Yanmei Xie is senior associate fellow at the Mercator Institute for China Studies. After Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke at Davos last week, a whole continent contracted leadership envy. Calling the rules-based order — which Washington proselytized for decades before stomping on — a mirage, Carney gave his country’s neighboring hegemonic bully a rhetorical middle finger, and Europeans promptly swooned. But before the bloc’s politicians rush to emulate him, it may be worth cooling the Carney fever. Appearing both steely and smooth in his Davos speech, Carney warned middle powers that “when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness.” Perhaps this was in reference to the crass daily coercion Canada has been enduring from the U.S. administration. But perhaps he was talking about the subtler asymmetry he experienced just days before in Beijing. In contrast to his defiance in Switzerland, Carney was ingratiating during his China visit. He signed Canada up for a “new strategic partnership” in preparation for an emerging “new world order,” and lauded Chinese leader Xi Jinping as a fellow defender of multilateralism. The visit also produced a cars-for-canola deal, which will see Canada slash tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles from 100 percent to 6.1 percent, and lift the import cap to 49,000 cars per year. In return, China will cut duties on Canadian canola seeds from 84 percent to 15 percent. In time, Ottawa also expects Beijing will reduce tariffs on Canadian lobsters, crabs and peas later this year and purchase more Canadian oil and perhaps gas, too. The agreement to launch a Ministerial Energy Dialogue will surely pave the way for eventual deals. These productive exchanges eventually moved Carney to declare Beijing a “more predictable” trade partner than Washington. And who can blame him? He was simply stating the obvious — after all, China isn’t threatening Canada with annexation. But one is tempted to wonder if he would have needed to flatter quite so much in China if his country still possessed some of the world’s leading technologies. The truth is, Canada’s oil and gas industry probably shouldn’t really be holding its breath. Chinese officials typically offer serious consideration rather than outright rejection out of politeness — just ask Russia, which has spent decades in dialogue with Beijing over a pipeline meant to replace Europe as a natural gas market. The cars-for-canola deal also carries a certain irony: Canada is importing the very technology that makes fossil fuels obsolete. China is electrifying at dizzying speed, with the International Energy Agency projecting its oil consumption will peak as early as next year thanks to “extraordinary” electric vehicle sales. That means Beijing probably isn’t desperate for new foreign suppliers of hydrocarbons, and the ministerial dialogue will likely drag on inconclusively — albeit courteously — well into the future. This state of Sino-Canadian trade can be seen as classic comparative advantage at work: China is good at making things, and Canada has abundant primary commodities. But in the not-so-distant past, it was Canadian companies that were selling nuclear reactors, telecom equipment, aircraft and bullet trains to China. Yet today, many of these once globe-spanning Canadian high-tech manufacturers have either exited the scene or lead a much-reduced existence. Somewhere in this trading history lies a cautionary tale for Europe. Deindustrialization can have its own self-reinforcing momentum. As a country’s economic composition changes, so does its political economy. When producers of goods disappear, so does their political influence. And the center of lobbying gravity shifts toward downstream users and consumers who prefer readily available imports. Europe’s indigenous solar manufacturers have been driven to near extinction by much cheaper Chinese products | STR/AFP via Getty Images Europe already has its own version of this story: Its indigenous solar manufacturers have been driven to near extinction by much cheaper Chinese products over the span of two decades. Currently, its solar industry is dominated by installers and operators who favor cheap imports and oppose trade defense. Simply put, Carney’s cars-for-canola deal is a salve for Canadian consumers and commodity producers, but it’s also industrial policy in reverse. In overly simplified terms, industrial policy is about encouraging exports of finished products over raw materials and discouraging the opposite in order to build domestic value-added capacity and productivity. But while Canada can, perhaps, make do without industry — as Carney put it in Davos, his ambition is to run “an energy superpower” — Europe doesn’t have that option. Agri-food and extractive sectors aren’t enough to stand up the continent’s economy — even with the likes of tourism and luxury goods thrown in. China currently exports more than twice as much to the EU than it imports. In container terms, the imbalance widens to 4-to-1. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs estimates Chinese exports will shave 0.2 percentage point or more of GDP growth in Germany, Spain and Italy each year through 2029. And according to the European Central Bank, cars, chemicals, electric equipment and machinery — sectors that form Europe’s industrial backbone — face the most severe job losses from China trade shock. Europe shares Canada’s plight in dealing with the U.S., which currently isn’t just an unreliable trade partner but also an ally turned imperialist. This is why Carney’s speech resonates. But U.S. protectionism has only made China’s mercantilism a more acute challenge for Europe, as the U.S. resists the bloc’s exports and Chinese goods keep pouring into Europe in greater quantities at lower prices. European leaders would be mistaken to look for trade relief in China as Carney does, and bargain away the continent’s industrial capacity in the process. Whether it’s to resist an expansionist Russia or an imperial U.S., Europe still needs to hold on to its manufacturing base.

German industrial giant Bosch on Friday confirmed plans to cut 20,000 jobs after profits nearly halved last year, underlining the mounting strain on Germany’s once-dominant manufacturing sector and increasing the pressure on politicians in Berlin to find a solution. Official data released Friday also showed Germany’s unemployment rate, unadjusted for seasonal factors, rising to 6.6 percent — the highest level in twelve years. The number of unemployed people surpassed three million in January. “Economic reality is also reflected in our results,” Bosch CEO Stefan Hartung said, describing 2025 as “a difficult and, in some cases, painful year” for the company, which is a leading supplier of parts for cars. The move lands amid a deepening slump in the country’s automotive industry, long the backbone of German manufacturing. The sector has been shedding jobs rapidly: A 2025 study by EY found that more than 50,000 automotive positions were cut in Germany last year alone. Germany’s automotive downturn has become a wider political test for the government in Berlin and Europe more widely. Once the economy’s crown jewel, the industry is now being challenged by current policy on electric vehicles, energy costs and aggressive competition from Chinese manufacturers. As suppliers weaken, the risk is shifting from lower profits to a lasting loss of competitiveness. With layoffs rising and investment decisions being delayed, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government is coming under growing pressure from workers, unions and industry leaders to rethink Germany’s industrial strategy — as doubts spread domestically and across Europe about the country’s ability to remain an economic powerhouse.

