Panel: Why marking 50 years of China-EU diplomacy matters
53:41 Share

Hello and welcome to the panel discussion of World Today. I'm Ding Han in Beijing. China and the European Union will soon reach a milestone in their relations, 50 years since the establishment of diplomatic ties.

Over the past five decades, trade between China and the EU has expanded from $2.4 billion to $780 billion. Two-way investment has increased from almost zero to close to $260 billion.

In a phone conversation with President of the European Council Antonio Costa earlier this year, Chinese President Xi Jinping said, "When the world becomes more challenging and complex, China and the EU have more reasons to renew their purpose in establishing diplomatic ties, strengthen strategic communication, enhance strategic mutual trust, and maintain this partnership relationship."

So, do China and the EU have the capacity and wisdom to remain each other's trustworthy partner despite their differences? How can the two sides usher in another promising 50 years? These questions and much more in this edition of World Today. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.

So joining us now on the line are Christy Stambazos, Associate Professor with Monash University, George Zagopoulos, Director of EU-China Program at CIFE, a European research organization, and Ina Tengen, Senior Fellow with Taihe Institute.

So thank you very much for joining us today, Christy, George and Ina. Christy, to start with you, when China and the European Committee, which later became the European Union, established the diplomatic ties in 1975, the world was in Cold War. So what prompted the two sides to take that very step at the time?

Thank you for the question. The establishment of diplomatic ties between China and the European Union, back then it was called the European Community, occurred during a rather significant period of Cold War realignment. There are several key factors that prompted both sides to take this step.

China sought to normalize relations with Western countries to break its isolation. And establishing ties with the European community was part of this effort that included, of course, a reestablishment of a relationship with the United States. Of course, you may recall that Nixon visited China

China in 1972 which was certainly a pivotal moment in the relationship between the two countries. So the realignment strategy coming from China was instrumental and at the same time Europe was interested in opening up new markets at a time that its traditional markets

were not particularly fertile. Another item that is worth pointing out is that both China and the European community were looking to diversify their economic relationships

There was the oil embargo back then that played a role. And I think that all of these things together served as a catalyst for the establishment of diplomatic ties. - So this is not only driven by economic interests, but also geopolitical issues, I guess, to summarize what you elaborated. So George, turning to you,

Looking back, what do you think is the most valuable asset in this half century long relationship? Well, this half century long relationship has passed through different stages. Obviously during the Cold War period it was the beginning of this relationship under completely different circumstances because at the beginning obviously Western Europe

followed completely the American foreign and economic policy. During the post-Cold War era, however, the situation was different. And I would say that since the 90s and in the 21st century - after China entered the World Trade Organization, -

The relationship has experienced an economic and trade explosion and trade data are indicative. And apart from that, we have seen that there have been many synergies on the agenda of Sino-European relations, from climate change cooperation to other issues on cultural affairs and to some extent on geopolitical questions, our both sides are interested in

building a multilateral world. In the last five years, however, the relationship has entered another phase which is still ongoing. There are problems and differences which are frequently dominating Sino-European relations. Still, I would say that the two sides are interested in as much as possible collaborate and find common ground

and continue dialogue in order to bridge the differences, or at least in order to sideline the differences so that they will not block collaboration on other issues. Hmm. Ina, going to you, do you think the spirits that guided the establishment of the China-EU diplomatic ties half a century ago are still relevant today?

Well, I would agree that it was mostly diplomatic. I don't think anyone foresaw the kind of economic consequences that were, you know, actually went forward, I mean, from 1985.

You see this rapid increase, I mean, trebling of trade and things like that. But you have to put this, I think, in historical context. Neither of my European fellow commentators mentioned the 100 years of humiliation and the part that Europe played in that. So 1975, China is experiencing this desire to open up, to reform, to find a path forward.

for economic progress. So this is what I see as the primary goal from the Chinese side. There's suspicions, of course, on both sides. You know, China is a socialist communist country.

And the EU, although it embraces a lot of socialism, has always been very suspicious of China. And that still plays out today. So is that spirit still there? Yes, very much so. And mostly because of Donald Trump. It's had a resurgence. When we start talking five years ago, that's one thing. But let's really talk about what the largest change was, which was Ukraine.

