems in the chain system, and once violated, they will face serious fines.
For Chinese companies, the failure of the bill to pass is actually good news. The bill's design clearly targets China and requires EU companies to conduct stricter investigations on Chinese business partners, raising concerns about China's position and influence in the global industrial chain. As a result, the bill failed to pass, which became a relief for Chinese companies.
As early as the beginning of February this year, the European Commission introduced this bill, which was widely questioned within the EU, especially Germany's announcement that it would not support it. The disagreement was widespread, and the bill was shelved twice until February 28, when it was not voted on. However, due to the abstention of countries such as Germany, the bill failed to be passed by a majority of member states.
In this process, Germany's attitude has been in the spotlight. According to a recent survey published by Germany**, 98% of European business leaders are reluctant to leave the Chinese market. The report points out that China is an important market for European companies and investors, as well as a key supplier and source of raw materials for European companies, so close ties with China are indispensable at the economic level.
In addition, the report also mentions that due to its huge size, China is not only a market for European companies and investors, but also a key supplier for European companies, so "decoupling" is not realistic. China's position in the global industrial chain is obvious, and its importance is irreplaceable for Europe. This is one of the reasons why countries such as Germany abstained from voting in the vote.
In Europe, there was an atmosphere of "getting rid of dependence on China", but in fact, China-EU cooperation has always been based on the principle of equality and mutual benefit, rather than a vassal relationship. China's importance is evident not only economically, but also in geopolitics and international affairs.
However, for Europe, the main external force hindering its economic development does not come from China, but from the United States. At the moment when the energy crisis is intensifying, the United States exports natural gas to Europe, interrupting the energy cooperation between Europe and Russia, which is essentially a harvest. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act introduced by the United States attracts foreign investment in the form of high subsidies, directly tapping into the cornerstone of Europe's economy.
The strong behavior of the United States has aroused strong dissatisfaction in Europe, and Macron of France has made a special visit to the United States to express his dissatisfaction, but has not changed the strategy of pursuing "America First" in the United States. This indiscriminate harvesting of allies is bound to deepen the rift between Europe and the United States, and may eventually backfire on the United States itself.
For the EU, the key to safeguarding its own interests lies in achieving strategic autonomy. If we continue to immerse ourselves in the shadow of the United States, it will be difficult for Europe to make a breakthrough in its future. This European infighting not only affects the global chain pattern, but also reshuffles the balance of power in international relations. In this political storm, it is worth waiting to see what kind of development pattern will take in the future.