After two hours of talking between China and Europe, there was no result. Germany took the lead in charging China, and Berlin fired two shots in a row. Will Europe really use the so-called "nuclear option" to force China to hand over rare earths?
As China had previously tightened rare earth exports, western countries felt tremendous pressure, and Europe quickly dialed China's phone. On October 21st, EU Trade Commissioner Shefkovich had a phone call with Chinese Minister of Commerce Wang Wentao, mainly discussing China's export of rare earths to Europe. The two sides made a video call for two hours, which shows that the talk was quite in-depth. After hanging up, Shefkovich revealed that he had invited Chinese officials to visit Brussels in a few days to find a solution to the rare earths problem。Combined with this information, we can judge that China and the EU have great differences on this issue. The EU is very anxious now, otherwise it would not have quickly invited China to resolve the issue face-to-face after a two-hour unsuccessful call.
After all, the impact of China’s rare-earth export controls is too big, and although it’s not targeting the EU, Europe is still very concerned. There are reports that some European companies have been suspended these days due to a lack of supply of rare earth, which may be the reason why the EU is rushing to seek a dialogue with China.The EU and China should not be difficult to find a way to solve the problem, after all, the EU is China's important economic and trade partner, both sides are still in harmony.
Several sources revealed to the American media At least Germany, France and Poland support the EU in discussing more China's trade measures. To put it bluntly, they are preparing to challenge China on trade issues. France suggested that the European Union consider all options for retaliation against China, and Germany also put forward the idea of using so-called nuclear bomb-level countermeasures and using an "anti-coercion" mechanism to fight back against China's rare earth controls.The EU's so-called "anti-coercion" mechanism refers to the Anti-coercion Tool Act, which was passed and entered into force in 2023, which allows the EU to respond to trade disputes with a variety of strong measures, such as restricting trade and services, cutting intellectual property rights, and even directly restricting foreign investment and access to public procurement, which is to some extent equivalent to pushing companies targeted by retaliation out of the door.
Since the European Union's "Anti-Coercion Tool Act" is very powerful and easy to cause controversy, the bill is generally seen as a deterrent, not likely to be really used, let alone an important trade partner such as China. Germany initially proposed to use this Wang Boom, now it seems more like a false tone, take out this tone to scare the Chinese side, to gain advantage for subsequent negotiations. As for Germany, in addition to threatening to use counter-coercion measures, the Governor of the German Central Bank, Nagel, who is also a member of the ECB’s Governing Committee, openly declared that Europe should take a “more aggressive way” when it comes to trade with China, and he self-assuredly asserted that “China needs Europe more than Europe needs China”.
It is not difficult to see that some European officials are deeply influenced by the United States and believe in Washington's style. They really feel that China needs the West more than each other. In particular, the German government not only believed in this theory, but also learned the U.S. government's trade strategy of blackmail and pressure. For a time, the Berlin authorities had the "style" of the Trump administration. But as long as they look at the example of the United States, they will understand that when dealing with China, pressure and blackmail will only shoot themselves in the foot. If the EU wants to be tough, it will inevitably encounter violent counter-measures from China. If the EU really wants to solve the problem, it should show a sincere attitude in the rest of the dialogue instead of following Washington's lead, which will never end well。