LONDON — Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney left Beijing and promptly declared the U.S.-led “world order” broken. Don’t expect his British counterpart to do the same. Keir Starmer will land in the Chinese capital Wednesday for the first visit by a U.K. prime minister since 2018. By meeting President Xi Jinping, he will end what he has called an “ice age” under the previous Conservative administration, and try to win deals that he can sell to voters as a boost to Britain’s sputtering economy. Starmer is one of a queue of leaders flocking to the world’s second-largest economy, including France’s Emmanuel Macron in December and Germany’s Friedrich Merz next month. Like Carney did in Davos last week, the British PM has warned the world is the most unstable it has been for a generation. Yet unlike Carney, Starmer is desperate not to paint this as a rupture from the U.S. — and to avoid the criticism Trump unleashed on Carney in recent days over his dealings with China. The U.K. PM is trying to ride three horses at once, staying friendly — or at least engaging — with Washington D.C., Brussels and Beijing.  It is his “three-body problem,” joked a senior Westminster figure who has long worked on British-China relations. POLITICO spoke to 22 current and former officials, MPs, diplomats, industry figures and China experts, most of whom were granted anonymity to speak frankly. They painted a picture of a leader walking the same tightrope he always has surrounded by grim choices — from tricky post-Brexit negotiations with the EU, to Donald Trump taking potshots at British policies and freezing talks on a U.K.-U.S. tech deal. Starmer wants his (long-planned) visit to China to secure growth, but be cautious enough not to compromise national security or enrage Trump. He appears neither to have ramped up engagement with Beijing in response to Trump, nor reduced it amid criticism of China’s espionage and human rights record. In short, he doesn’t want any drama. “Starmer is more managerial. He wants to keep the U.K.’s relationships with big powers steady,” said one person familiar with planning for the trip. “You can’t really imagine him doing a Carney or a Macron and using the trip to set out a big geopolitical vision.” An official in 10 Downing Street added: “He’s clear that it is in the U.K.’s interests to have a relationship with the world’s second biggest economy. While the U.S. is our closest ally, he rejects the suggestion that means you can’t have pragmatic dealings with China.” He will be hoping Trump — whose own China visit is planned for April — sees it that way too. BRING OUT THE CAVALRY Starmer has one word in his mind for this trip — growth, which was just 0.1 percent in the three months to September. The prime minister will be flanked by executives from City giants HSBC, Standard Chartered, Schroders and the London Stock Exchange Group; pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca; car manufacturer Jaguar Land Rover; energy provider Octopus; and Brompton, the folding bicycle manufacturer. The priority in Downing Street will be bringing back “a sellable headline,” said the person familiar with trip planning quoted above. The economy is the overwhelming focus. While officials discussed trying to secure a political win, such as China lifting sanctions it imposed on British parliamentarians in 2021, one U.K. official said they now believe this to be unlikely. Between them, five people familiar with the trip’s planning predicted a large number of deals, dialogues and memorandums of understanding — but largely in areas with the fewest national security concerns. These are likely to include joint work on medical, health and life sciences, cooperation on climate science, and work to highlight Mandarin language schemes, the people said.  Officials are also working on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and visa-free travel for short stays, while firms have been pushing for more expansive banking and insurance licences for British companies operating in China. The U.K. is meanwhile likely to try to persuade Beijing to lower import tariffs on Scotch whisky, which doubled in February 2025. A former U.K. official who was involved in Britain’s last prime ministerial visit to China, by Theresa May in 2018, predicted all deals will already be “either 100 or 99 percent agreed, in the system, and No. 10 will already have a firm number in its head that it can announce.” THREADING THE NEEDLE Yet all five people agreed there is unlikely to be a deal on heavy energy infrastructure, including wind turbine technology, that could leave Britain vulnerable to China. The U.K. has still not decided whether to let Ming Yang, a Chinese firm, invest £1.5 billion in a wind farm off the coast of Scotland. And while Carney agreed to ease tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), three of the five people familiar with the trip’s planning said that any deep co-operation on EV technology is likely to be off the table. One of them predicted: “This won’t be another Canada moment. I don’t see us opening the floodgates on EVs.” Britain is trying to stick to “amber and green areas” for any deals, said the first person familiar with the planning. The second of the five people said: “I think they‘re going for the soft, slightly lovey stuff.” Britain has good reason to be reluctant, as Chinese-affiliated groups have long been accused of hacking and espionage, including against MPs and Britain’s Electoral Commission. Westminster was gripped by headlines in December about a collapsed case against two men who had been accused of spying for China. Chinese firm Huawei was banned from helping build the U.K.’s 5G phone network in 2020 after pressure from Trump. Even now, Britain’s security agencies are working on mitigations to telecommunications cables near the Tower of London. They pass close to the boundary of China’s proposed embassy, which won planning approval last week. Andrew Small, director of the Asia Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank working on foreign and security policy, said: “The current debate about how to ‘safely’ increase China’s role in U.K. green energy supplies — especially through wind power — has serious echoes of 5G all over again, and is a bigger concern on the U.S. side than the embassy decision.”  Starmer and his team also “don’t want to antagonize the Americans” ahead of Trump’s own visit in April, said the third of the five people familiar with trip planning. “They’re on eggshells … if they announce a new dialogue on United Nations policy or whatever bullshit they can come up with, any of those could be interpreted as a broadside to the Trump administration.” All these factors mean Starmer’s path to a “win” is narrow. Tahlia Peterson, a fellow working on China at Chatham House, the international affairs think tank, said: “Starmer isn’t going to ‘reset’ the relationship in one visit or unlock large-scale Chinese investment into Britain’s core infrastructure.” Small said foreign firms are being squeezed out of the Chinese market and Xi is “weaponizing” the dependency on Chinese supply chains. He added: “Beijing will likely offer extremely minor concessions in areas such as financial services, [amounting to] no more than a rounding error in economic scale.” Chancellor Rachel Reeves knows the pain of this. Britain’s top finance minister was mocked when she returned with just £600 million of agreements from her visit to China a year ago. One former Tory minister said the figure was a “deliberate insult” by China. Even once the big win is in the bag, there is the danger of it falling apart on arrival. Carney announced Canada and China would expand visa-free travel, only for Beijing’s ambassador to Ottawa to say that the move was not yet official. Despite this, businesses have been keen on Starmer’s re-engagement.  