Bloomberg reporting – China has expressed strong opposition to the European Union’s (EU) proposal to impose trade restrictions on three Chinese firms, labeling the sanctions as “illegal” and an act of “long-arm jurisdiction.” This response comes as the EU considers implementing trade curbs on around two dozen companies, including those based in China and India, aiming to limit Russia’s war capabilities in Ukraine.
If approved by member states, these sanctions would mark the first instance of the EU imposing restrictions on businesses in mainland China and India since the onset of the Ukraine conflict. The proposed measures highlight escalating tensions between Europe and China, with recent developments including a European probe into Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers, a Chinese anti-dumping investigation into EU liquor products, and a secretive deal between the Netherlands and the US to restrict chip-making equipment sales to China by ASML Holding NV.
The EU’s proposed restrictions are designed to prevent European firms from trading with listed entities, as part of a broader strategy to prevent Russia from accessing sanctioned goods through third-country companies. The list of targeted entities extends beyond China and India, including companies in Hong Kong, Serbia, and Turkey. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has defended the interactions between Chinese and Russian enterprises as “normal exchanges and cooperation” that do not involve third parties and should not be subjected to external interference or influence.
In a firm stance, Beijing has vowed to take “necessary measures” to protect the rights and interests of Chinese businesses, indicating potential retaliatory actions in response to the EU’s proposed sanctions. This situation underscores the delicate balance between political pressures and economic interests, as international relations become increasingly intertwined with trade policies and sanctions.
The EU’s consideration of sanctions against Chinese companies is not without precedent, as similar proposals were floated last year but were eventually shelined due to resistance from some EU member states and assurances from Beijing that it was not aiding Russia’s military efforts. This ongoing saga reflects the complex and often contentious nature of international diplomacy and trade, particularly in the context of the Ukraine crisis and broader geopolitical tensions.
