Why a post-election shift in Germany's China policy is no longer a sure bet
When Ulrich Ackermann started working for the German machinery industry in 1986, the country's watchmaking sector had been eaten up by Japanese competition. Advanced equipment makers were sure they were next.
'The watch industry almost completely disappeared from Germany, and there was a fear that this could also happen to the machinery industry. That hasn't happened but now we have a new situation – China Shock 2.0.
'I think China is a different story. You can't compare China to Japan,' said Ackermann, who will retire from the Machinery and Equipment Manufacturers Association in April.
Over the past few years, the association – which represents 3,600 of Germany's famed small and medium-sized German engineering companies, also known as the Mittelstand – has been raising the alarm about Chinese competitors, which are outstripping German companies in China, Europe and third markets around the world.
'We have many complaints from member companies about unfair competition on the European markets. Unfair competition means, on the one hand, subsidisation and prices which are much below our possibilities.
'Many members say for [that] the price the Chinese sell here on the European market, they cannot buy the materials to produce the machine,' Ackermann, the VDMA's head of foreign trade, told the Post.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
a day ago
- Asia Times
When Trump and Albanese talk defense
Ahead of a prospective meeting between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and US President Donald Trump at the G7 Summit Canada, two key developments have bumped defense issues to the top of the alliance agenda. First, in a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles late last month, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth urged Australia to boost defense spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product (GDP). This elicited a stern response from Albanese that 'Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defense.' Then, this week, news emerged that the Pentagon is conducting a review of the AUKUS deal to ensure it aligns with Trump's 'America First' agenda. Speculation is rife as to the reasons for the review. Some contend it's a classic Trump 'shakedown' to force Australia to pay more for its submarines, while others say it's a normal move for any new US administration. The reality is somewhere in between. Trump may well see an opportunity to 'own' the AUKUS deal negotiated by his predecessor, Joe Biden, by seeking to extract a 'better deal' from Australia. But while support for AUKUS across the US system is strong, the review also reflects long-standing and bipartisan concerns in the US over the deal. These include, among other things, Australia's functional and fiscal capacity to take charge of its own nuclear-powered submarines once they are built. So, why have these issues come up now, just before Albanese's first face-to-face meeting with Trump? To understand this, it's important to place both issues in a wider context. We need to consider the Trump administration's overall approach to alliances, as well as whether Australia's defense budget matches our strategy. Senior Pentagon figures noted months ago that defense spending was their 'main concern' with Australia in an otherwise 'excellent' relationship. But such concerns are not exclusive to Australia. Rather, they speak to Trump's broader approach to alliances worldwide – he wants US allies in Europe and Asia to share more of the burden, as well. Trump's team sees defense spending (calculated as a percentage of GDP) as a basic indicator of an ally's seriousness about both their own national defense and collective security with Washington. As Hegseth noted in testimony before Congress this week, 'we can't want [our allies'] security more than they do.' US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, right, welcomes Australian Deputy Prime Minister and DefenSe Minister Richard Marles, left, before the start of their meeting at the Pentagon in February 2025. Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP via The Conversation Initially, the Trump administration's burden-sharing grievances with NATO received the most attention. The government demanded European allies boost spending to 5% of GDP in the interests of what prominent MAGA figures have called 'burden-owning.' Several analysts interpreted these demands as indicative of what will be asked of Asian partners, including Australia. In reality, what Washington wants from European and Indo-Pacific allies differs in small but important ways. In Europe, the Trump administration wants allies to assume near-total responsibility for their own defense to enable the US to focus on bigger strategic priorities. These include border security at home and, importantly, Chinese military power in the Indo-Pacific. By contrast, Trump's early moves on defense policy in Asia have emphasized a degree of cooperation and mutual benefit. The administration has explicitly linked its burden-sharing demands with a willingness to work with its allies – Japan, South Korea, Australia and others – in pursuit of a strategy of collective defense to deter Chinese aggression. This