And in that situation, I talked to many of the ambassadors here, they are absolutely adamant that China had to come to their side. You would mention and say, hey, listen, you know, from outside the box, it looks that in 2014, the EU and the US cooperated in a color revolution to remove somebody who was pro-Russian, but who had been, in fact, elected through the system.

And that set off a series of events. No one is in favor of an armed conflict or any country going into another country. But this idea that somehow there was a moral imperative from the Europeans' side

given its own rather colored history, which the things that are being uncovered, you know, about what happened in Africa with these various European nations, Brussels, Belgium, Luxembourg, et cetera, horrifying. So you have this situation where, yes, economically, because of Trump now, these tariffs that have been unilateral,

the fact that the U.S. is unreliable, you're starting to see the shift. And it's very pragmatic. And I'm not putting it down. These are the realities that are out there. But when you talk about spirit, I think it would be an overestimation to say that this was entered in with this brotherly love and things like this. It was really very, very pragmatic then as it is today. Of course, the Trump factor is...

one key agenda that we're going to touch upon later on in our discussion, that's for sure. But before that, Christie, we know Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi once said earlier this year that 50 years on, the cooperation between China and the EU has a greater strategic value and a global influence. In your understanding, what's the strategic value of China-EU cooperation today?

The strategic value of China-EU cooperation today, I think, lies in its capacity to facilitate global stability, to promote multilateralism, and ultimately to drive economic growth. In terms of global stability, China and the European Union are two of the largest economies in the world.

Their cooperation helps maintain a multipolar global economy, preventing dominance by any single power and supporting global trade stability. Their interdependence drives supply chains, investment flows and of course technological development.

In terms of multilateral governance, both sides are committed and have been committed and emphasize the importance of a rules-based international order, including support for institutions like the United Nations, the WTO, and the Paris Agreement. Global challenges include

climate change, pandemics and so on, they are joined leadership and lead and steer

international consensus. And finally, in terms of economic growth, China and the European Union are investing heavily in clean energy, in green technology, digital infrastructure, and so on. Their cooperation can set a global benchmark and accelerate innovation towards

a low-carbon economy. So in essence, the cooperation is a fundamental building block of a more stable, multipolar, and ultimately a more collaborative world

where it is well understood and appreciated that interdependence does not signify weakness, but rather it signifies a solid understanding in the notion

that international relationships are not a zero-sum game. Now, Christy, since you have mentioned multipolarity, I guess on the Chinese part, China is a strong believer of multilateralism and a multilateral international system. But from a European perspective,

Why do you think Europe in general is also a supporter of multilateralism? It's difficult to know exactly what drives China's commitment to multilateralism. It's difficult to articulate in detail all the factors that lead to that particular commitment.

But I think certainly, you know, when one considers the large economies of the world, the United States, China, the European Union, to mention three significant players, China has always considered itself the odd man out.

The West, that is Europe and the United States, have always had a special relationship, whereas China did not traditionally have a good relationship with the other big economies of the world. And I think that is ultimately what has served as a catalyst for China embracing

Rules rather than discretion, embracing institutions rather than bilateral arrangements and ultimately embracing multilateralism rather than any other alternative.

Okay, I take your point. So George, China and Europe represent two major civilizations across the world. President Xi Jinping's signature global civilization initiative is calling for intra-civilizational dialogue and mutual learning from each other. So, I mean, in a civilizational sense, what do you think China and Europe can learn from each other?

Well, dialogue is always significant and dialogue that focuses on cultural affairs

can open the door for synergies on other issues as well. We know that China represents an ancient and very important civilization - and it is natural for the Chinese government to look into history - and attempt as much as possible to forge cultural cooperation. And there are several examples which are highlighting this obviously -

The revitalization of the ancient Silk Road is one of them. I would say that the cultural cooperation is significant and in several meetings taking place between China and European institutions, this is part of the agenda. This has been a diachronic tendency.

And there are several initiatives as well, which are taking place in China from time to time, which are reminding the public opinion about its past and about the possibility for current leaders and also for people to people's exchanges to concentrate on these questions.

At the same time, I would also add here that the fact that the two sides focus on civilization does not only mean that they are looking into history. At the same time, they are looking into modernization, which is a new concept that

to some extent relevant to history because culture does certainly refer to the ancient civilization but culture also refers to ongoing developments and in that regard I would say that technology is an issue which is on the agenda in bringing the two sides closer on how to understand the modern concept of culture. So I would focus on both collaboration about history, joint projects of scientists and so on, but also

on how the bilateral dialogue is expanding into other areas of topical significance regarding technology and innovation. So, Ina, by the way, what is your take regarding this geopolitical theory, regarding clash of civilization, and from the way you see it,

Like you see how China and the EU are dealing with each other. Do you see any element of clash of civilization? Well, yeah, I do. I mean, you go, I keep mentioning the colonial era. I mean, the world has experienced 600 years of rapacious, you know, colonialism by Europe. But now,

Europe is not as competitive as it was, having lost cheap energy, especially in Germany from Russia. They face a lot of conundrums. There are really, really difficult times ahead. The reindustrialization strategy does not seem like it will be very productive.

There's a lack of money and interest, and certainly, you know, there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the world today. You don't want to talk later about Donald Trump, but that's really, you know, the elephant in the room right now. So going forward, this idea that somehow China's commitment to multilateralism is China's commitment to multilateralism is built on its own success.

all right since it's entered the wto and even before that they realize there's this opening up and reform you hear this constantly they're trying to improve their system they're trying to align with the world right now it seems there seems very intent on joining the tpp or is it what it morphed into this is not moving away or being separate the fact is that europe and america quote

then had the special relationship that was based on this colonialism. Today, that's faltering. The US is going on its own way and just taking this law of the jungle stuff to its logical end, which is everything for me and nothing for you. Europe is left out. They're in between. Yes, a huge economy, lots of demand, more people than the US.

But it is not cohesive. You have so many different opinions. It's very difficult for it to move forward. And monetary and fiscal union was never established and that continues to be a weak point. So why is China committed to multilateralism? Because of its success and the logic behind it.

The fact is that if everyone adopts the opinion of the U.S., that there are only interests, no friends, no relations, you're going to have a chaotic world, one in which conflict, kinetic, is going to be the order of the day. Because if you don't have trust, how else can you settle anything, correct? So Xi Jinping, China has put forward these three principles.

Every country needs to be secure. Everyone needs a path to development. And there has to be respect for the states themselves, for their sovereignty.

And that is why they're embracing multilateralism on these principles, because without those principles, you just have chaos. So, Christy, do you think deepening trade and investment cooperation is the best way to mark or to celebrate 50 years of diplomacy between China and the EU?

Yes, certainly deepening trade and investment cooperation is an important and a practical way to mark the 50 years of diplomatic ties between China and the European Union, particularly to highlight a point that my esteemed colleague just pointed out, particularly given the United States' recent retreat from global engagement.

So this will highlight the fact that trade is not a zero-sum game and will further promote global stability. Economic interdependence helps stabilize relationships, even in the presence of political tensions. So I certainly think that this is the ideal way to mark trade.

the establishment of diplomatic ties. So George, let's talk about a major connectivity project between the two sides, China-Europe Railway Express. I mean, over the past decades and even more, this railway link has run more than 100,000 cargo trips and more than 220 cities across the European continent are now connected to this very project.

So what do you make of the changes that this project has brought to China-Europe trade dynamics?

Well, obviously, train connectivity has been a significant part of economic collaboration between the two sides, in particular since 2013 and the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative. And as you correctly pointed out, there are several train services which are operating and the number is still expanding, highlighting the importance of trade for both sides.

However, I would say that the trade connectivity goes beyond the trained services themselves into other possible economic and trade collaboration initiatives like the shipping sector. For instance, there are ships connecting China to Europe,

And this is also significant, taking into account additional investments - which are taking place in European ports. Obviously, the investment of Costco shipping in the port of Piraeus - is facilitating the process. So, there are numerous examples which can be mentioned. At the same time, however, it's also significant to discuss trade - from different perspectives, as we know -

Currently, the EU and China are emphasizing on trade. The European Union is as much as possible attempting to explain to China - that trade needs to be more balanced. I believe that these discussions are ongoing - and we will see up to what extent in the next years - we can expect some progress.

But obviously, as you correctly pointed out, this trade connectivity, either through rail services or through the shipping sector and other sectors, is indicative of how deeply trade is connected and demonstrates why trade matters for both sides, Europe and China. Let's take a very short...