Rain Newton-Smith, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, said firms are concerned about the dependence on Chinese rare earths but added: “If you map supply chains from anywhere, the idea that you can decouple from China is impossible. It’s about how that trade can be facilitated in the best way.” EMBASSY ROW Even if Starmer gets his wins, this visit will bring controversies that (critics say) show the asymmetry in Britain’s relationship with China. A tale of two embassies serves as a good metaphor.  Britain finally approved plans last week for China’s new outpost in London, despite a long row over national security. China held off formally confirming Starmer’s visit until the London embassy decision was finalized, the first person familiar with planning for the trip said. (Others point out Starmer would not want to go until the issue was resolved.) The result was a scramble in which executives were only formally invited a week before take-off. And Britain has not yet received approval to renovate its own embassy in Beijing. Officials privately refer to the building as “falling down,” while one person who has visited said construction materials were piled up against walls. It is “crumbling,” added another U.K. official: “The walls have got cracks on them, the wallpaper’s peeling off, it’s got damp patches.” British officials refused to give any impression of a “quid pro quo” for the two projects under the U.K.’s semi-judicial planning system. But that means much of Whitehall still does not know if Britain’s embassy revamp in Beijing will be approved, or held back until China’s project in London undergoes a further review in the courts. U.K. officials are privately pressing their Chinese counterparts to give the green light. One of the people keenest on a breakthrough will be Britain’s new ambassador to Beijing Peter Wilson, a career diplomat described by people who have met him as “outstanding,” “super smart” and “very friendly.”  For Wilson, hosting Starmer will be one of his trickiest jobs yet. The everyday precautions when doing business in China have made preparations for this trip more intense. Government officials and corporate executives are bringing secure devices and will have been briefed on the risk of eavesdropping and honeytraps. One member of Theresa May’s 2018 delegation to China recalled opening the door of what they thought was their vehicle, only to see several people with headsets on, listening carefully and typing. They compared it to a scene in a spy film. Activists and MPs will put Starmer under pressure to raise human rights issues — including what campaigners say is a genocide against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang province — on a trip governed by strict protocol where one stray word can derail a deal.  Pro-democracy publisher Jimmy Lai, who has British nationality, is facing sentencing in Hong Kong imminently for national security offenses. During the PM’s last meeting with Xi in 2024, Chinese officials bundled British journalists out of the room when he raised the case. Campaigners had thought Lai’s sentencing could take place this week. All these factors mean tension in the British state — which has faced a tussle between “securocrats” and departments pushing for growth — has been high ahead of the trip. Government comments on China are workshopped carefully before publication. Earlier this month, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told POLITICO her work on Beijing involves looking at “transnational repression” and “espionage threats.” But when Chancellor Rachel Reeves met China’s Finance Minister He Lifeng in Davos last week to tee up Starmer’s visit, the U.K. Treasury did not publicize the meeting — beyond a little-noticed photo on its Flickr account. SLOW BOAT TO CHINA Whatever the controversies, Labour’s China stance has been steadily taking shape since before Starmer took office in 2024. Labour drew inspiration from its sister party in Australia and the U.S. Democrats, both of which had regular meetings with Beijing. Party aides argued that after a brief “golden era” under Conservative PM David Cameron, Britain engaged less with China than with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The result of Labour’s thinking was the policy of “three Cs” — “challenge, compete, and cooperate.” A procession of visits to Beijing followed, most notably Reeves last year, culminating in Starmer’s trip. His National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell was involved in planning across much of 2025, even travelling to meet China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, in November. Starmer teed up this week’s visit with a December speech arguing the “binary” view of China had persisted for too long. He promised to engage with Beijing carefully while taking a “more transactional approach to pretty well everything.”  The result was that this visit has long been locked in; just as Labour aides argue the London embassy decision was set in train in 2018, when the Tory government gave diplomatic consent for the site. Labour ministers “just want to normalize” the fact of dealing with China, said the senior Westminster figure quoted above. Newton-Smith added: “I think the view is that the government’s engagement with eyes wide open is the right strategy. And under the previous government, we did lose out.” But for each person who praises the re-engagement, there are others who say it has left Britain vulnerable while begging for scraps at China’s table. Hawks argue the hard details behind the “three Cs” were long nebulous, while Labour’s long-awaited “audit” of U.K.-China relations was delayed before being folded briefly into a wider security document. “Every single bad decision now can be traced back to the first six months,” argued the third person familiar with planning quoted above. “They were absolutely ill-prepared and made a series of decisions that have boxed them into a corner.” They added: “The government lacks the killer instinct to deal with China. It’s not in their DNA.” Luke de Pulford, a human rights campaigner and director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, argued the Tories had engaged with China — Foreign Secretary James Cleverly visited in 2023 — and Labour was simply going much further. “China is pursuing an enterprise to reshape the global order in its own image, and to that end, to change our institutions and way of life to the extent that they’re an obstacle to it,” he said. “That’s what they’re up to — and we keep falling for it.” END OF THE OLD ORDER? His language may be less dramatic, but Starmer’s visit to China does have some parallels with Canada. Carney’s trip was the first by a Canadian PM since 2017, and he and Xi agreed a “new strategic partnership.” Later at Davos, the Canadian PM talked of “the end of a pleasant fiction” and warned multilateral institutions such as the United Nations are under threat. One British industry figure who attended Davos said of Carney’s speech: “It was great. Everyone was talking about it. Someone said to me that was the best and most poignant speech they’d ever seen at the World Economic Forum. That may be a little overblown, but I guess most of the speeches at the WEF are quite dull.” The language used by Starmer, a former human rights lawyer devoted to multilateralism, has not been totally dissimilar. Britain could no longer “look only to international institutions to uphold our values and interests,” he said in December. “We must do it ourselves through deals and alliances.” But while some in the U.K. government privately agree with Carney’s point, the real difference is the two men’s approach to Trump. Starmer will temper his messaging carefully to avoid upsetting either his Chinese hosts or the U.S., even as Trump throws semi-regular rocks at Britain. To Peterson, this is unavoidable. “China, the U.S. and the EU are likely to continue to dominate global economic growth for the foreseeable future,” she said. “Starmer’s choice is not whether to engage, but how.” Esther Webber contributed reporting.

