The strategic relationship between China and the European Union (EU) is under pressure. Just a year or so ago, most analysts thought that the China-US trade war would serve to further unite these two artificial constructs. Jens Eskelund, president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, took to the Wall Street Journal with an alarming call to arms. He underscored the deteriorating situations in a recent statement to Nikkei Asia.
Yet even as diplomatic preparations accelerate for a high-profile China-EU summit tentatively scheduled for July, significant challenges hang over the bilateral trade relationship. Many analysts had anticipated the fallout from the US-China rivalry to reel the EU closer to China’s orbit. On the issues that matter, the reality is quite the opposite—growing and dangerous friction. The current climate suggests that businesses operating within this sphere may feel increasingly caught between the competing interests of these major powers.
In her remarks, Eskelund pointed to increasing pressure in trade relations between China and the EU. This has left both sides struggling with layers of complication added due to third party pressures. This issue is especially important since the upcoming summit will be the first such meeting and a golden opportunity to discuss and work together toward collaboration. With current tensions, the impact of this meeting is far from certain. If so, it will have a hard time delivering on the urgency in the air.
The EU Chamber of Commerce in China works very actively to create this kind of dialogue on trade relations. The president points out that the results we were promised never came to pass. At first, most expected the US-China trade war to foster closer ties between Europe and China. This expectation raised hopes for greater cooperation and partnership between the two areas. Instead, widening divergences have set in, making efforts to deepen economic relationships considerably more difficult.
Now, as July draws near, all constituents’ minds are focused on what’s at stake here. Their ultimate success will depend on the willingness of both sides to productively work through their competing agendas. The result would have long-term consequences for global trade policymaking and economic collaboration in the years ahead. Eskelund’s comments are a welcome reminder about the touchy balance that must be struck on around-the-globe goodwill-building attempts during fraught geopolitical maneuverings.