According to Xinhua Agency, on October 8 local time, China Foreign Minister Wang Yi arrived in Italy and co-chaired the 12th joint meeting of the China-Italy Government Council with Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Taani.

At the meeting, the two sides reiterated their support for free trade and opposition to protectionism, and expressed a strong willingness to deepen economic and trade and scientific and technological cooperation.

However, just during Foreign Minister Wang Yi's visit, the European Commission suddenly announced that it would cut the duty-free import quota of steel by nearly half and increase the tariff on the excess to 50%.

Although the EU claims that the move is to save Europe's steel industry and related jobs, from the outside world, this move is seen as a trade protectionist act against China.

The EU¡¯s decision appears to be addressing the so-called ¡°global overcapacity,¡± but its deep intentions are striking.

The EU document cited the "smelt and pour" clause once used by the United States in an attempt to prevent China steel from entering the European market through third countries.

This approach is similar to Trump¡¯s protectionist policy.

EU Executive Vice President Sejurne claimed that the move was to "save" the European steel industry.

The European steel industry¡¯s trouble is more due to high energy costs and inefficiency than to the competition of Chinese steel.

Even more playful, the EU chose to throw the proposal during the visit of Foreign Minister Wang Yi, whose political signals are obvious: both wanting to take the lead in Central European economic cooperation and trying to show ¡°loyalty¡± to the United States.

In the face of the EU's sudden tax hikes, China's countermeasures quickly landed.

On October 9, China's Ministry of Commerce announced the implementation of export controls on rare earth-related technologies, covering multiple core links from mining to magnetic material manufacturing.

Known as the "industrial vitamin" of the high-end manufacturing industry, rare earth has an irreplaceable strategic position in the fields of new energy, military and chip manufacturing.

Data shows that the EU relies almost entirely on China for 97% of its rare earth metal supply.

Once the export of key rare earth technologies is restricted, Europe's green transformation plans, military projects and even chip manufacturing chains may suffer serious impacts. China's move is not only a precise counterattack against the EU's tax increase, but also a clear signal that China will not be passively beaten in trade frictions.

On the other hand, this series of operations by the EU actually exposed deep contradictions within it.

Europe is economically highly dependent on the Chinese market, especially the major economies such as Germany and France have close economic and trade ties with China.

Take Germany as an example. About 30% of its automobile manufacturing industry's revenue comes from the Chinese market. However, the EU has frequently tried to limit its dependence on China politically, put forward a "de-risking" strategy, and adopted a tougher stance on China under the pressure of the United States.

This strategy of ¡°both working together and setting limits¡± not only creates divisions within the EU, but could also trigger counterfeiting.

The UK has publicly expressed concern that the EU's new tariff policy may trigger the "biggest crisis in history" of the British steel industry.

More importantly, the EU¡¯s protectionist policy could eventually hurt itself.

Against the backdrop of a diversified global steel supply landscape, excessive closure will only push up European manufacturing costs, increase inflation, and weaken competitiveness. At the same time, China's controls on rare earth exports will also force Europe to re-examine its China policy. The current China-EU relationship requires both economic mutual trust and political sobriety.

Today, when the global economy is deeply intertwined, no economy can completely "de-risk".

If the EU continues to waver between "cooperation" and "confrontation," it may ultimately lose not only the China market, but also a historical opportunity to reshape the global industrial chain.