President Donald Trump on Saturday said he would impose a 100 percent tariff on all Canadian imports coming into the U.S. if Canada follows through on a trade deal with China. “If Governor Carney thinks he is going to make Canada a “Drop Off Port” for China to send goods and products into the United States, he is sorely mistaken,” Trump wrote in a post on social media, mockingly calling Prime Minister Mark Carney “Governor,” a nod to the nickname he had for former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. “China will eat Canada alive, completely devour it, including the destruction of their businesses, social fabric, and general way of life. If Canada makes a deal with China, it will immediately be hit with a 100% Tariff against all Canadian goods and products coming into the U.S.A.” In the midst of Trump wreaking havoc on longstanding allies like Canada through a hefty trade war, Carney has gone elsewhere, announcing last week a “new strategic partnership” between China and Canada. As a part of the deal, Canada will ease the tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles that it imposed in tandem with the U.S. in 2024. In exchange, China will lower retaliatory tariffs on key Canadian agricultural products. Following the announcement of the deal, Trump initially sounded indifferent, saying “that’s what he should be doing,” and that it was “a good thing” for Carney to sign a trade deal with China. Saturday’s threat comes on top of an ongoing tariff dispute between the two nations that began early last year after the U.S. imposed broad tariffs on Canadian imports — 25 percent on many goods and higher rates on some other commodities — under national emergency trade powers. Canada then responded with retaliatory tariffs. A number of these tariffs have remained in place, albeit with exemptions for many products covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Earlier this month, Trump said USMCA is something he doesn’t “even think about,” adding that “it expires very shortly and we could have it or not. It wouldn’t matter to me.” Trump’s comments only add to the recent spat between him and his Canadian counterpart. At the World Economic Forum in Davos this past week, Carney delivered a high-profile speech warning that the traditional U.S.-led world order was fracturing and urged middle powers to diversify their alliances and trading relationships. That message — coupled with Canada’s emerging trade engagement with China — prompted a strong reaction from Trump. He claimed “Canada lives because of the United States” and that Ottawa is “ungrateful” for its relationship with Washington — even directly calling out Carney, saying: “Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.” On Friday, Trump publicly withdrew his invitation for Carney to join his Board of Peace initiative, which has garnered lackluster support from European allies. Trump’s threat toward a once essential U.S. ally comes as the president continues joking about Canada becoming the 51st state. It also comes days after Trump’s quest to control Greenland hit a turning point in Davos, showing how this administration treats allies less as partners than as adjacent territory to be pressured, coerced or rhetorically absorbed if they stray from Washington’s preferred path.

LONDON — Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle will travel to China next week as Britain eyes closer economic ties with the Asian superpower. The chair of the Financial Conduct Authority is also expected to travel to the country as Prime Minister Keir Starmer leads a delegation of roughly 50 C-suite leaders and chairs from business and cultural institutions. Executives from HSBC, Standard Chartered, and the London Stock Exchange Group have been invited. The guest list is heavily weighted towards financial services. The trip comes as the government faces growing international pressure to take a tougher line on Chinese industrial overcapacity — and a backlash back home over its recent decision to approve a super-embassy near the Tower of London despite a raft of security concerns.   “It’s substantially important for businesses,” said a senior business representative, granted anonymity to speak about the preparations. “In terms of conversation and talk, there’s a step change under the new government,” they said, arguing Labour had made swift progress since coming to office. Some firms “weren’t able to engage with the Chinese government at all 12 months ago,” they noted. Industry executives familiar with the talks said the U.K. has been pushing for a Memorandum of Understanding covering services trade, as well as recognition of professional qualifications for accountants, designers, and architects — and visa-free access to China for Brits making short-term business trips. The U.K. is also hopeful of positive movement on whisky tariffs, according to two of the industry figures. In February 2025, China doubled its import tariffs on brandy and whisky, removing its provisional 5 percent tariff and applying the 10 percent most-favored-nation rate. MARKET PUSH British and Chinese financial regulators are due to meet in Beijing to advance work to link up the London stock market with markets in Shanghai and Shenzhen, as well as tackling cross-border data sharing issues. The Stock Connect initiative opened up both markets to investors in 2019 which, according to FCA Chair Ashley Alder, led to listings worth almost $6 billion on the London Stock Exchange.   “Technical obstacles have so far prevented us from realizing Stock Connect’s full potential,” Alder said in a speech in May last year.    He pointed to the Memorandum of Understanding being developed between the FCA and China’s National Financial Regulatory Administration as “critical to provide the mechanisms needed to share information swiftly, supervise firms effectively across borders, and promote market openness,” with “fast and efficient exchange of data [being] vital to manage the risks.”  “The goods wins are easier,” said the senior business representative. “Some of the service ones are more difficult. The issues that financial services firms have in China [are] around access to sensitive data and the transfer of money.” The U.K. also hopes to be the latest country to join China’s visa-free list, which would enable British citizens to travel for short-term business trips, exchanges, or holidays without applying for a visa.   There are 48 countries currently on the list, including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Sweden. The Treasury, Department for Business and Trade and FCA did not respond to a request for comment.

