ABOARD THE PRIME MINISTER’S PLANE TO BEIJING — Keir Starmer rejected his Canadian counterpart’s call for mid-sized countries to band together in the face of unpredictable global powers — and insisted his “common sense” British approach will do just fine. The British prime minister arrives in China Wednesday for a trip aimed at rebooting the U.K.’s relationship with the Asian superpower. He’s the latest Western leader to make the visit — which will include a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping — after trips by Carney and France’s Emmanuel Macron. Carney used a searing speech at the World Economic Forum last week to warn of the “rupture” caused by “great powers” acting in their own self-interest. While he did not namecheck Donald Trump’s administration, the speech riled the U.S. president, who insisted: “Canada lives because of the United States.” The Canadian PM had called for middle powers to work together to “build something bigger, better, stronger, more just.” Starmer was pressed on those remarks on board his flight to China Tuesday. Asked whether he agreed that the old global order is dead — and whether smaller powers need to team up to push back at the U.S. and China, Starmer defended his own policy of trying to build bridges with Trump, Xi and the European Union all at once. “I’m a pragmatist, a British pragmatist applying common sense, and therefore I’m pleased that we have a good relationship with the U.S. on defense, security, intelligence and on trade and prosperity,” he says. “It’s very important that we maintain that good relationship.” He added: “Equally, we are moving forward with a better relationship with the EU. We had a very good summit last year with 10 strands of agreement. “We’ll have another summit this year with the EU, which I hope will be iterative, as well as following through on what we’ve already agreed. “And I’ve consistently said I’m not choosing between the U.S. and Europe. I’m really glad that the UK has got good relations with both.” Starmer’s government — which faces pressure from opposition parties back home as it re-engages with China — has stressed that it wants to cooperate, compete with and challenge Beijing when necessary, as it bids to build economic ties to aid the sputtering U.K. economy. “Obviously, China is the second biggest economy in the world, one of our biggest trading partners,” the British PM — who is flying with an entourage of British CEOs and business reps — said Tuesday. “And under the last government, we veered from the golden age to the ice age. And what I want to do is follow through on the approach I’ve set out a number of times now … which is a comprehensive and consistent approach to China. “I do think there are opportunities, but obviously we will never compromise national security in taking those opportunities.”

STRASBOURG — The European Parliament plans to ask the European Commission on Monday to start the process for activating the bloc’s most powerful trade weapon against the United States, a senior trade lawmaker said on Wednesday. “I expect that the coordinators will decide to request to start the investigation procedure of the [Anti-Coercion Instrument]. Of course, between now and Monday there’s a lot of time and we will see what will happen,” trade committee chair Bernd Lange told reporters in Strasbourg. The statement by Lange, a German Social Democrat, comes as relations between the EU and the United States hit an all-time low, following President Donald Trump’s threats to seize Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on European countries that have rallied to Copenhagen’s side. Resolve within the bloc is growing to hit back against Trump, with the Parliament also formally freezing on Wednesday the ratification of the EU-U.S. trade deal that was struck last summer. “Europe must speak the language Trump understands. We are ready to move forward with the ACI. I would have preferred a decision today, but I hope for a strong and united statement on Monday. We don’t have time to waste,” said Swedish MEP Karin Karlsbro of the liberal Renew group. Jörgen Warborn, the European People’s Party top trade MEP, took a more cautious line, reflecting the party’s transatlantic leanings. “It’s too early to say” if he will agree to ask Commission to launch the ACI, Warborn told reporters. Further, Warborn told POLITICO: “We now need to coordinate further and discuss which options we have in case of further actions. Nothing is off the table.” EU leaders are toughening their position and want the European Commission to ready its trade “bazooka,” with Germany joining France in saying it will ask the Commission to explore unleashing the tool at an emergency meeting of leaders on Thursday unless Trump walks back on his threats, POLITICO reported on Tuesday. The trade weapon, which can be deployed at the request of any affected party, including the European Parliament, is one of the EU’s main levers against the U.S.: It includes a wide range of possible measures such as imposing tariffs, restricting exports of strategic goods, or excluding U.S. companies from tenders. A decision to use the instrument would not be taken lightly because it would have a significant impact on the EU economy. This story has been updated.

