The European Commission held an orientation debate on Friday to explore a range of policy tools aimed at addressing the European Union's trade "imbalance" with China, citing the country's so-called "overcapacity".

"The current state of the trade and investment relationship is not sustainable," reads a statement issued by the commission following the debate." As economic and security interests become ever more intertwined, both dimensions will require a more robust and coherent response."

The statement indicates that the commission, misled by certain politicians, is attempting to make China a scapegoat. In doing so, it risks ignoring the EU's underlying diseases.

As a report on Europe's development (2025-26), released by the Institute of European Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences on Friday, said, Europe is experiencing its deepest transformation since the end of the Cold War. Strategic anxiety is replacing developmental confidence and security concerns increasingly dominate economic policymaking.

It is not the European Union's trade with China that is "not sustainable" but the EU's own policies and practices in related sectors. Over the past decade, European businesses have faced high energy costs, regulatory burdens have multiplied, compliance requirements have expanded, and new layers of environmental, digital and competition regulations have raised costs across sectors.

READ MORE: MOC: China, EU discuss establishment of trade consultation mechanism

None of these challenges were created by China. The EU's trade deficit with China is largely attributable to Brussels' restrictive export policies on high-tech products, as well as the fact that goods produced by EU companies in China and exported to the European market are counted as exports by China. If trade surplus alone constitutes evidence of "overcapacity", then many of Europe's own globally successful industries would face the same accusation. European automobiles, pharmaceuticals, wine and luxury products have long generated substantial trade surpluses worldwide. Competitive exports are not, by themselves, proof of market distortion.

Evidence comes from the very issue that has dominated China-EU trade relations over the past two years: electric vehicles. After a lengthy political theater, escalating rhetoric and tariff threats, Brussels eventually returned to what should have been the starting point as Beijing urged from the beginning: negotiation. The ongoing efforts to reach a mutually acceptable settlement regarding Chinese-made EVs entering the European market demonstrate a reality: dialogue can produce practical solutions; trade weaponization cannot.

Had Brussels chosen consultation earlier, considerable political capital, business uncertainty and market disruption could have been avoided. The lesson should not be lost on European policymakers now contemplating new instruments targeting China.

Indeed, Brussels' recent actions suggest a growing tendency to substitute regulatory activism for genuine policies to promote industrial renewal. On Thursday, the European Commission launched an investigation under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation into JD.com's proposed acquisition of German retailer Ceconomy, while continuing an expanding series of investigations into Chinese companies operating in Europe.

The China Chamber of Commerce to the EU has rightly warned that such measures risk conflating legitimate market competitiveness with alleged distortions. Innovation, logistics efficiency, supply-chain integration and operational excellence are increasingly viewed through a geopolitical lens by the EU. What should be normal commercial competition is becoming a matter of suspicion.

Some EU policymakers appear increasingly determined to imitate Washington's trade playbook, ignoring the willingness many major EU economies have expressed to strengthen economic relations with China during their leaders' and business delegations' visits to Beijing.

The EU should not overlook the irony that many advocates of tougher measures against China remain relatively silent on the United States' unilateral practices targeting the bloc. For some of them, targeting China is a way to deflect pressure arising from their own perceived softness toward the US.

ALSO READ: EU must heed Beijing's stern warning

While remaining open to dialogue, China has made it clear that any discriminatory measure will trigger countermeasures.

The European Commission should examine the EU's own institutional constraints — bureaucratic inertia, excessive regulation, high energy costs, and declining industrial productivity — rather than mistaking China for a "threat".

The future of China-EU economic relations should be determined not by which side can devise the next trade weapon, but by whether the EU can show the wisdom to put aside its ideological bias and focus on cooperation and exchanges to expand the two sides' common interests.

Competitive economies become what they are by striving to become a better version of themselves through openness and competition, rather than by embracing protectionism and unilateralism.