China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng positioned his country as a champion of the rules-based international order Tuesday, in a speech at the World Economic Forum that indirectly attacked the Trump administration. “The unilateral acts and trade deals of certain countries clearly violate the fundamental principles and rules of the [World Trade Organization], and severely impact the global economic and trade order,” said He, adding that the world shouldn’t slide back into “the law of the jungle, where the strong bully the weak.” The remarks come amid unprecedented tensions between the European Union and the U.S. over Washington’s threats to annex Greenland by force. The escalation has already led President Donald Trump to threaten a group of European countries with new duties after they sent troops to the North Atlantic island. Another country caught in the middle of U.S. President Trump’s tariff onslaught, Canada, has already moved closer into China’s orbit as a response. Ottawa, a longstanding U.S. ally, signed an agreement last week that would liberalize trade in agricultural goods and electric vehicles. “Tariffs and trade war have no winners,” said He, praising the benefits of “free trade and economic globalization.” He said that the global trade system was facing its biggest challenge in years. He called on countries to not turn their back on globalization and trade liberalization that had been instrumental in helping “many countries, including China” achieve “fast development.” The vice premier did acknowledge that globalization “wasn’t perfect” but said that it would be wrong for nations to retreat into “self-imposed isolation”. He also addressed some common criticisms of China’s economic model, which generated a record trade surplus of nearly $1.2 trillion in 2025. In Europe, that enormous level of exports has stoked worries of China crushing European businesses across a range of industries, including the automotive sector. The vice premier insisted that China wasn’t only seeking to export goods abroad, but also wanted to be the “world’s market.” But, he added: “When China wants to buy, other countries don’t want to sell.” The U.S. has imposed restrictions on the sale to China of cutting-edge microchips used in AI. Beijing is trying to support domestic demand, putting it at the top of its economic agenda, He said. However, household consumption, as a share of GDP, has been on a downward trend for decades and was still less than 40 percent last year, compared to a global average of over 60 percent, according to World Bank data. Many economists arguee that an increase in household income could both help China absorb its own manufacturing surplus, dampening exports, and create more demand for goods produced abroad — for example for European luxury items. “We encourage businesses from around the world to seize the opportunities presented by our expanding domestic demand, provide more and better products and services, and further explore China’s consumer market,” said He. “China will open its door still wider to the world.”

BRUSSELS — The trade war is back. Donald Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on European countries over Greenland has blown up last year’s transatlantic trade truce and forced the EU into a familiar dilemma: hit back hard, or try to buy time.  On paper, Brussels has options. It could target politically sensitive U.S. exports like Republican-state soybeans. Or it could unleash its trade “bazooka,” the Anti-Coercion Instrument. Here are the actions that EU leaders can consider when they gather for an emergency summit on Thursday: HITTING BACK AGAINST U.S. PRODUCTS Retaliatory tariffs on €93 billion worth of U.S. goods are still sitting in the EU’s pantry. These date back to Trump’s first round of tariffs last year and were frozen for six months in August. This package will automatically kick into force on Feb. 7 unless the Commission proposes to extend the freeze and the 27 EU countries agree with that. Such a suspension can happen very quickly, however, as the Commission typically sounds out support from capitals several times a week. Part of the package targets distinctively American products like Levi’s jeans, Harley Davidson motorcycles and Kentucky bourbon. Other goods would be targeted because they originate in states that lean towards the Republican side of the spectrum. A tariff on soy beans, for instance, would target the red state of Louisiana from which House Speaker Mike Johnson hails. DEPLOYING THE TRADE “BAZOOKA” The biggest weapon in the EU’s arsenal is its Anti-Coercion Instrument. This all-purpose tool is meant to deter other countries from using trade tactics to extort concessions in other areas. With it, Brussels can impose or increase customs duties, restrict exports or imports through quotas or licenses, and impose restrictions on trade in services. It also can curb access to public procurement, foreign direct investment, intellectual property rights and access to the bloc’s financial markets.  But in a case like this, it would take a few months to first clear diplomatic hurdles between the Commission and the Trump administration. Because it has never been triggered before, the EU is in uncharted waters. That is especially true for the dynamics between the Commission and national capitals. Brussels needs to propose launching the mechanism, and would only do so if it knows enough capitals will agree. France is keen, but Germany and other countries? Not so much. Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images “It’s one of the cards,” but “it’s really not the first in the line that you use,” Lithuanian Finance Minister Kristupas Vaitiekūnas told POLITICO in an interview. PLAYING THE CHINA CARD Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney did something unprecedented last Friday. Turning the page on the acrimonious relationship between Canada and China born out of the arrest of a high-profile Huawei executive, the Canadian leader struck a preliminary trade deal with Beijing to liberalize imports of Chinese electric vehicles in exchange for a steep reduction in tariffs on Canadian agricultural goods. Carney didn’t mention Trump by name, but the message was clear: Canada has other partners, and it won’t sit quietly while Washington tries to strong-arm it.   A blueprint for Brussels? It’s not that simple. While the EU has tried to thread the needle on its trade relations with Beijing — the Asian country remains its second-largest trading partner  — policymakers are keenly aware of the competitive threat posed by China, Inc. Germany’s automotive industry is reeling from high energy prices and fierce competition from China (now the world’s top automotive exporter). In general, overcapacity — the term for China’s dizzying output of products that, unable to be absorbed by its domestic market, are sold abroad — keeps EU business leaders up at night. Compared with Canada, for the EU China is a “whole different can of worms,” said trade expert David Kleimann. “The Chinese are outcompeting us on all of our main exports and domestic production,” he said. “We will need more barriers, more managed trade with China.”  