For China-EU relations to develop into a stable, mutually beneficial partnership, the EU must undertake a more profound reassessment of its perception of China’s rise and the evolving dynamics of economic competition.

The tech rivalry between China and the United States is fast becoming a key variable in the trajectory of relations. It not only reflects divergent innovation paths but fundamentally reshapes the global technological order.

Washington’s new strategy may alter its trade dynamics with China, but China cannot be taken out of the picture. Most of America’s trading partners continue to be fed by Chinese supply chains, even as they boost their output of manufactured goods to the United States.

Economic rejuvenation requires Beijing to pragmatically re-engage with the West, establishing clear commitment to China being a stable, certain, and transparent environment for foreign businesses. What would this re-engagement look like?

China and Europe look forward to more stable relations. But transcending the European-style de-risking narrative will take some doing. As frictions arise, the strategic definitions and political wisdom of both sides will be tested.

The recent EU-China Summit marked a cautious step forward in their relationship, underlining a growing willingness to constructively engage. While substantive policy changes remain elusive, both sides acknowledged concerns and showed openness to dialogue, hinting at a potential path for future negotiations and trust-building.

American politicians have a long history of mangling economic-policy debates. Some recognize reality, like when George H.W. Bush characterized so-called supply-side tax cuts as “voodoo economics.” But far too many to distort economic statistics and analysis to score political points – think of “Modern Monetary Theory” or “deficit scolds.”

If the recent shift from decoupling to de-risking amounts to a game of semantics, it will damage what little strategic mutual trust remains between China and the United States. It will only heighten concerns and raise costs for the business community.

A change to softer rhetoric by the United States seems aimed at placating its domestic business community, but the ultimate objective of containing China hasn’t changed. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said there’s a big difference. We shall wait and see.

Hiroshima highlighted the decline of Western influence in global economic governance. The group’s inherent inadequacy arises from the desperate effort by a small group of member nations to maintain their dominant position in the world.