BERLIN — German politicians are cautiously reopening the debate over a digital tax on U.S. tech companies as President Donald Trump renews his tariff threats. That shift is driven less by the chancellery than by growing pressure inside Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s governing coalition and his conservative bloc. Berlin is not rushing any formal proposals for how the EU should respond after Trump on Saturday threatened tariffs on eight countries including Germany over Greenland. Government talks have focused on restraint, with officials emphasizing the need to stay calm and avoid emotional reactions. At a press conference Monday, a government spokesperson said Merz was “a rational person who does not put a stamp on international relations.” Merz, who leads the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has argued for a measured response. Yet Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil, a Social Democrat, has left the door open to tougher options. “We should now examine the use of these measures,” he said, referring to the EU’s trade defense toolbox, including the Anti-Coercion Instrument — the bloc’s untested trade bazooka — that could be used to target services such as tech. While Merz remains reserved, senior lawmakers from within his Christian Democrat camp are openly advocating retaliation aimed at U.S. tech firms. Sepp Müller, the deputy parliamentary leader of the CSU and its Bavarian sister party, called on Monday for a digital tax and even import bans on U.S. products. “The issue will certainly come onto the table,” Ralph Brinkhaus, the conservative group’s digital policy spokesperson, told POLITICO — while stressing that any move should be “reflected and thought through.” Klingbeil’s Social Democrats appear willing to revisit earlier commitments. SPD digital policy lawmaker Johannes Schätzl told POLITICO that previous agreements — in which the EU committed not to introduce a digital infrastructure levy — now need to be reassessed. Draft proposals for a German digital tax, prepared by Culture Minister Wolfram Weimer, have been sitting in the Finance Ministry since December, according to people familiar with the process. Klingbeil’s ministry has previously weighed whether such a move would unnecessarily antagonize Washington, and declined to say whether that assessment has now changed. For now, the government’s official position remains cautious, even as the renewed tariff threat reopens a debate Berlin has long tried to keep on hold. Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger, in comments to POLITICO, warned against public escalation. “It is important not to constantly make announcements, but first to enter into dialogue,” he said, referring to the idea of activating the Anti-Coercion Instrument. Larissa Kögl contributed to this report.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen hailed the support Denmark and Greenland are getting from European countries over U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to impose new tariffs in his bid to gain control of the Arctic island. “I am pleased with the consistent messages from the rest of the continent: Europe will not be blackmailed,” Frederiksen wrote in a statement on Sunday reported by the BBC and other media. “The Kingdom of Denmark is receiving great support,” she wrote, describing how she has been in “intensive dialogue” with allies including the U.K., France and Germany. “We’re not the ones looking for conflict,” Frederiksen stated. “At the same time, it is now even clearer that this is an issue that reaches far beyond our own borders,” she added. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson was one of Frederiksen’s colleagues stressing that European countries “will not let ourselves be blackmailed.” “This is an EU issue that affects many more countries than those now being singled out,” Kristersson said in a post on X on Saturday. Frederiksen’s comments on Sunday came after Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the U.K. — the eights countries targeted by Trump’s tariff threat — banded together to defend the “pre-coordinated Danish exercise” in Greenland that was cited by Trump in his Truth Social post about the new tariffs. “It poses no threat to anyone,” the capitals argued, reaffirming that they “stand in full solidarity with the Kingdom of Denmark and the people of Greenland.” The U.S. threats of tariffs “risk a dangerous downward spiral,” the countries added.