AN ASSET FIRESALE America’s enormous debt pile is one Achilles heel. The U.S. loves to spend, and Europeans, in turn, snap up that debt. George Saravelos, head of foreign exchange research at Deutsche Bank, said that European public and private sector entities hold a combined total of $8 trillion of U.S. stocks and debt — “twice as much as the rest of the world combined.”  “In an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part,” the analyst wrote in a note to clients. If European governments order their banks and pension funds to dump their holdings, that would almost certainly spark a financial crisis, sending America’s borrowing costs soaring. The ensuing financial Armageddon would engulf Europe as well, though. The firesale of financial assets would crush prices, and European lenders would book huge losses — the financial equivalent of nuclear mutually assured destruction.  Increasing decoupling from the U.S. financial system looks likely, but a violent wholesale break is extremely unlikely.  PLAYING FOR TIME Restraint is the EU’s weapon of choice for now. “The priority here is to engage, not escalate, and avoid the imposition of tariffs,” Olof Gill, deputy chief spokesperson for the European Commission, said on Monday. Under their trade deal struck last year, the United States has already lowered tariffs on most EU products to 15 percent, while the EU has yet to make good on its pledge to cut its tariffs on U.S. industrial goods to zero. That’s because Trump’s threats have derailed a vote in the European Parliament on lowering tariffs for U.S. products. While this stalemate lasts, EU companies actually benefit from lower costs while the reverse is not true for their American counterparts. “Trade continues to flow, investment continues to flow,” Gill added. “So we need to be very sensible in how we approach the difference between a threat and operational reality.” With Trump trying to drive a wedge between European leaders by threatening tariffs against some countries, including France and Germany, while sparing others, like Italy, maintaining cohesion will be a huge challenge. Any serious retaliation, such as wielding the bloc’s trade “bazooka,” the Anti-Coercion Instrument, would require very broad support. WHAT COMES NEXT The U.S. Supreme Court might rule on some of Trump’s tariffs as soon as Tuesday. If the administration loses the case, Trump would have to deal with the fallout while he’s attending this week’s World Economic Forum in Davos.  “On a purely economic warfare basis, that would play in our favor,” said Kleimann. “But we haven’t considered Trump’s ambitions to actually put boots on the ground.” At Davos, Trump might meet with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, although no bilateral is yet confirmed. Von der Leyen will speak at Davos on Tuesday; Trump is due to arrive the day after.  Then on Thursday, EU government leaders hold an emergency summit in Brussels to discuss transatlantic relations and the latest tariff threats. The meeting is not expected to create a glitzy attack plan but rather to sound out whether the EU should indeed target the U.S. goods or maybe shoulder its trade bazooka. By Feb. 1, the U.S. tariffs on the European allies would kick in, if Trump follows through on his threats. A week later, the EU’s retaliation package automatically kicks in if no solution is found. If that happens, we really will be in a trade war.

BRUSSELS — On Greenland’s southern tip, surrounded by snowy peaks and deep fjords, lies Kvanefjeld — a mining project that shows the giant, barren island is more than just a coveted military base. Beneath the icy ground sits a major deposit of neodymium and praseodymium, rare earth elements used to make magnets that are essential to build wind turbines, electric vehicles and high-tech military equipment. If developed, Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark, would become the first European territory to produce these key strategic metals. Energy Transition Minerals, an Australia-based, China-backed mining company, is ready to break ground. But neither Copenhagen, Brussels nor the Greenlandic government have mobilized their state power to make the project happen. In 2009, Denmark handed Greenland’s inhabitants control of their natural resources; 12 years later the Greenlandic government blocked the mine because the rare earths are mixed with radioactive uranium. Since then the project has been in limbo, bogged down in legal disputes. “Kvanefjeld illustrates how political and regulatory uncertainty — combined with geopolitics and high capital requirements — makes even strategically important projects hard to move from potential to production,” Jeppe Kofod, Denmark’s former foreign minister and now a strategic adviser to Energy Transition Minerals, told POLITICO. Kvanefjeld’s woes are emblematic of Greenland’s broader problems. Despite having enough of some rare earth elements to supply as much as 25 percent of the world’s needs — not to mention oil and gas reserves nearly as great as those of the United States, and lots of other potential clean energy metals including copper, graphite and nickel — these resources are almost entirely undeveloped. Just two small mines, extracting gold and a niche mineral called feldspar used in glassmaking and ceramics, are up and running in Greenland. And until very recently, neither Denmark nor the European Union showed much interest in changing the situation. But that was before 2023, when the EU signed a memorandum of understanding with the Greenland government to cooperate on mining projects. The EU Critical Raw Materials Act, proposed the same year, is an attempt to catch up by building new mines both in and out of the bloc that singles out Greenland’s potential. Last month, the European Commission committed to contribute financing to Greenland’s Malmbjerg molybdenum mine in a bid to shore up a supply of the metal for the EU’s defense sector.  But with United States President Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. “The EU has for many years had a limited strategic engagement in Greenland’s critical raw materials, meaning that Europe today risks having arrived late, just as the United States and China have intensified their interest,” Kofod said. In a world shaped by Trump’s increasingly belligerent foreign policy and China’s hyperactive development of clean technology and mineral supply chains, Europe’s neglect of Greenland’s natural wealth is looking increasingly like a strategic blunder. With Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. | Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images A HOSTILE LAND That’s not to say building mines in Greenland, with its mile-deep permanent ice sheet, would be easy. “Of all the places in the world where you could extract critical raw materials, [Greenland] is very remote and not very easily accessible,” said Ditte Brasso Sørensen, senior analyst on EU climate and industrial policy at Think Tank Europa, pointing to the territory’s “very difficult environmental circumstances.”  