reflects a long-standing recognition in Washington that America needs its allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific perhaps more than anywhere else in the world. The reason: to support US forces across the vast Pacific and Indian oceans and to counter China's growing ability to disrupt US military operations across the region. In other words, the US must balance its demands of Indo-Pacific allies with the knowledge that it also needs their help to succeed in Asia. This means the Albanese government can and should engage the Trump administration with confidence on defense matters – including AUKUS. It has a lot to offer America, not just a lot to lose. But a discussion over Australia's defense spending is not simply a matter of alliance management. It also speaks to the genuine challenges Australia faces in matching its strategy with its resources. Albanese is right to say Australia will set its own defense policy based on its needs rather than an arbitrary percentage of GDP determined by Washington. But it's also true Australia's defense budget must match the aspirations and requirements set out in its 2024 National Defense Strategy. This is necessary for our defence posture to be credible. This document paints a sobering picture of the increasingly fraught strategic environment Australia finds itself in. And it outlines an ambitious capability development agenda to allow Australia to do its part to maintain the balance of power in the region, alongside the United States and other partners. But there is growing concern in the Australian policy community that our defence budget is insufficient to meet these goals. For instance, one of the lead authors of Australia's 2023 Defence Strategic Review, Sir Angus Houston, mused last year that in order for AUKUS submarines to be a 'net addition' to the nation's military capability, Australia would need to increase its defence spending to more than 3% of GDP through the 2030s. Otherwise, he warned, AUKUS would 'cannibalize' investments in Australia's surface fleet, long-range strike capabilities, air and missile defence, and other capabilities. There's evidence the Australian government understands this, too. Marles and the minister for defense industry, Pat Conroy, have both said the government is willing to 'have a conversation' about increasing spending, if required to meet Australia's strategic needs. This is all to say that an additional push from Trump on defense spending and burden-sharing – however unpleasantly delivered – would not be out of the ordinary. And it may, in fact, be beneficial for Australia's own deliberations on its defense spending needs. Thomas Corben is research fellow, foreign policy and defense, University of Sydney This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Asia Times
2 days ago
- Asia Times
Price war sparks EV financial crisis concerns in China
BYD, the world's largest electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer, is facing growing challenges from an intensifying price war and a change in supplier payment regulations in China, raising market concerns about the company's financial stability. On May 23, the Shenzhen-based EV maker initiated a price war in China by offering discounts of 10 to 30%. It priced some affordable models under 150,000 yuan (US$20,890), and the Xia MPV (multi-purpose vehicle) at around 200,000 yuan. It also offers its Ocean range's Seagull at a starting price of 55,800 yuan, down from the official guide price of 69,800 yuan. BYD's Hong Kong-listed shares have fallen by 15.5% from their peak of HK$155 (US$19.7) on May 23. The company's market cap has decreased by some US$22 billion over the period. BYD executive vice president Stella Li told Bloomberg in an interview on June 12 that the 'very extreme, tough competition' in the Chinese EV market is unsustainable. Li did not say whether BYD would scale back its discount program, but she stated that the company will invest up to $20 billion to expand its operations in Europe over the next few years. She highlighted Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy as BYD's key European markets. 'If we decide to do something, we put all our resources behind it,' she said, referring to the company's commitment to after-sales service in Europe. 'We want to ensure it's successful in the long run.' Last October, the European Union imposed tariffs ranging from 17% to 35.3% on Chinese EVs (BYD: 17%, Geely: 18.8%, SAIC and others: 35.3%). China suggested setting minimum prices for the EVs it ships to the EU. Both sides are still negotiating the matter. In March, BYD said it is considering setting up its third European assembly plant in Germany. It has a factory in Hungary and is building another in Turkey. When BYD announced its price cuts on May 23, one of its rivals warned of a possible Evergrande-like debt crisis in China's auto sector on the same day. (Evergrande is China's highly indebted property company that has come to epitomise the sector's ongoing crisis.) 'An Evergrande of the auto industry already exists, though it has yet to explode,' Wei Jianjun, chairman of Great Wall Motors, said in an interview without naming any company. 'The current automobile industry is facing a serious problem of being coerced by capital,' Wei said. 