French President Emmanuel Macron will ask the EU to activate the bloc’s so-called trade “bazooka” — the Anti-Coercion Instrument — in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff threats over Greenland. “He will be in contact all day with his European counterparts and will ask, in the name of France, the activation of the Anti-Coercion Instrument,” Macron’s office said on Sunday. The instrument offers the EU various punitive trade measures that can be taken against trade rivals that try to threaten the bloc. Those measures include restrictions on investment and access to public procurement schemes, as well as limits on intellectual property protections. On Saturday, Trump threatened to impose tariffs on European countries that oppose his plans to take control of Greenland. EU ambassadors are convening an emergency meeting later Sunday to respond to the tariff threat. Macron responded later Saturday by saying: “Tariff threats are unacceptable.” “No intimidation or threat will influence us,” Macron said in a post on X. “Europeans will respond in a united and coordinated manner … We will ensure that European sovereignty is upheld,”

BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s leading trade lawmakers on Wednesday postponed a decision on whether to freeze a U.S. trade deal over Donald Trump’s threat to annex Greenland.  MEPs are due to hold a vote on Jan. 26, laying out the European Parliament’s position on lifting tariffs on U.S. industrial goods — one of the key planks of a deal struck between Brussels and Washington last summer. But some MEPs, angry at Trump’s behavior, don’t want the vote to go ahead, thereby freezing the decision on lifting the tariffs.  But at a meeting of lawmakers leading on the topic, they decided to delay taking a decision on whether to postpone or go ahead with the vote, awaiting the outcome of high-stakes meetings between Washington, Nuuk and Copenhagen taking place later Wednesday. “We are not in a position to move the agreement to a vote today,” lead trade lawmaker Karin Karlsbro, of the liberal Renew Europe, told POLITICO, adding that clarity from the U.S. on Greenland was essential.  Discussions will continue next Wednesday, the chair of the international trade committee, Bernd Lange, told POLITICO as he left the room. Political groups are divided over what to do in response to Trump’s threats to annex European territory. The Socialists and Democrats, of which Lange is a member, are leaning toward freezing the vote on the trade agreement. “One camp is more like, OK, let’s cooperate with the U.S. in order to get the maximum out, and there’s the other camp that says, OK we also need to show teeth and not give in on everything,” explained Green lawmaker Anna Cavazzini, who is also the chair of the internal market committee.  Cavazzini, who is in favor of freezing the deal, added that lawmakers agreed to delay the decision to “observe the global situation,” adding that the groups also need to agree on specific clauses in the final Parliament text.  The U.S. deal “will not be postponed,” assured EPP lawmaker Željana Zovko, telling POLITICO on Wednesday that any delay would hurt businesses as it would bring instability to transatlantic relations, while only Russia and China would benefit from it.  Under the deal struck in July, the EU committed itself to legislation lifting tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and lobsters, in exchange for Washington reducing tariffs on European cars. The deal is seen as lopsided in favor of Washington across party lines, but lawmakers were willing to put up with it in exchange for having Trump commit to protecting European security. As Greenland annexation threats continue, some no longer see the point of the deal. While the U.S. has upheld its end of the bargain on the car tariffs; the EU, so far, has not, because its institutions must still approve their positions on the Commission’s proposal. The lengthy process has already tested Washington’s patience, with Trade Representative Jamieson Greer telling POLITICO in December that the U.S. wouldn’t grant further tariff exemptions unless the EU keeps its end of the bargain. After the Council of the EU agreed on its position in late November, pressure is rising on the European Parliament to vote on its own stance.