The tiny population — fewer than 60,000 — and a lack of infrastructure also make it hard to build mines. “This is a logistical question,” said Eldur Olafsson, CEO of Amaroq, a gold mining company running one of the two operating mines in Greenland and also exploring rare earths and copper extraction opportunities. “How do you build mines? Obviously, with capital, equipment, but also people. [And] you need to build the whole infrastructure around those people because they cannot only be Greenlandic,” he said.  Greenland also has strict environmental policies — including a landmark 2021 uranium mining ban — which restrict resource extraction because of its impact on nature and the environment. The current government, voted in last year, has not shown any signs of changing its stance on the uranium ban, according to Per Kalvig, professor emeritus at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, a Danish government research organization. Uranium is routinely found with rare earths, meaning the ban could frustrate Greenland’s huge potential as a rare earths producer. It’s a similar story with fossil fuels. Despite a 2007 U.S. assessment that the equivalent of over 30 billion barrels in oil and natural gas lies beneath the surface of Greenland and its territorial waters — almost equal to U.S. reserves — 30 years of oil exploration efforts by a group including Chevron, Italy’s ENI and Shell came to nothing. In 2021 the then-leftist government in Greenland banned further oil exploration on environmental grounds.  Danish geologist Flemming Christiansen, who was deputy director of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland until 2020, said the failure had nothing to do with Greenland’s actual potential as an oil producer. Instead, he said, a collapse in oil prices in 2014 along with the high cost of drilling in the Arctic made the venture unprofitable. Popular opposition only complicated matters, he said. THE CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECT From the skies above Greenland Christiansen sees firsthand the dramatic effects of climate change: stretches of clear water as rising temperatures thaw the ice sheets that for centuries have made exploring the territory a cold, costly and hazardous business. “If I fly over the waters in west Greenland I can see the changes,” he said. “There’s open water for much longer periods in west Greenland, in Baffin Bay and in east Greenland.” Climate change is opening up this frozen land. Climate change is opening up this frozen land. | Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images Greenland contains the largest body of ice outside Antarctica, but that ice is melting at an alarming rate. One recent study suggests the ice sheet could cease to exist by the end of the century, raising sea levels by as much as seven meters. Losing a permanent ice cap that is several hundred meters deep, though, “gradually improves the business case of resource extraction, both for … fossil fuels and also critical raw materials,” said Jakob Dreyer, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen.   But exploiting Greenland’s resources doesn’t hinge on catastrophic levels of global warming. Even without advanced climate change, Kalvig, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, argues Greenland’s coast doesn’t differ much from that of Norway, where oil has been found and numerous excavation projects operate.     “You can’t penetrate quite as far inland as you can [in Norway], but once access is established, many places are navigable year-round,” Kalvig said. “So, in that sense, it’s not more difficult to operate mines in Greenland than it is in many parts of Norway, Canada or elsewhere — or Russia for that matter. And this has been done before, in years when conditions allowed.”    A European Commission spokesperson said the EU was now working with Greenland’s government to develop its resources, adding that Greenland’s “democratically elected authorities have long favored partnerships with the EU to develop projects beneficial to both sides.” But the spokesperson stressed: “The fate of Greenland’s raw mineral resources is up to the Greenlandic people and their representatives.” The U.S. may be less magnanimous. Washington’s recent military operation in Venezuela showed that Trump is serious about building an empire on natural resources, and is prepared to use force and break international norms in pursuit of that goal. Greenland, with its vast oil and rare earths deposits, may fit neatly into his vision. Where the Greenlandic people fit in is less clear.

Europe’s biggest ever trade deal finally got the nod Friday after 25 years of negotiating.  It took blood, sweat, tears and tortured discussions to get there, but EU countries at last backed the deal with the Mercosur bloc — paving the way to create a free trade area that covers more than 700 million people across Europe and Latin America.  The agreement, which awaits approval from the European Parliament, will eliminate more than 90 percent of tariffs on EU exports. European shoppers will be able to dine on grass-fed beef from the Argentinian pampas. Brazilian drivers will see import duties on German motors come down.  As for the accord’s economic impact, well, that pales in comparison with the epic battles over it: The European Commission estimates it will add €77.6 billion (or 0.05 percent) to the EU economy by 2040.  Like in any deal, there are winners and losers. POLITICO takes you through who is uncorking their Malbec, and who, on the other hand, is crying into the Bordeaux. WINNERS Giorgia Meloni Italy’s prime minister has done it again. Giorgia Meloni saw which way the political winds were blowing and skillfully extracted last-minute concessions for Italian farmers after threatening to throw her weight behind French opposition to the deal.  The end result? In exchange for its support, Rome was able to secure farm market safeguards and promises of fresh agriculture funding from the European Commission — wins that the government can trumpet in front of voters back home. It also means that Meloni has picked the winning side once more, coming off as the team player despite the last-minute holdup. All in all, yet another laurel in Rome’s crown.  The German car industry  Das Auto hasn’t had much reason to cheer of late, but Mercosur finally gives reason to celebrate. Germany’s famed automotive sector will have easier access to consumers in LatAm. Lower tariffs mean, all things being equal, more sales and a boost to the bottom line for companies like Volkswagen and BMW. There are a few catches. Tariffs, now at 35 percent, aren’t coming down all at once. At the behest of Brazil, which hosts an auto industry of its own, the removal of trade barriers will be staggered. Electric vehicles will be given preferential treatment, an area that Europe’s been lagging behind on.  