European leaders transformed the European Council chamber in Brussels on Thursday night into a kind of collective therapeutic consultation. The objective was to find a common diagnosis to learn to live with one of the most complex, necessary, and contradictory relationships in contemporary international economic policy. "There is an unsustainable situation of imbalance," various European officials repeated during the debates. "It costs us a billion euros a day," graphically summarized one of the leaders in favor of hardening the community's position. Hovering over the entire working dinner, although barely appearing in official documents, was a word that no one needed to utter too much: China.
From this first session of a genuine economic "shock therapy," the European Commission emerges with a new political mandate. This was precisely one of the objectives pursued by the Community Executive at this summit. The Twenty-Seven urged Brussels to develop a strategy to correct the growing disproportion in the trade balance with Beijing and to respond to imbalances that, as practically all European capitals now recognize, have reached a structural dimension.
On paper, the task consists of reinforcing existing mechanisms to protect European industry and ensure more balanced competition. However, community sources acknowledge that the debate also opens the door to exploring "eventually" new tools and "levers" of action. Of course, the same sources insist that any response must remain within the framework of international rules. "Europe should not move away from the World Trade Organization," they summarize.
Brussels prepares new instruments
According to sources familiar with one of the most complex negotiations of the entire summit, the discussion was not limited solely to reinforcing currently available trade instruments. Leaders would also have begun to explore the possibility of developing a novel response element that could see the light of day before the end of the year.
“There are areas in which Brussels is already working actively, such as market diversification or more effective use of safeguard clauses for entire sectors,” acknowledges a European diplomatic source. However, there is a feeling that current tools may prove insufficient given the magnitude of the challenge posed by the Chinese economy.
The perception that has spread in community offices is that the Union must move towards a strategy of risk reduction (de-risking) rather than complete decoupling from the Asian economy, a possibility that many consider simply unfeasible under current conditions.
In this context, some member states defended a more pragmatic approach during the dinner. Spain stood out among them. According to government sources, Pedro Sánchez conveyed to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, that a firm but open negotiation with China would likely yield better results than a trade escalation with unpredictable consequences.
The Spanish president himself had already advanced this position upon arriving at the Europa building. “We need friends,” he stated to the media, in a declaration that summarized the philosophy Moncloa intends to bring to the debate.
European Division on China
The differences between member states were evident from the start of the day. Although there is a growing consensus on the need to correct trade imbalances, not everyone shares the same diagnosis or the same remedies.
Sources close to Sánchez maintain that Europe must avoid falling into a logic of permanent confrontation with Beijing. From Madrid, it is considered that a trade war would have a particularly high cost for European economies and that economic diplomacy continues to offer room for obtaining results.
Until now, contacts had already occurred between both parties, but within different European diplomatic teams, there is a feeling that these efforts have not generated significant progress. “There is room for improvement,” say sources from La Moncloa. Precisely for this reason, during the dinner, the possibility of creating a new platform or forum for structured dialogue with China that incorporates concrete objectives, defined timelines, and monitoring mechanisms would have been explored.
From the environment of the Spanish president, they also consider that part of the European strategy has been excessively focused on tariffs. "The European commercial offensive has been based a lot on tariffs and less on quotas," explain sources knowledgeable about the Spanish position.
"We are not opposed to the instruments themselves. What we want is for it to be clearly explained why each one of them is adopted. Anti-China rhetoric is not convenient," maintains a source present at the conversations.
From Spanish pragmatism to Nordic firmness
The Spanish vision was not shared by all participants. One of the most prudent leaders was the Dutch Prime Minister, Rob Jetten, who publicly admitted his doubts about the possibility of reaching a common position among the Twenty-Seven. "I am not sure we can reach an agreement, but it is very good to have a very open conversation," he said before the start of the meetings.
The Austrian Chancellor, Christian Stocker, was more forceful. The conservative leader once again defined China as a "systemic rival" and called for a more coordinated European strategy to respond to Beijing's growing economic, industrial, and technological influence. Even firmer was the Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen. The social democratic leader argued that Europe must abandon certain strategic complexes and respond more forcefully to Chinese competition in sectors considered sensitive for the European economy.
"We must dare to counterattack and that also applies to China," she stated, reflecting a vision much closer to the theses of those who advocate for a more aggressive trade policy. Luxembourg positioned itself between the two blocs. Its Prime Minister, Luc Frieden, acknowledged that the economic challenge posed by China is growing, but warned against any temptation to break off relations. "I am very much in favor of us engaging in dialogue with them and telling them that, of course, we are interested in trade relations, but that they must be fair," he explained.
The different interventions highlighted a reality that Brussels knows well: the difficulty of building a unified position when the levels of economic dependence on China are very different among the member states and when national strategic priorities do not always coincide.
Putting the house in order
In reality, as several European officials explain, the discussion goes far beyond China. The underlying debate revolves around Europe's ability to maintain its industrial competitiveness in an international context increasingly marked by geoeconomic rivalry. "It's about putting our house in order so that the European market remains competitive and attractive to third countries," summarizes a senior EU official.
Therefore, in addition to trade measures, the conversation included issues related to industrial policy, technological innovation, critical supply chains, and the strategic autonomy of the European Union. It is no coincidence that the European Commissioner for Trade, Maroš Šefčovič, recently defended before the European Parliament the need to strengthen the effectiveness of trade defense instruments while deepening the economic diversification strategy through the EU's extensive network of trade agreements.
The Commission considers both dimensions to be complementary: better protecting the internal market against unfair practices and, simultaneously, opening up new trade opportunities with alternative partners.
A debate that barely appears in the conclusions
Despite the intensity of the discussions and the strategic importance of the issue, the official conclusions of the European Council barely reflect a minimal part of what was debated during the night. The only reference included in the document approved by the leaders states that "the European Council held a strategic debate on the issue of global macroeconomic imbalances."
A deliberately ambiguous formulation that hides behind technical language one of the most relevant debates for the economic future of the European Union.
Because behind the expression "global macroeconomic imbalances" lies an increasingly shared concern in European capitals: how to manage an economic relationship with China that remains essential for European growth, but which at the same time generates dependencies, vulnerabilities, and tensions that are increasingly difficult to ignore. The therapy has begun. The diagnosis seems shared by most leaders. What still divides Europe is the treatment.