Europe’s chemical industry has reached a breaking point. The warning lights are no longer blinking — they are blazing. Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out before our eyes. Consider the energy situation: this year European gas prices have stood at 2.9 times higher than in the United States. What began as a temporary shock is now a structural disadvantage. High energy costs are becoming Europe’s new normal, with no sign of relief. This is not sustainable for an energy-intensive sector that competes globally every day. Without effective infrastructure and targeted energy-cost relief — including direct support, tax credits and compensation for indirect costs from the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) — we are effectively asking European companies and their workers to compete with their hands tied behind their backs. > Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire > industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out > before our eyes. The impact is already visible. This year, EU27 chemical production fell by a further 2.5 percent, and the sector is now operating 9.5 percent below pre-crisis capacity. These are not just numbers, they are factories scaling down, investments postponed and skilled workers leaving sites. This is what industrial decline looks like in real time. We are losing track of the number of closures and job losses across Europe, and this is accelerating at an alarming pace. And the world is not standing still. In the first eight months of 2025, EU27 chemicals exports dropped by €3.5 billion, while imports rose by €3.2 billion. The volume trends mirror this: exports are down, imports are up. Our trade surplus shrank to €25 billion, losing €6.6 billion in just one year. Meanwhile, global distortions are intensifying. Imports, especially from China, continue to increase, and new tariff policies from the United States are likely to divert even more products toward Europe, while making EU exports less competitive. Yet again, in 2025, most EU trade defense cases involved chemical products. In this challenging environment, EU trade policy needs to step up: we need fast, decisive action against unfair practices to protect European production against international trade distortions. And we need more free trade agreements to access growth market and secure input materials. “Open but not naïve” must become more than a slogan. It must shape policy. > Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in > the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported > products meet those same standards. Europe is also struggling to enforce its own rules at the borders and online. Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported products meet those same standards. This weak enforcement undermines competitiveness and safety, while allowing products that would fail EU scrutiny to enter the single market unchecked. If Europe wants global leadership on climate, biodiversity and international chemicals management, credibility starts at home. Regulatory uncertainty adds to the pressure. The Chemical Industry Action Plan recognizes what industry has long stressed: clarity, coherence and predictability are essential for investment. Clear, harmonized rules are not a luxury — they are prerequisites for maintaining any industrial presence in Europe. This is where REACH must be seen for what it is: the world’s most comprehensive piece of legislation governing chemicals. Yet the real issues lie in implementation. We therefore call on policymakers to focus on smarter, more efficient implementation without reopening the legal text. Industry is facing too many headwinds already. Simplification can be achieved without weakening standards, but this requires a clear political choice. We call on European policymakers to restore the investment and profitability of our industry for Europe. Only then will the transition to climate neutrality, circularity, and safe and sustainable chemicals be possible, while keeping our industrial base in Europe. > Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular > future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. In this context, the ETS must urgently evolve. With enabling conditions still missing, like a market for low-carbon products, energy and carbon infrastructures, access to cost-competitive low-carbon energy sources, ETS costs risk incentivizing closures rather than investment in decarbonization. This may reduce emissions inside the EU, but it does not decarbonize European consumption because production shifts abroad. This is what is known as carbon leakage, and this is not how EU climate policy intends to reach climate neutrality. The system needs urgent repair to avoid serious consequences for Europe’s industrial fabric and strategic autonomy, with no climate benefit. These shortcomings must be addressed well before 2030, including a way to neutralize ETS costs while industry works toward decarbonization. Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. Europe must ensure that chemical recycling, carbon capture and utilization, and bio-based feedstocks are not only invented here, but also fully scaled here. Complex permitting, fragmented rules and insufficient funding are slowing us down while other regions race ahead. Decarbonization cannot be built on imported technology — it must be built on a strong EU industrial presence. Critically, we must stimulate markets for sustainable products that come with an unavoidable ‘green premium’. If Europe wants low-carbon and circular materials, then fiscal, financial and regulatory policy recipes must support their uptake — with minimum recycled or bio-based content, new value chain mobilizing schemes and the right dose of ‘European preference’. If we create these markets but fail to ensure that European producers capture a fair share, we will simply create new opportunities for imports rather than European jobs. > If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and > beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. The Critical Chemicals Alliance offers a path forward. Its primary goal will be to tackle key issues facing the chemical sector, such as risks of closures and trade challenges, and to support modernization and investments in critical productions. It will ultimately enable the chemical industry to remain resilient in the face of geopolitical threats, reinforcing Europe’s strategic autonomy. But let us be honest: time is no longer on our side. Europe’s chemical industry is the foundation of countless supply chains — from clean energy to semiconductors, from health to mobility. If we allow this foundation to erode, every other strategic ambition becomes more fragile. If you weren’t already alarmed — you should be. This is a wake-up call. Not for tomorrow, for now. Energy support, enforceable rules, smart regulation, strategic trade policies and demand-driven sustainability are not optional. They are the conditions for survival. If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  * The ultimate controlling entity is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  More information here.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s top climate envoy is picking a fight with China weeks before a high-stakes United Nations summit on global warming, already undercut by the United States’ withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement. Some diplomats and observers were left wondering what Wopke Hoekstra hoped to achieve when he attacked Beijing last month for what he described as a “clearly disappointing” climate plan — especially after the EU had failed to present its own strategy. The move raised fears of a rift between China and Europe heading into the United Nations’ COP30 climate summit, where the two blocs will be dominant forces after U.S. President Donald Trump declared in January that Washington would no longer participate in the process and formally exit the Paris Agreement. But the Dutchman was unbowed. China’s promise to cut its climate pollution by between 7 and 10 percent by 2035 deserved straight talk, he said in an interview with POLITICO. “As much as I’m in the domain of diplomacy, there’s no point in suggesting that this is somewhere in the ballpark of almost being good enough.” Every country needs to take responsibility for their planet-cooking pollution, he said, adding that he would keep seeking dialogue with China. “We’ll continue to work with them, but this is a missed opportunity, in my view, of doing what is needed and doing what also is related to a responsible actor of this importance and this size.” The EU, racked by its own internal disagreement, has yet to submit a formal target, as it is required to do under the Paris Agreement. Instead, it has released a “statement of intent,” indicating that it will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by between 66.3 percent and 72.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. Hoekstra’s criticism sparked an extraordinary riposte from China’s foreign ministry, which complained to Reuters about the EU’s “double standards and selective blindness” and warned “such rhetoric disrupts global solidarity in addressing climate change and undermines the atmosphere of cooperation.”  On Monday, Hoekstra, the European commissioner responsible for climate, will sit across from Chinese negotiators for the first time since the spat broke out. The talks in Brazil are the final preparatory meeting before COP30 kicks off in the Amazon city of Belém in November.   With the White House seeking every way possible to promote fossil fuels and downplay the surging global investment in clean energy, much of the rest of the world is looking to China and the EU to step in and send an alternative and unified message about the shift away from coal, oil and gas. Asked who would win in a war of words between China and the EU, Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, replied flatly: “Trump.” Hoekstra’s response to China’s climate goal stood out among European and U.N. officials, even many climate advocacy groups, who largely swerved conflict and accepted Beijing had a track record of underpromising and overdelivering on its pledges.  “Criticism of others can only be credible if we lead by example, and Hoekstra’s remarks come across more as an attempt to deflect from Europe’s own shortcomings than as a coherent climate strategy,” said European Green lawmaker Michael Bloss.  “Right now, we talk a big game but have nothing to show for it,” Bloss told POLITICO, referring to the EU missing the deadline to submit its 2035 climate plan. “That’s not how you motivate the rest of the world to act,” he added, warning that “without close EU-China cooperation, the COP30 process is in danger.”  But “Commissioner Hoekstra’s statement was walking a very fine line,” tempered Sébastien Treyer, executive director of the French Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, or IDDRI, a think tank. “It would have been unthinkable for the European commissioner for climate action to simply welcome China’s [climate plan] from a diplomatic point of view,” he added.  What this leads to, however, is “a statement that creates a rather harsh atmosphere of mutual criticism, rather than a positive learning dynamic” ahead of COP30, Treyer noted.  