THE EU advocates for a free-market economy and expects countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, along with their governments, to provide full support and platforms for European capital, industries, products, and services without imposing any form of trade restrictions.
 
The EU asserts that the free mobility of European capital is central to its trade praxis. However, these same principles are not applied when capital, industries, and services flow from countries like China, India, or other nations in the global South.
 
The colonial white supremacists and EU policymakers consider countries in the global South as dumping grounds for European products and services. The concept of free trade for Europe and restricted trade for the global South is an extension of neocolonial trade practices and reflects a colonial mindset in action.
 
The undemocratic and unaccountable European Commission has decided to impose a 35.3 per cent countervailing duty (CVD) on electric vehicles (EVs) from China, in addition to the EU’s 10 per cent tariff. This means the EU has effectively imposed a 45.3 per cent trade tariff on Chinese EVs under the guise of protecting the European car industry but at the expense of European consumers.
 
These CVDs on Chinese EVs go against the interests of European consumers, who could have benefited from more affordable, technologically advanced Chinese EVs. However, the EU is indifferent to the interests of European consumers. Instead, it prioritises the interests of European capitalists and their car industries, with policies designed to serve carmakers rather than car buyers.
 
The EU provides subsidies to landlords, industrialists, and large corporations while undermining small farmers and small-scale enterprises. However, when China offers subsidies, it is labelled as an “unfair trade practice.”
 
The focus of Chinese subsidies is on consumer welfare, whereas EU subsidies are aimed at consolidating capitalist power for risk-free profit maximisation. Chinese subsidies prioritise consumer security, while EU subsidies are designed to protect capitalists, large industrialists, and their conglomerates.
 
China’s subsidies support the growth of technologically advanced EVs to protect the environment and reduce pollution, while also making EVs affordable for its citizens.
 
In contrast, the EU’s anti-subsidy investigations and anti-dumping allegations against Chinese EVs are intended to protect corporate subsidies for European car manufacturers at the expense of European consumers. The tariffs imposed on Chinese EVs will raise prices in Europe, and EU subsidies will not reduce the production cost or selling price of EVs.
 
These anti-dumping allegations aim to weaken the market for Chinese EVs in Europe, consolidating European capitalists’ profits at the expense of consumers. Exploitation is at the heart of European colonialism, and it continues to affect European citizens today.
 
Chinese EV brands like SAIC, BYD, Geely, NIO, and Dongfeng are leading producers of technologically advanced and durable electric vehicles.
 
These companies not only offer high-quality EVs at affordable prices, making them accessible to consumers with lower incomes, but they also ensure excellent customer service. So, why don’t European EV producers create technologically advanced vehicles and offer competitive prices to consumers in Europe?
 
The best path forward is to embrace free and open market competition, which would encourage better products and services at affordable prices.
 
Instead of focusing on policies that benefit consumer welfare and experience, the EU is negotiating with China and the Chinese Association of Automobile Manufacturers to set a market floor price cap in line with the pricing mechanisms favoured by European EV producers. This policy is harmful to the interests of European consumers.
 
Given the size of China’s automobile industry and the scope of its domestic and international EV market, China and its companies can withstand the EU’s anti-Chinese market strategy.
 
However, the German and French car industries will face significant challenges, as they are highly exposed to the Chinese market both in terms of sales and production. If Chinese companies, backed by the Chinese state and government, were to stop investing in Europe, countries like Turkey and Hungary would immediately suffer.
 
Chinese companies, such as BYD, are establishing new factories in these countries, bringing investment and generating employment. European car and EV producers, like Germany’s Volkswagen and Sweden’s Northvolt, are already facing difficulties due to the EU’s anti-Chinese policies.
 
China’s economic and industrial overcapacity is a result of its hard-working and technologically advanced skilled workforce. It not only provides a competitive advantage but also offers a model that European states and governments could emulate for the benefit of their people.
 
However, asking Europe to “implement what it preaches” is a difficult task for a continent of colonial-era shopkeepers whose primary motive has always been profit at the expense of the people. This mindset remains unchanged among European capitalists and corporate elites today.
 
Import tariffs contradict the values of a free and open market that the EU claims to uphold, yet they are imposed on Chinese EVs to protect European capitalists and their car factories at the expense of European consumers.
 
This anti-Chinese stance exposes the EU’s true priorities to the European public. The opposition of Germany and Hungary to the EU’s anti-China policies reveals the fault lines within the EU: European manufacturers are suffering due to these policies, as many EVs for Europe are built in China.
 
Meanwhile, experts from the Atlantic Council fuel the controversy by arguing that Chinese EVs pose a security risk in terms of potential hacking and sensitive data collection. Such claims are not only unfounded but also a political strategy to discredit and undermine China and its achievements.
 
In this context, how should China respond to the EU’s CVDs?
 
It would be better for China not to react and retaliate by imposing similar tariffs on European products and services. Such a strategy would strengthen China’s position among the people of Europe while undermining the anti-Chinese propaganda promoted by the European ruling elites.
 
Instead, China should focus on creating alternative mechanisms for investment in co-operative industrial models, both within Europe and globally. These initiatives can generate employment opportunities and ensure good returns on Chinese investments.
 
While capitalist market competition is not a strategy China should adopt, it must continue to follow its own path in service to the Chinese people and people around the world. This approach will not only help expand China’s model of development and industrialisation but also contribute to global prosperity.