'Some automakers are addicted to burning money for market share.' He said some Chinese automakers over-rely on financing from the capital market to boost production scale and market share, but ignore their profitability and technological innovation. He said these firms' capital chains will break if the market environment changes. He stated that the bankruptcy of any large auto firm would result in many people losing their jobs, harm upstream and downstream companies, and negatively impact the Chinese economy. Li Yunfei, general manager of BYD's brand and public relations division, responded to Wei's comments in a Weibo post on May 30. 'Following the stunning comments made by Great Wall Motors' Wei, many articles and videos said BYD is an Evergrande in the auto sector,' Li said. 'I feel confused and angry, and find these comments laughable.' 'If BYD's debt-to-asset ratio (70%) is a sign of high risk, are Ford (84%), General Motors (76%), and Geely (68%) all at risk?' he said. He said many malicious commentators ignored that BYD's interest-bearing debts and accounts payable are lower than many other players. He added that Chinese EVs have become mainstream products overseas and will continue to see good prospects. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) said on May 31 that automakers should avoid disorderly price wars and maintain fair competition. The People's Daily commented that consumers would not benefit from price wars, which would drive automakers to use low-quality parts, reduce after-sales service and cut research and development expenses. Citing industry data, the newspaper reported that the average net margin of Chinese automakers fell to 4.3% in 2024, down from 5% in 2023. For 2024, BYD's net profit rose 34% to 40.3 billion yuan, while revenue grew 29% to 777.1 billion yuan. At the end of 2024, the company's total debt rose 10.3% to 584 billion yuan, and its total assets increased 15.3% to 783 billion yuan. Its debt-to-asset ratio, or debt ratio, fell 3.2 percentage points to 74.64%. For the same period, Nio, a Shanghai-based EV maker, had a debt ratio of 87.45%, and Great Wall Motors' was 65.96%. Heavily indebted Chinese property developers have around 60-90% debt ratios. However, accounting consultancy GMT Research said in January that BYD's net debt might be 323 billion yuan as of mid-2024, contrasting with the official figure of 27.7 billion yuan. It stated that the company's Dilink platform, a supply chain financing system, may conceal a substantial amount of off-balance sheet debt. In other words, BYD may have delayed supplier payments. Wang Guo-chen, an assistant researcher at Taiwan's Chung-hua Institute for Economic Research (CIER), said BYD is only one of the many Chinese firms struggling to survive in an oversupplied market. On March 25, China's State Council amended the Regulation on Ensuring Payments to Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, requiring companies to pay their suppliers within 60 days, effective June 1. BYD said on June 11 that it will standardize its payment period for suppliers to 60 days. Observers said automakers may thus report higher debt ratios in the second half. Read: Sugon, its suppliers hit by US sanctions, to merge with Hygon
HKFP
2 days ago
- HKFP
Hong Kong Originals: The 85-year-old flask brand that bears witness to rise and fall of city's manufacturing era
As Hong Kong's economic boom faded and manufacturing moved to China, some long-established, family-run companies preserved their traditions as others innovated to survive. In our new series, HKFP documents the craftsmanship and spirit behind the goods that are still proudly 'Made in Hong Kong,' as local firms navigate the US-China trade war. Few guests staying at the Camlux Hotel in Hong Kong would know that a giant glass furnace once lay beneath where they are spending the night. The Kowloon Bay hotel was formerly the factory building of Camel, an 85-year-old local metal kitchenware brand. The company moved into the premises in 1986 and vacated the property in 2013. Four years later, Camel opened a hotel in its place as part of a government revitalisation plan for the industrial district. Speaking to HKFP at the hotel on Monday, Raymond Leung – Camel's third-generation director – said his grandfather, Leung Tsoo-hing, founded the company Wei Yit Vacuum Flask Manufactory in 1940 after seeing a demand for vacuum flasks. Back then, electricity was a luxury, and few households had fridges and kettles. An insulating container thus emerged as a common household item for keeping drinks hot or cold. 