Berlin is discreetly cataloguing where China still depends on European technology - chip-making gear, industrial lasers, specialty chemicals - to build leverage for a trade fight it hopes to avoid but no longer rules out.
  • German officials are quietly mapping China’s economic weak points - the sectors where Beijing still leans on European and German technology - to build leverage if a trade war breaks out.
  • The effort follows China’s late-July export controls on 14 EU firms and its tightening grip on rare earths and battery materials.
  • Berlin wants options, not an immediate fight: contingency plans, stockpiles, alternative suppliers, and backing for EU trade-defence tools like the never-used Anti-Coercion Instrument.

…

Berlin’s move dovetails with a broader shift in Brussels. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said the EU will “use every tool” to counter China’s grip on critical raw materials, insisting that “all instruments in our toolbox” are on the table. The most potent of those tools, the Anti-Coercion Instrument - a “trade bazooka” that lets the EU hit back with tariffs, procurement bans and intellectual-property restrictions - has sat unused since it was created in 2023. Deploying it would require member states to agree not just on the trigger but on the aftermath: emergency support for hit industries, shared stockpiles and alternative suppliers.

…

Germany spent a generation betting that commerce with China would stay separate from geopolitics. That bet is over. Quietly cataloguing Beijing’s vulnerabilities is a defensive move dressed as a technical one - an admission that trade is now a domain of coercion, and that Europe’s largest economy no longer expects to be spared. The open question is whether Berlin’s map becomes a deterrent that keeps the peace, or the opening move in the very trade war it is preparing for. Either way, the era of German caution toward China is closing, and the rest of the EU - which needs Berlin’s weight behind any collective response - is watching to see how far it will go.

…

Archived

  • rumschlumpel@feddit.orgEnglish
    13·
    6 days ago

    This article is extremely vague on what is actually being done in concrete terms. Did they start a work group? Which department(s)?

    Anyway, this is what happens if you outsource most of your manufacturing to other countries, and specifically countries that don’t remotely share your values. You could see this coming from decades away, yet they still went ahead, presumably for short-term profit.

    • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyzEnglish
      11·
      6 days ago

      specifically countries that don’t remotely share your values

      The value in question being letting companies charge whatever they want while investing nothing in more efficient factories. This is the same line of thinking they use in America to justify banning Chinese EVs while the big 3 charge 3-4x more for comparable cars.

      • rumschlumpel@feddit.orgEnglish
        8·
        6 days ago

        True, it’s not like China is that much less capitalistic than “the west”, and the EU is certainly not above throwing its political and economical weight around. The difference is more about the relationship with their populations and between the constituent countries of the EU - even if the EU were unified in economic matters, it would be nowhere near what China does with its elements of economic planning.

        And yeah, EU’s economy has some severe issues. It’s absurd how often we let companies from the US, China etc. make bank on research made in the EU. It’s kind of a shitty environment for startups and what companies there are (especially the car industry) are often crusty af. There’s a weird mismatch between a free market ideology that lets many startups fail or be bought out by non-EU companies, while many of the largest EU companies seem to largely subsist on image and institutional capture.

        • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyzEnglish
          4·
          6 days ago

          It would be nowhere near what China does with its elements of economic planning

          Is there something that stops them, beyond neoliberal ideology? They seem to centrally plan military procurement just fine and aren’t pretending they can’t do anything about Rare Earths.

          Honestly it shocks me that it was the EU and not China that got us USB-c iphones.

          • Melchior@feddit.orgEnglish
            5·
            6 days ago

            Both the EU and China do economic planning. However the EU has local elections on all sorts of levels(national, state, city…), which all have their own agency and through a system of checks and balances prevent any one of them from doing everything. This is not the case in China, where orders flow from the top to the bottom and are just executed.

            If you look at rarer earths for example. China gave orders and they ended up building a massive rarer earth industry in the country, partly because they ignored environmental concerns and so forth. The EU response is partly local(like for example Germany working on lithium mines and so forth themself), but also EU wide, creating a number of smaller projects to become independent from that.

            I also have to say the obvious. The EU system due to having so many checks and balances tends to create decent results, but rarely amazing ones. China can end up with some Great Leap Forward due to bad policy from the top.

          • rumschlumpel@feddit.orgEnglish
            4·
            6 days ago

            They sure drank that neoliberal koolaid. Germany’s chancellor is literally a former (?) BlackRock employee.

    • plyth@feddit.orgEnglish
      3·
      6 days ago

      You could see this coming from decades away

      Don’t you think that they see it, too? It just takes time to pivot from building up a capitalistic elite that can overthrow the communist party to isolating China and to beat them in a war.

    • JensSpahnpasta@feddit.orgEnglish
      11·
      6 days ago

      This article is extremely vague on what is actually being done in concrete terms.

      That’s the thing about “quietly”. You of course do not go around and tell everybody including the Chinese what you are planning to do here.

      • CovertOperative@piefed.zipEnglish
        2·
        6 days ago

        No, the thing about the word “quietly”, as well as the thing about being vague generic statements instead of anything concrete, is being AI slop.

        • Holla@feddit.orgEnglish
          1·
          6 days ago

          That while article is also full of em-dashes and bullet points.

          What a waste of time

  • tardigradeOPEnglish
    61·
    6 days ago

    As a related report on the matter:

    Initial findings highlight German suppliers like Trumpf SE and Carl Zeiss AG, which provide critical components for ASML lithography equipment, as key vulnerabilities in China’s high-tech sector.

    Specialized semiconductor firms including Siltronic AG, Aixtron SE, and SUSS MicroTec SE also occupy indispensable niches across the microchip manufacturing chain.

    Beyond halting fresh machinery shipments, Berlin’s most effective point of leverage involves terminating maintenance and technical support for existing equipment operating inside China.

    While ASML cannot export its most advanced machines to Chinese clients, the country remains heavily reliant on foreign servicing for its vast installed base of older systems.

    Advanced patented medical products and high-tech industrial machinery represent additional areas where Chinese firms have failed to develop domestic replacements.

  • BigShammy80@feddit.orgEnglish
    4·
    6 days ago

    China’s grip on critical raw materials

    Yeah, do that… problem is you have to find and mine it…

    • nimisnimi@lemmy.caEnglish
      7·
      6 days ago

      The actual issue is being fully dependent on a monopolistic supplier. It’s good to tackle it as a challenge before it becomes a fatal problem.

      • plyth@feddit.orgEnglish
        11·
        6 days ago

        The actual issue is actually being fully dependent on a monopolistic supplier.

        This has developed over years. China must have published it in their five-year plans. If this wasn’t intentional to give China a false sense of security then the actual issue is that our elites don’t know what they are doing.

    • bluGill@fedia.io
      2·
      6 days ago

      That is half the point, find where China has leverage and mitigate that by developing the industry in the EU thus destroying the leverage.

      • Cherry@piefed.socialEnglish
        4·
        6 days ago

        Until the eu breaks free from from capital agendas they will not be able to negotiate. The car market is a great example. Short term thinking and shareholder greed by businesses that have a hold over the gov put whole industries at risk. They will simple bring the eu leverage down.