Ursula von der Leyen Mercosur is a bittersweet triumph for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Since shaking hands on the deal with Mercosur leaders more than a year ago, her team has bent over backwards to accommodate the demands of the skeptics and build the all-important qualified majority that finally materialized Friday. Expect a victory lap next week, when the Berlaymont boss travels to Paraguay to sign the agreement. Giorgia Meloni saw which way the political winds were blowing and skillfully extracted last-minute concessions for Italian farmers after threatening to throw her weight behind French opposition to the deal. | Ettore Ferrari/EPA On the international stage, it also helps burnish Brussels’ standing at a time when the bloc looks like a lumbering dinosaur, consistently outmaneuvered by the U.S. and China. A large-scale trade deal shows that the rules-based international order that the EU so cherishes is still alive, even as the U.S. whisked away a South American leader in chains.  But the deal came at a very high cost. Von der Leyen had to promise EU farmers €45 billion in subsidies to win them over, backtracking on efforts to rein in agricultural support in the EU budget and invest more in innovation and growth.   Europe’s farmers  Speaking of farmers, going by the headlines you could be forgiven for thinking that Mercosur is an unmitigated disaster. Surely innumerable tons of South American produce sold at rock-bottom prices are about to drive the hard-working French or Polish plowman off his land, right?  The reality is a little bit more complicated. The deal comes with strict quotas for categories ranging from beef to poultry. In effect, Latin American farmers will be limited to exporting a couple of chicken breasts per European person per year. Meanwhile, the deal recognizes special protections for European producers for specialty products like Italian parmesan or French wine, who stand to benefit from the expanded market. So much for the agri-pocalpyse now.  Mercosur is a bittersweet triumph for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. | Olivier Matthys/EPA Then there’s the matter of the €45 billion of subsidies going into farmers’ pockets, and it’s hard not to conclude that — despite all the tractor protests and manure fights in downtown Brussels — the deal doesn’t smell too bad after all.  LOSERS Emmanuel Macron  There’s been no one high-ranking politician more steadfast in their opposition to the trade agreement than France’s President Emmanuel Macron who, under enormous domestic political pressure, has consistently opposed the deal. It’s no surprise then that France joined Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary to unsuccessfully vote against Mercosur.  The former investment banker might be a free-trading capitalist at heart, but he knows well that, domestically, the deal is seen as a knife in the back of long-suffering Gallic growers. Macron, who is burning through prime ministers at rates previously reserved for political basket cases like Italy, has had precious few wins recently. Torpedoing the free trade agreement, or at least delaying it further, would have been proof that the lame-duck French president still had some sway on the European stage.  Surely innumerable tons of South American produce sold at rock-bottom prices are about to drive the hard-working French or Polish plowman off his land, right? | Darek Delmanowicz/EPA Macron made a valiant attempt to rally the troops for a last-minute counterattack, and at one point it looked like he had a good chance to throw a wrench in the works after wooing Italy’s Meloni. That’s all come to nought. After this latest defeat, expect more lambasting of the French president in the national media, as Macron continues his slow-motion tumble down from the Olympian heights of the Élysée Palace.  Donald Trump Coming within days of the U.S. mission to snatch Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and put him on trial in New York, the Mercosur deal finally shows that Europe has no shortage of soft power to work constructively with like-minded partners — if it actually has the wit to make use of it smartly.  Any trade deal should be seen as a win-win proposition for both sides, and that is just not the way U.S. President Donald Trump and his art of the geopolitical shakedown works. It also has the incidental benefit of strengthening his adversaries — including Brazilian President and Mercosur head honcho Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — who showed extraordinary patience as he waited on the EU to get their act together (and nurtured a public bromance with Macron even as the trade talks were deadlocked). China  China has been expanding exports to Latin America, particularly Brazil, during the decades when the EU was negotiating the Mercosur trade deal. The EU-Mercosur deal is an opportunity for Europe to claw back some market share, especially in competitive sectors like automotive, machines and aviation. The deal also strengthens the EU’s hand on staying on top when it comes to direct investments, an area where European companies are still outshining their Chinese competitors. Emmanuel Macron made a valiant attempt to rally the troops for a last-minute counterattack, and at one point it looked like he had a good chance to throw a wrench in the works after wooing Italy’s Meloni. | Pool photo by Ludovic Marin/EPA More politically, China has somewhat succeeded in drawing countries like Brazil away from Western points of view, for instance via the BRICS grouping, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and other developing economies. Because the deal is not only about trade but also creates deeper political cooperation, Lula and his Mercosur counterparts become more closely linked to Europe. The Amazon rainforest  Unfortunately, for the world’s ecosystem, Mercosur means one thing: burn, baby, burn. The pastures that feed Brazil’s herds come at the expense of the nation’s once-sprawling, now-shrinking tropical rainforest. Put simply, more beef for Europe means less trees for the world. It’s not all bad news for the climate. The trade deal does include both mandatory safeguards against illegal deforestation, as well as a commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement for its signatories. 

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Cem Özdemir will Ministerpräsident von Baden-Württemberg werden – und damit die grüne Erfolgsgeschichte nach Winfried Kretschmann fortschreiben. In dieser Sonderfolge des POLITICO Berlin Playbook Podcast spricht der frühere Landwirtschaftsminister, Parteichef und Europaabgeordnete über seinen Anspruch auf das Amt, seine politische Erfahrung und seinen Politikstil zwischen Kompromiss, Pragmatismus und Führung aus der Mitte der Gesellschaft. Diese Folge ist das zweite Gespräch aus der Reihe “Let’s find common ground” zusammen mit Telefónica O2. Das Interview mit CDU-Spitzenkandidat Manuel Hagel gibt es hier zu hören. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu