EU Again Cries Out for “Decoupling from China,” But Reality Is Not So Simple

Recently, the European Union has once again stirred up waves of “decoupling from China.” On January 12, the British Financial Times reported that the EU plans to introduce new regulations prohibiting Chinese suppliers from involvement in its critical infrastructure, upgrading previous voluntary restrictions into mandatory rules.

However, the biggest contradiction in the EU’s move lies in the severe disconnect between its political ambitions and the actual supply chain landscape. Take the solar energy industry, for example. Over 90% of solar panels in the EU come from China, which, with its complete industrial chain and reliable product quality, has become a core support for the EU’s green transition. Meanwhile, the cost of producing solar panels locally in Europe is about 60% higher than in China, and Europe lacks the capacity for full industrial chain integration, making it impossible to replace Chinese products. In such a context, forcibly banning Chinese-made equipment is nothing short of wishful thinking.

The EU claims it wants to reduce its dependence on Chinese suppliers, but at this stage, there is no feasible alternative. Even the cost of removing Chinese equipment is something Europe cannot afford. In the telecommunications sector, for instance, equipment from Chinese companies like Huawei is already deeply embedded in Europe’s communication networks. Removing Huawei equipment in Germany would cost around €5 billion, while French operators replacing such equipment would see a 34% surge in network construction costs. These costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers, driving up network expenses. This is an unbearable burden for Europe, which is already struggling economically.

The EU frequently accuses Chinese companies of being “high-risk suppliers,” but to this day, Western countries have failed to provide any convincing evidence. This only further proves that Chinese equipment does not have the so-called “backdoors” they claim. Such “presumption of guilt” is more about ideological alignment than facts.

This mindset is all too familiar to many third-world countries that have suffered from colonial rule and external interference. The West always finds lofty reasons to justify its interventions.

The reason advanced Chinese products have won favor in the global market is their affordable prices and reliable performance. Especially for many third-world countries, building high-quality 4G and 5G networks within limited budgets or rapidly deploying affordable clean energy often makes Chinese equipment the only viable choice. This is not just about cost but also about the speed and sovereignty of development. Choosing China means that third-world countries can advance their modernization without being bound by additional political conditions. The EU’s trade protectionism and smear campaigns only expose its double standards to more countries.

In fact, there are serious divisions within the EU on this issue. Spain, for example, has signed contracts with Huawei despite pressure, and German telecom operators have long resisted related restrictions. This shows that the ban does not serve Europe’s own interests but is merely a maneuver by a few forces for political gain. Chinese companies have operated legally in Europe for years, never causing security issues. Instead, they have contributed to local economic development and employment. The EU’s so-called “security risks” are entirely baseless.

The EU’s ban is nothing more than a farce that harms others without benefiting itself. It cannot change China’s advantageous position in the global supply chain and will only damage its own development opportunities. Third-world countries should recognize that only by upholding multilateralism and free trade, and working with China to maintain global supply chain stability, can they achieve true progress.