'Being Chinese, being Asian, we drink a lot of hot drinks,' the younger Leung said, adding that his grandfather – who had been exporting vacuum flasks from Hong Kong to Penang, Malaysia – 'wanted to create his own brand of thermal flasks.' The brand name 'Camel' was chosen to reflect the flask's function and the company's resilience. Camel became one of the few manufacturers to make flasks with an inner glass wall allowing the container better insulation than those with just a metal body, said Leung, 47. Over the years, Camel has sold vacuum flasks, coffee tumblers, water bottles, food jars and more, discontinuing some products and launching others as consumers' preferences shifted alongside the changing times. Its products are not only available at shops and department stores in Hong Kong but are also sold in Southeast Asia. Camel is the only vacuum flask brand still being manufactured in Hong Kong, Leung told HKFP. Throughout its 80-plus-year history, Camel has gone through landmark moments in Hong Kong's history, including the Japanese invasion during World War II, which halted its production, and the post-war manufacturing boom. When Leung's grandfather created the first vacuum flask prototype in the 1940s, its parts – from the glass walls to the rubber connecting pieces – were sourced in Hong Kong. Today, like many of the city's homegrown brands, part of Camel's production takes place across the border in mainland China – a move that is neither new nor avoidable, the director said. Former manufacturing hub Hong Kong saw its manufacturing heyday from the 1950s to the 1970s, with factories – concentrated in areas such as Sham Shui Po, Mong Kok, Kowloon City and Western – producing everything from clothes and toys to watches and electronics. Its rise as an export-oriented economy came amid World War II's destruction of industrial bases in Europe and America. Hong Kong seized the opportunity, resuming production and supplying goods to the world. The director's father, Philip Leung, studied engineering in the UK and later completed a postgraduate degree in glass technology. He returned to the city in the 1960s, when he was in his late 20s, to help with the family business. 'He wanted to bring back the knowledge from the Western world,' Raymond Leung said. Under Philip Leung's leadership, Camel ramped up its manufacturing, expanding its production of metal flasks, ice buckets, and plate covers to supply hotels around the world. In the 1980s and 1990s, Hong Kong's manufacturing industry began losing its edge to mainland China, as the latter modernised under the government's reform policies. Many companies in the city relocated their production across the border, attracted by cheaper labour and other costs, but the Leungs stayed put. While minor parts were sourced from mainland China, Camel products' main components were always made in-house. But over the decades, it became clear that it would not last. In 2006, Camel turned off its glass furnace, which was operating on the third floor of what is now the Camlux Hotel, for good. The company was unable to find enough people to operate the furnace after some of its workers passed away. 'Because it's a furnace, you can't turn it off. It has to run 24 hours, otherwise the glass will solidify,' Raymond Leung said. 'We didn't have enough people to fill a day's shifts.' 'It would've been a natural end to Camel, but we discussed it as a family, and my father wanted to persevere,' he added. 'So we had to source the glass from the mainland. [It was] better than just quitting,' he said. The company now checks the glass and all its other raw materials before assembling the products in its factory in Hung Hom. Meanwhile, at Camel's other factory in San Po Kong, workers are in charge of cutting large pieces of metal and moulding plastic. Moving on Leung said Camel's reality was no different from many brands, whether in Hong Kong or abroad. 'Even something like BMW and Mercedes, which are synonymous with Germany, it's very rare you can make a complete product without some kind of [overseas] supplier,' he said. The director, however, says the company still tries to promote Hong Kong 'as much as possible.' Over the past two years, Camel has hosted design competitions inviting the public to submit Hong Kong-themed illustrations. The winning designs were printed onto Camel's signature flasks and added to the company's product collection. Last year's first-place prize went to a red, white and blue design – a nod to the traditional Hong Kong nylon canvas bags – that featured the city's icons, including a pawn shop sign, a cha chaan teng cup, and the city's tram. 'Doing the competitions is a way for us to engage more local talent,' Leung said. People have asked Leung if Camel, with such a long history, would reissue some of its 'nostalgic' products – like the big flasks for households that were common in the past. The director said he 'wasn't completely against' the idea, but he preferred the company to innovate new products instead. In recent years, Camel has launched coffee tumblers and sports water bottles inspired by new trends in the market. 'You can't always go back to your archive,' Leung said. 'You have to move on.' Original reporting on HKFP is backed by our monthly contributors. Almost 1,000 monthly donors make HKFP possible. Each contributes an average of HK$200/month to support our award-winning original reporting, keeping the city's only independent English-language outlet free-to-access for all. Three reasons to join us: 🔎 Transparent & efficient: As a non-profit, we are externally audited each year, publishing our income/outgoings annually, as the city's most transparent news outlet. 🔒 Accurate & accountable: Our reporting is governed by a comprehensive Ethics Code. We are 100% independent, and not answerable to any tycoon, mainland owners or shareholders. Check out our latest Annual Report, and help support press freedom.