PUNCHING HARD  Hoekstra’s approach has some support in Europe’s capitals, where pointing to China’s continued coal expansion is a common excuse for doing less at home. French officials, for example, have been adamant about the need for China to step up its efforts in the global fight against climate change.  China’s 2035 climate target was “absolutely disappointing … they can do a lot better,” said a French government official, who, like others in this article was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters. They vowed to keep “push[ing] China to fully embrace its role as a climate leader, which it should logically assume” ahead of COP30, because it is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, one of the top historical emitters, and has the “economic and financial means” to have a “real climate leadership policy.” Others questioned whether Hoekstra’s strategy is the right one, especially after his boss European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had just endured the embarrassment of turning up to a U.N. summit in New York without a formal plan from the EU. The rift on climate policy between the two powers is coming at a moment when trade tensions could be exacerbated as the EU looks to ramp up its trade defense measures against China.  “Hoekstra is a liability,” said a senior climate diplomat from a European country, who disagrees with his aggressive approach toward China. “He always looks and sounds as if he’s just walked off the 18th green and wants a glass of wine with his Caesar salad. I don’t know anyone who thinks he has the requisite gravitas.” Hoekstra brushed off the criticism toward his approach, telling an event in Brussels earlier this month, that “we tend to overestimate our ability to, at scale, influence [China’s] decision-making.”  “I’m not convinced at all that if we had tabled something earlier that it would have moved the needle,” he said. But added that, when China is responsible for about 30 percent of global emissions, “if then the response is a 7 to 10 [percent reduction of emissions], it’s really hard, even if you want to make as much of a diplomatic effort as possible, to do as if that is enough.”  A Commission official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said Hoekstra’s team was in discussions with the Chinese over a bilateral meeting ahead of COP30. But that won’t happen in Brazil on Monday because Beijing was not sending a representative of Hoekstra’s ministerial rank, the official said. Canada, China and the EU will lead a ministerial climate summit in Toronto, Ontario at the end of the month, presenting a chance for a meeting. The climate commissioner’s relationship with China contrasts with that of Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, his direct overseer in the Commission structure. Ribera, a veteran climate diplomat, recently held a meeting with the former Chinese climate envoy Xie Zhenhua in Brussels — an unusual bending of protocol. In July, after Hoekstra signaled the EU would not sign a joint statement with China unless it showed greater “ambition,” Ribera brokered a deal in which China made no such concession.   Speaking to POLITICO, Ribera emphasized the need for COP30 to project unity against the fossil fuel revisionism of the Trump administration. “In the COP, in Belém this year, we need to come up providing a clear message on the multilateral system being prepared to work together and being supported by all parties — almost all parties,” she told POLITICO. She was not responding directly to Hoekstra’s war of words with the Chinese.   Steffen Menzel, program leader at the climate think tank E3G, said Hoekstra and Ribera were representing “different voices, different tones in Brussels and across the EU.” He saw no problem with Hoekstra’s tougher language.  “It’s the right way to go for the EU to be very clear with the Chinese engagement or climate action when it is insufficient, and that doesn’t rule out cooperation,” he said. “The EU can and needs to be there with their own strong position.”  Nicolas Camut contributed to this report. 

Brussels and Beijing got 99 problems — but an upcoming high-level summit ain’t gonna solve a single one. When EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa travel to China in two weeks, they will have several concerns in their travel bags — from market access to China’s chokehold over strategic raw materials. America’s lurch into protectionism under President Donald Trump is disturbing trade flows, meanwhile, making it harder to resolve those thorny issues. Von der Leyen reeled off a litany of political and economic complaints on Tuesday — from China’s state-subsidized overproduction to price gouging, “systematic” discrimination against foreign companies, export restrictions and more — setting the tone for a contentious summit.  “China has an entirely different system,” she said in an address to European lawmakers. The country has “unique instruments at its disposal to play outside the rules,” allowing it “to flood global markets with subsidized overcapacity — not just to boost its own industries, but to choke international competition.” And the pain points are multiplying: The latest is a move by Beijing to restrict government purchases of EU medical devices, in retaliation for a similar ban on Chinese medical equipment imposed by Brussels last month. Those come on top of a lingering dispute over the EU’s imposition of duties on Chinese-made electric vehicles last year and retaliatory duties slapped by Beijing on European liquor. Despite the milestone it’s supposed to celebrate — the 50th anniversary of EU-China diplomatic ties — the summit is shaping up to be more symbolic than substantive. With both sides entangled in trade spats, expectations are at a new low. Officials are bracing for a summit that’s going to be more about saving face than achieving concrete results. While Brussels and Beijing usually alternate as summit hosts, Chinese President Xi Jinping snubbed EU leaders earlier this year by declining an invitation to come to Brussels. The summit — originally planned to run for two days — will now only take place on July 24 in Beijing. It’s still unlikely that Xi will attend the gathering, which will be chaired by Premier Li Qiang, China’s second-ranked leader. Xi might yet meet bilaterally with von der Leyen and Costa, but that is TBC. “Not only doesn’t he [Xi] show up in Brussels, he doesn’t even attend in Beijing … it’s so embarrassing, I would not take it over my dead body, I swear,” said Alicia García-Herrero, chief economist for Asia-Pacific at French investment bank Natixis and a senior fellow at Bruegel, a think tank. “As a European I would say: Do not go, do not accept this shit.” MOOD SHIFT What’s more, the EU and the U.S. are scrambling to seal a provisional trade deal ahead of Trump’s (newly postponed) deadline to reimpose sweeping tariffs on Aug. 1. Should that happen before the EU-China summit, it’s bound to spell further trouble for the meeting. “If the EU and the U.S. are going to seal a similar deal to [the deal the U.S. sealed with the U.K.], other trading partners will be put at a disadvantage and China will retaliate,” said a person from the Chinese business sector who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. In an attempt to find common ground with Trump, von der Leyen has hardened her tone toward Beijing, accusing China at a G7 summit in Canada last month of “weaponizing” its leading position in producing and refining critical raw materials.  Unsurprisingly, those comments didn’t land well. Guo Jiakun, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, hit back at von der Leyen’s remarks on raw materials. Beijing “fully considered the reasonable needs and concerns of various countries, and reviewed export license applications in accordance with laws and regulations,” Guo said. Von der Leyen’s remarks were “quite hawkish and unsettling,” said the person from the Chinese business sector quoted above. “If [von der Leyen] was trying to charm Trump, she may have done so at the cost of credibility — reminding China that the EU can talk cooperation with China one day and posture like a Cold Warrior the next,” they added. In short: The mood is sour — at a time when neither side, and especially the EU, can afford it. In a sign of its concerns over trade imbalances with China, Brussels launched a tool in April to monitor the diversion of trade flows toward the bloc after Trump imposed tariffs of up to 145 percent on Chinese goods (later lowered to 30 percent). While it’s too early to identify a clear trend, Chinese exports to Europe are sharply up in sectors including chemicals, textiles and machinery. HUGE UNCERTAINTY When the summit was announced — days before Trump’s inauguration in January — the EU struck an amicable tone, broadcasting its willingness to rekindle its relationship with China amid uneasy transatlantic relations. Nearly six months on, however, there has been scant progress toward resolving bilateral disputes. And the Chinese commerce ministry has warned “any country” against sealing trade deals with the U.S. that “undermine Chinese interests.” “The situation is not good. The European Union has 70 percent of its exports to the United States aimed at new tariffs. We are facing trade diversion because of some of the actions being taken, and there’s a huge uncertainty in the trade world,” Maria Martin-Prat De Abreu, a senior official at the Commission’s trade department who is in charge of the EU’s China policy, told an event last month. On top of rifts over electric vehicles, medical devices, spirits and pork, China has imposed — as part of its retaliation against Washington — additional controls on exports of rare earths. Those are inevitably hitting EU countries as well. Although EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič has managed to negotiate faster permitting procedures for European companies, industry continues to sound the alarm over threats to supply chains for the manufacture of everything from smartphones to car engines. China provides almost 99 percent of the EU’s supply of the 17 rare earths. In a reflection of the frosty relations between Brussels and Beijing, the two sides don’t plan to issue a joint statement summing up their mutual commitments, departing from the usual practice in international diplomacy. The EU and China are instead looking at publishing a mere press release, two EU officials said, just like they did in 2023. “There’s a huge amount of work that needs to be done between now and the summit,” said Martin-Prat De Abreu, adding that Brussels and Beijing were focusing on both “general, structural issues” and more specific issues such as market access for agricultural goods and cosmetics. “It is very difficult,” she added. What’s more, the usual high-level trade dialogue that typically precedes the summit won’t be held due to the lack of progress on trade issues, according to a person from the Chinese business sector and a European official. And Brussels is refusing to sign a joint declaration on climate action unless China pledges greater efforts to slash its greenhouse gas emissions, Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told the Financial Times. “It’s not that we shut the door,” a third EU official said. “It’s more that we never opened it. We’re sending a signal to both China and the United States.” This story has been updated.