Oh, OK. Briefly. Can I possibly add something to what my colleague just pointed out? Sure. My own research suggests that time delays are one of the most significant remaining stumbling blocks in international trade. And that is because there is significant depreciation in the value of goods that are sitting in containers over significant time periods.

And this is particularly so for time-sensitive goods like perishables, but also when it comes to other goods like electronics that become obsolete very rapidly. Rail link significantly reduces the transit time between China and Europe from about 30 to 45 days by sea down to 12 to 22 days

by rail. So it really represents a boost in international flows between China and Europe. And that is very, very significant for the health of the interdependence between the two economies. Thank you very much. Let's take a very short break here and coming back. Our discussion will continue. Stay tuned.

You're back with World Today, I'm Ding Han in Beijing. Today we are talking about 50 years of diplomacy between China and the European Union and the meaning of celebrating this milestone amidst rising complexity and uncertainty in the world.

Joining our discussion, Christy Stambazos, Associate Professor with Monash University, George Zagopoulos, Director of EU-China Program at CIFE, a European research organization, and Ina Tengen, Senior Fellow with Taihe Institute.

George, going back to you, during her first mandate, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spearheaded a policy to de-risk from China. With that in mind, why do you think she is nowadays speaking about a policy to "engage constructively with Beijing"?

Well, the world has been different since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. And since the outbreak of the pandemic, we have witnessed deterioration in the relationship between the European Union and China for many reasons.

But I would say that since 2023, we have seen signs of improvement of this bilateral relationship. And since then, several leaders of European countries, not only the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, have visited China in order as much as possible to see whether the relationship

could go back to normalcy. And I would say that since 2024 in particular, we have seen specific signs of improvement. And this improvement is to be seen on different sectors.

and on different levels, from the highest political level to people-to-people exchanges. I mention people-to-people exchanges because currently European citizens do not need a visa to come to China and stay there for one month, which is a very important thing.

And people's to people's exchanges were missing in the first period of the deterioration of the relationship from the beginning of the pandemic until the end of 2022. So all this is right now suggesting that the two sides and the European Union is very much interested in

in building a modus vivendi with China that will allow cooperation, constructive engagement with China, as you said before, without necessarily sidelining differences, but building this modus vivendi that will allow collaboration and also forge dialogue in order as much as possible to not necessarily bridge differences, but not let

differences prevent cooperation and other issues. And obviously, just to directly answer your question, the main reason is that the European, the main reason for this European approach of the last two years is that the European Union economically and geopolitically needs China and vice versa, obviously. And this dependency is the one which is currently driving the partnership.

Hmm. So, Ina, what is your take? Some people say the European approach towards China has not changed completely, but the wings are moving. What is your take?

Well, yes. I mean, obviously, I mean, we keep coming back to Trump. That's the factor here. Without that, I don't know that there'd be that much change. There is always talk about values. There's criticisms on China about human rights issues, which I personally, through my own experience,

debunked. I've actually talked to these charlatans who pushed this from the payroll of the U.S. side. And it was for some reason it was wholly embraced by Europe. I would talk to people and they just say, oh, you know, terrible things are happening in China. I said, really, have you been there? No. Well, what are you relying on?

Well, you know, it's everyone knows. Well, no, everyone knows that there's lots of repetition. So, OK, let's get past the past. Let's talk about today. A lot of it is, as I said, is pragmatic and necessity. If you want a better world, you have to have cooperation. You can't have tariffs. That's not going to solve anything. Right.

Europe knows this. There are key areas of cooperation which go beyond the individual interests of these countries, and that has, you know, goes to climate conditions, health, areas that Donald Trump has said, hey, I don't care, I don't believe in it, and if I did, I wouldn't do anything about it. So, yeah, there has to be a better way of organizing international trade,

The European Union and China are on the same side on so many of these issues, but yet they are still, you know, the U.S. is still able to wave a red flag and have the Europeans charge at it. Global climate change, as I said, the public goods that are necessary for research and innovation. We have a situation where with data, right, data is like water.

If you drink from a puddle outside your door, you're going to get sick and maybe even die. Data is something that can be very, very helpful if it in fact is reliable. This is something that needs to be, if we're going to solve so many things, especially in health, we need to have reliable data. And that means that there has to be systematic cooperation across the world to make sure that it's reliable.

It is available, it is of high quality and very reliable. And there's so many other areas, the global system. I mean, you don't want to dismantle the whole situation involving logistics. It wouldn't be possible. And if you did, replicating it would cost trillions of dollars. This idea that everything centers around industrialization, I find odd.

And the reason I say that is if I'm looking at two different areas and I say industrialization, OK, I can earn very, very low amounts doing it because there's so much competition in existing industries.

manufacturing out there. Or I could go to the digital economy where the amount of profits are huge because it's new, it's innovative, it's creating tremendous amounts of money and activity.

It's the future of the world. So why is it that we hear two most advanced economies, Europe and America, always talking about reindustrializing as if that will somehow help them? It won't. It'll just put them in competition. Imagine Europe and America competing to reindustrialize and remake all these logistics chains.

I mean, it's just, it doesn't even make sense. And yet that's where we are. So I'm hoping that this new detente, which has come about mostly because of Trump,

will inject some rationality into how countries see their future. China is embracing digitalization in every part of its economy. It is the one that is opening up. It has offered free entry visas for one month. Europe has not reciprocated in most instances.

I mean, China is saying now you can buy. We're not insisting on this, the old way in which we were using to develop our industries where you had to partner with a company here. Now you can come in and earn it. Every couple of months, they reduce the negatives list. This tells you clearly what direction China is going.

But it also points to where the future is. And as I said, I have a disconnect when it comes to people in the U.S. and Europe talking about reindustrializing as if that is some solution. So, Christy, for European companies, based on your study on trade or economics,

Is China exactly what they need at a time of stagnant growth at home and at a time of an increasingly prohibitive American market? Well, China is certainly critically significant for Europe. It has a middle class.

which corresponds to about 300 to 400 million people. So in that light, China continues to offer scale and demand that few other markets can match. Sectors like luxury goods, for example, automotive, green technology, chemicals and so on, rely heavily on Chinese consumption and production. Europe, on the other hand, is grappling with low growth,

aging demographics and high energy costs, especially post the pandemic

mid-Ukraine war. So for many firms, China offers a much needed revenue stream as domestic markets stagnate. So furthermore, China's rapid advancement in artificial intelligence, in electric vehicles, in renewable energy, in digital infrastructure and so on, makes it a valuable ecosystem.

for co-development and for partnerships. Now, George, actually some people say the European Union's current engagement or trade talks, more specifically with China, are not necessarily about working closer with Beijing. Rather, they say they are more about using this strategic moment of uncertainty across the world, particularly with regard to the U.S.,

to negotiate new conditions and a new framework for engagement with China. Do you think this kind of analysis have a point? Why or why not? Well, certainly the Donald Trump effect on international relations is significant. However, I would like to place things into context.

Because I would say that in the second part of the Joe Biden administration, China and the European Union managed to work together and several European leaders traveled to China, especially because the two sides were interested in seeing how they could, as much as possible, build synergy.

And obviously, the Trump phenomenon in international affairs is accelerating the tendency. But China and the European Union are looking at their trade partnership irrespective of the Trump phenomenon. I'm saying that because the two sides need to do that together.

taking into account that this relationship between China and the European Union cannot always depend on American political development. So what will happen if in two years the Republicans don't win the midterm elections or if the Republicans don't win the presidential elections in four years? So China and the European Union obviously look at

The Trump presidency has a development that needs to be carefully studied in order for the two sides as much as possible to preserve multilateralism on different fronts. But at the same time, the bilateral relationship goes beyond domestic developments in the United States. Hmm.

Aina, today we know China and the EU jointly account for more than a third of the total world economy. So if these two powers can somehow work together to jointly resist the unilateralism and protectionism and safeguard the multilateral trading system, what will that mean to the global trade order?

Well, it would mean a great boost to it. It would be a return to this idea that creating efficiency is good for the world. Remember, during this last period since 2001, it has not just been China. Everyone talks about China, but let's talk about the developing world, which is literally growing at two to three times as quickly as the developed world. This has really been the

one period post-World War II, where you've seen massive increases. It's not that these countries are out of the woods, it's just they have an opportunity to grow. A lot of that has to do with China's trillion-dollar investment in the Belt and Road Initiative that has built the infrastructure which allows them to develop their countries.

