US-China Trade Clash Risks Making Europe Dumping Ground for Cheap Goods
(Bloomberg) -- Supply Lines is a daily newsletter that tracks global trade. Sign up here.
As Coastline Erodes, One California City Considers 'Retreat Now'
How a Highway Became San Francisco's Newest Park
Power-Hungry Data Centers Are Warming Homes in the Nordics
Maryland's Credit Rating Gets Downgraded as Governor Blames Trump
NYC Commuters Brace for Chaos as NJ Transit Rail Strike Looms
China's widening trade surplus with the European Union is fueling fresh concerns that the 27-nation bloc risks becoming a dumping ground for cheap goods in the volatile tariff confrontation between Washington and Beijing.
As European officials step up vigilance to ward off a flood of Chinese goods facing higher barriers to get into the US, data already indicate that China's surplus with the EU reached a record $90 billion in the first four months of this year.
For now, most of the rerouting of Chinese goods is passing through Latin America and Southeast Asia. But the quantity of Chinese exports already flowing to Europe since the pandemic raises alarm bells that the influx may accelerate as America's higher import taxes take root.
'European and non-US markets are going to see an increase of Chinese shipments,' said Maxime Darmet, a senior economist at Allianz Trade. 'China will want to keep global market share at a high level so will try to increase share in other markets.'
Europe and China's fragile relationship will be on display as China's Vice Premier He Lifeng meets with French officials in Paris on Thursday after he struck a temporary deal with US counterparts in Geneva to lower tariffs. Markets cheered the 90-day truce, though economists say it still leaves high barriers between the world's two largest economies.
Even with both China and the US reducing their tariffs this week, Washington's levies on most Chinese goods are still 30 percentage points higher than they were in January.
'China and France oppose unilateralism and protectionism, support the multilateral trading system, and bringing more stability to the global economy,' China's He said in Paris.
French Finance Minister Eric Lombard said after the meeting that France and China have well-known and long-established differences, notably over growing trade and investment imbalances.
'France and China, the EU and China have a responsibility to resolve their economic and trade differences in dialog and with respect,' Lombard said.
Protectionist Pivot
The shifting tides of global trade are testing Europe's strategy of moving carefully in the fast-evolving race to design new rules that run counter to a central tenet of the EU's existence — economic openness.
While China responded to President Donald Trump's aggressive policies with tit-for-tat levies that initially escalated to prohibitive levels, the EU instead prepared targeted measures to deploy only if talks with Washington fail.
Currency movements are compounding the challenge for Europe. Last month, the yuan slumped to the lowest level in more than a decade against the euro, making Chinese exports cheaper and more attractive to European buyers.
More fundamentally, there are also concerns the swelling trade imbalance with China may reflect a stark loss of competitiveness in Europe as Chinese companies rapidly move up value chains and challenge market leaders both at home and abroad.
'In an era of protectionism, you cannot have open trade — it's just impossible, because it just destroys your industry,' said Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief Asia Pacific economist at Natixis SA. 'We have to have barriers for products — it doesn't have to be necessarily electric vehicles, but anything in which the EU thinks it wants to compete and it has a nascent industry' needs protection, she said.
Paris and Beijing are already at odds over the EU's tariffs on Chinese EVs and Beijing's levies on spirits that are costing millions for French cognac makers.
Chinese exports to the EU so far this year are the second-highest on record, according to data released Friday in Beijing, only surpassed by 2022's pandemic driven surge in goods.
EU Monitoring
Maros Sefcovic, the EU trade chief, last week said 'we are monitoring possible risks of trade diversion' and that the initial results are expected in mid-May. The topic also came up at the EU trade ministers meeting on Thursday in Brussels.
Still, EU economy commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis told Bloomberg Television that 'it's important that China is showing some self restraint in terms of this trade diversion.'
That's important, he said, because if it were to 'start flooding other markets' that would mean that as the EU 'we would also need to protect our market, our companies, our jobs and that would only mean that it would lead to further economic fragmentation and further closures of markets around the world,' he said.
Meanwhile, Chinese purchases have steadily dropped as domestic demand slows and domestic companies become more competitive and push European suppliers out of the market.
The EU was already concerned about the rapid increase in imports from China, especially as prices of those products were falling due to deflation at home.
Even before Trump's return to the White House in January, the trading relationship between Europe and China was undergoing a transformation. That can be seen in the rapid change in German-Chinese trade ties, which flipped from a deficit for China of more than $18 billion in 2020 to a $12 billion surplus last year.
If the trend of the first four months holds for the rest of this year, that surplus with Germany could exceed $25 billion.
The car market has been one of the big drivers of the change, with Chinese exports of electric vehicles and conventional cars rising rapidly, while Europe's shipments to and sales in China fall quickly.
Although exports of EVs have plateaued after Brussels imposed tariffs on them last year, China's automakers are selling more cars than ever in the region by throttling up deliveries of hybrids and combustion engine-powered models.
According to Allianz's Darmet, the situation will push European policymakers to pursue more active measures to support domestic industry and put up tariff and non-tariff barriers.
'We initially thought that would be a stand-off between China and the US, but actually this is going to have implications for the rest of the world and Europe in particular because it will force major countries to be increasingly protectionist,' he said.
--With assistance from Jorge Valero, Olivia Tam, Kriti Gupta and Zoe Schneeweiss.
(Update with comments from EU economy commissioner starting in 18th paragraph)
Cartoon Network's Last Gasp
DeepSeek's 'Tech Madman' Founder Is Threatening US Dominance in AI Race
Why Obesity Drugs Are Getting Cheaper — and Also More Expensive
As Nuclear Power Makes a Comeback, South Korea Emerges a Winner
Trump Has Already Ruined Christmas
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
7 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Uncertainty May Lead to 'Pothole' for Stocks: Seema Shah
"This is a tough environment for investors," Seema Shah, Principal Asset Management chief global strategist, says. Speaking on "Bloomberg Open Interest," Shah also says the Federal Reserve won't cut rates until at least the fourth quarter. (Source: Bloomberg)


Atlantic
7 minutes ago
- Atlantic
This Is Not What the National Guard Is For
Donald Trump just did what no other president has ever done in the context of urban unrest: He sent federal troops to a state without a request from the governor. By federalizing California National Guard members on Saturday, the president abrogated Governor Gavin Newsom's authority over his own Guard. During both previous instances of a presidential order to deploy National Guardsmen to American cities—the Los Angeles riots in 1992 and the Hurricane Katrina response in 2005—the state's governor was overseeing a public-safety apparatus that had been overwhelmed. Trump, seizing on unlawful behavior that included vandalism, violence, and refusing to disperse during protests against ICE raids in L.A., announced that 2,000 reservists would be deployed to the city, unilaterally and contra Newsom's advice. Trump's decision—to exercise his Title 10 authority to federalize the National Guard under his command—was not based on a careful assessment of the operational needs on the streets of Los Angeles. Even if the White House's escalating rhetoric and threats of full military deployment were justified by circumstances that merited overruling a governor, the notion that the armed services will stop protests and quiet widespread outrage about Trump's immigration-enforcement policies in California is naive and flawed. Implicated in Trump's decision was a lot of prior controversy—immigration and deportation, ICE raids, tension between blue states and the White House, a personal beef with Newsom—but the president's assertion that a troop presence is the answer to public unrest is particularly dubious. Historically, these deployments have proved of limited value even when the president and governor agree on goals. Sending in the military as a hostile force is a recipe for trouble. During the 1992 L.A. riots, after four white police officers were acquitted of assaulting Rodney King, 63 people were killed amid widespread arson and looting as rioting spread through the city. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina killed nearly 1,000 people in Louisiana and left New Orleans with no functioning government and little law enforcement. In each case, National Guard deployment was essentially a response to the incapacity of the local police force—either because the cops had become the focus of hostility or because they simply could not meet the demands of the crisis. And in both instances, the governor requested the federal intervention. David Frum: For Trump, this is a dress rehearsal One key lesson of the L.A. deployment was that a failure to define command-and-control responsibilities resulted in operational problems and delays. The National Guard under Governor Pete Wilson's authority was supposed to protect first responders (especially firefighters) and emergency work crews trying to fix critical infrastructure. Trained to help with crowd control, these troops also supported police patrols—to protect shopping centers from looting, for example. The soldiers' initial deployment was slow, and they were not fully prepared for the mission. But in the days that followed, the rioting subsided and the National Guard was able to perform much of its mission and provide relief to the overstretched police forces. By then, however, Wilson had lost confidence in the National Guard's leadership and was unnerved by the scale of disorder. He asked the White House for help, and President George H. W. Bush sent in 3,500 federalized troops. Despite deploying in a less demanding situation, these federalized soldiers were unable to provide the effective support required on the ground. In the end, the state Guard proved the more flexible and adaptable force. The new military task force formed by the federal deployment never satisfactorily resolved issues with its mission, its communications, and its rules of engagement. The problems of this uneasy collaboration with local and state police agencies filtered down, hampering the street-level response. The events of L.A. in 1992—and the explicit lessons that state, federal, and military authorities took from them—are why, until now, the task of dealing with civil unrest or natural disasters has remained largely with the National Guard acting under state jurisdiction. The National Guard has also been integrated into homeland-security efforts on the same basis. If one Guard force encounters a situation that exceeds its capacity, it can turn to another state's Guard under mutual-aid agreements. Mutual aid does not seem to have been on Trump's mind last weekend. The National Guard exists to provide governors with additional power to protect their citizens, and to do so in support of local first responders. Trump's hasty federalization of troops is unwise and unhelpful, before we even consider what malign political motive may lie behind the order. Right now, the Pentagon appears not even to have arranged sleeping arrangements for its troops, let alone determined the rules of engagement on the streets; the San Francisco Chronicle reports that the deployment was so 'wildly underprepared' that troops are sleeping in cramped quarters on the floor. At best, this deployment will be completely unnecessary. At worst, it will be deeply counterproductive. But Trump's motive is transparent—and he will surely engineer an occasion to keep escalating his power plays, until they seem normal.

Epoch Times
14 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
US–China Hold Second Day of Trade Talks in London
U.S. and Chinese officials met for a second day of economic and trade discussions in London on June 10. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters that the two sides met all day on June 9 and will likely meet again on June 10.