That is the future of the international world. That is the majority of the people. It's the majority of land, resources, GDP. The idea that one country should be able to, in essence, wag the dog is nonsense. Those days are over. Obviously, the EU and China have a vested interest in cooperating. Right now, it's pragmatic. But I think once they start establishing closer ties

relations, start visiting each other more, this people to people and government to government, they'll see that they've been hoodwinked by the apparatus of the American government that is aimed at spreading disinformation about China. I mean, look, Europe should reflect on one thing.

The Pentagon spread a false rumor, they knew it was false, that if you, in the Philippines, an ally of the U.S., close ally, that if you take the Chinese vaccine, all right, you'll turn into an alligator.

Now, this led to one of the lowest adoptions of people willing to take the vaccine. People died. When they were confronted about this, the Pentagon said, well, we really didn't think about the personal costs, but, you know, it's worth it because anything to get at China is worth it.

So, the Europeans should think very carefully about a country who will use its ally so callously and doesn't care about the death that it's caused, won't apologize for their actions, and then apply that to the disinformation that's being spread about China. That would make relations a lot better.

for the Europeans to actually understand what is going on here. And I'm not saying it's perfect. My point is, it is not what the U.S. is broadcasting. So, Kirsten, based on one point Ina raised just now, of course, we know the EU belongs to the global community.

north traditionally speaking while china is a member of the global south but arguably china is one of the leaders of the global south today so what do you think the two sides i mean china and the european union can jointly do together for for today's global south community

That's a good question. You know, I think China's commitment to a rules-based international trading system, which is certainly finding a lot of support

by the European Union as well, that jointly this commitment can be a tide that lifts all boats, including the South. So in that sense, I think this commitment to a rules-based international trading system, this commitment to multilateralism,

particularly by two of the world's largest economies, the European Union and China,

can ultimately set the rules by which international trade negotiations take place. And that would ultimately be an excellent example that may be followed by a lot of other smaller trading partners. So I think that is what they can do.

So going back to all those issues between China and the European Union, Christie, do you think any coordination between Beijing and Brussels to try to navigate a Donald Trump tariff and other Trump factors is likely to deliver a resolution to other areas, to other fronts where the two sides may have some differences or even disputes?

Right. So the self-exclusion of the United States from the international arena through the way that it has treated Europe, China and many other countries has acted as a catalyst in bringing the European Union and China further closer together.

And in that sense, this reinvigorated relationship between the two countries, I think, can not only lead to productive negotiations that would facilitate greater trade between the two countries, but also it can serve as a catalyst in resolving a lot of other issues.

Such as, for example, the, well, first of all, let me talk a little bit about some of the economic issues. It can certainly lay the path to productive negotiations when it comes to

electric vehicles, which is a particular concern for Europe, but also other things that extend beyond strict economic things, such as the subsidies that both Europe and China are providing to their domestic firms, which can be thought of as

an involvement into the free and fair trade between the two economies, and way beyond economics in other things that relate to human rights and so on. And speaking of human rights, I need to point out that there is currently a big debate around

raging in Europe over what is happening in the Middle East. Europe is divided on the subject. Major European figures appear to be turning the blind eye to Israel's

attack on Gaza, whereas other European leaders are very critical of Israel's behavior. And the fact that Europe and China are now opening their channels of communication regarding economic issues allows them to also discuss sorts of political events and to jointly develop

the political landscape of evaluating these kind of global events and arriving hopefully through the United Nations

are the common position. So George, as Christie's have suggested, in recent years, a major trade dispute between the EU and China is over the EU's imports of Chinese-made electric vehicles or EVs.

We know several weeks ago, the two sides agreed to look into setting minimum prices of Chinese EVs as a kind of alternative to the existing tariffs imposed by the EU.

Does this represent a viable solution to this very dispute? Well, to start with, it's very important that the two sides are talking to each other extensively about electric vehicles and how to solve the problems. And discussions are going on for a period of a year at least.

And it's a very important thing that they seem they have agreed - on what you just suggested, just a minimum price for the electric vehicles. So this is indicative of the interest of both sides, as I said before - to find solutions despite the differences. But let me very briefly explain the European position in that regard. On the one hand, Europe and all European countries - acknowledge China's success in building electric vehicles.

And I would say that it is also indicative of the capacity of China - to make steps forward in new industries. At the same time, however, the European Union wants to protect its industry. So this is how all these discussions between the two sides can be explained. I understand the European position. However, at the same time, I also understand that Europe can't -

meet its green energy goals without collaborating with China. It's here where we are. And I'm optimistic about the future because I see that the two sides are talking to each other. So when there is a will for a dialogue, then there is a likelihood for joint solutions as the one about the minimum price. Could I add something to what

what my colleague has pointed out. So minimum prices, of course, as George pointed out, are a form of protection. They remind me of the voluntary export restraints of the 1970s that the United States and Japan used. So rather than the United States imposing

tariff or a quota against Japanese imports, it approached the government of Japan and asked Japan to voluntarily limit their exports. And like the minimum prices discussed now between Europe and China, voluntary export restraints are less confrontational than tariffs. But as George very correctly pointed out, they remain as a form of protection.

I'm personally against any form of protection. Minimum prices penalize cost efficiency and protect uncompetitive domestic players at the expense of consumer choice and affordability. I'm a big fan of German cars, I own two of them, but at the same time, I appreciate the

remarkable growth and achievements of the Chinese automotive industry. And I believe that European consumers deserve to have that choice without these relatively random minimum prices that Europe asks of China.

So this is, I believe, an area that Europe should retreat and allow European consumers to have a choice. I would, however, qualify this as follows. It is, of course, important that there are mechanisms to ensure that China is not selling its electric vehicles under cost

as a strategic maneuver to arm wrestle the European car industry. So there should be a mechanism to ensure that even though there are no minimum prices per se,

that whatever prices are being charged by the Chinese automakers are not under their cost. And as long as those mechanisms are in place, I think that the Chinese automakers should certainly be allowed to sell at any price they wish. So in a bigger picture sense, George,

What do you make of the European Union's recent message that it won't decouple from China as a condition for reaching trade deal with Trump? Well, it is a good message and more importantly, the fact that

the European Commission and the Chinese government spoke days after tariffs were put into place on April 2nd, is suggesting that they are interested in accelerating dialogue because there are issues to be solved. For example, what might happen with Chinese exports in Europe in a period during which US tariffs are being implemented is a question that needs to be addressed.

Again, it's significant that the two sides are talking to each other because if they are talking to each other and they are interested in finding a symbiosis model, then we can be optimistic about synergies because the disagreements will be there. I don't expect...

the disagreements to be solved, but what I expected that the two sides being aware of their disagreements are able to promote dialogue in order for them to advance their partnership especially in such a symbolic year of the 50th anniversary of their strategic of their partnership and the establishment of diplomatic relations.

So, Ina, I mean, by the end of the first term of Trump, we understand China and the EU actually had managed to negotiate a comprehensive bilateral investment deal. But the deal's approval and the ratification was later stalled, partly due to the Biden administration's

lobbying against this very deal in Brussels, I guess. So with that in mind, what do you think can be done in order to make China-EU ties more resilient and less likely to be negatively impacted by third-party factors?

Well, they have to sit down and talk. I agree with that. I mean, it's quite a difference between Donald Trump, who's waiting by the phone for Xi to contact him, versus the high-level contacts that are going on with the EU right now.

It is pragmatic. I disagree with the idea that minimum pricing is bad. Every country needs to protect its industries. There is this argument overall, and I agree that efficiency is the best way of letting the market help, but there still has to be a government in charge of the policy.

Remember, too often I hear from European counterparts that, you know, this kind of colonial condescending corporate paternalism, which was the past, is how it should go forward, that, you know, China and the EU should manage things. That is not the reality for China. China operates on a consensus model, and you can see that in terms of its dealings with ASEAN and other countries. So it's a very different approach.

In terms of dumping, this idea that companies in China that are very competitive, working on very slim margins, are just going to throw cars into other markets so that they can make losses, always kind of doesn't make sense to me.

So I think it's important to understand exactly how China does work, that the Chinese government does not run these car companies. These car companies are being run very, very competitively against each other. Going forward, they need to...

have a better understanding of each other's economies and their aims, and also the approach that I was mentioning, that it's about consensus, not the old ways. Well, a big thank you to our panelists. Christine Stambadzolt, Associate Professor with Monash University, George Zagopoulos, Director of EU-China Program at CIFE, a European research organization, and Ina Tingen, Senior Fellow with Taihe Institute.

That's all the time for this edition of World Today. I'm Dinghan in Beijing. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.