On January 22, 2024, Ambassador Fu Cong, Head of the Chinese Mission to the EU, had an exclusive interview with Kevin Whitelaw, Brussels Bureau Chief of Bloomberg, and his colleague Tom Hancock. The transcript of the interview is as follows:

Bloomberg: I want to start with the topic of trade. Both the EU and China have announced various trade probes related to subsidies and anti-dumping. Are the two sides on the path to a trade war? How can one be averted? 

Fu Cong: A trade war is not something that we want, but we are quite concerned about some of the trade measures that the EU has taken. According to our account, there are already nine categories of Chinese exports to Europe that have been investigated, either for anti-subsidy or for anti-dumping. The most famous one is the EV. And there are some other items that are reported to be under consideration for similar measures, like solar panels, wind turbines, biodiesel and some others.

We are opposed to this because we do believe that these measures are protectionist in nature. If you look at the items under investigation, you can see that many of them are related to renewable energy. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of cooperation, partnerships and even joint ventures between Chinese and European companies. So imposing these high tariffs or other kinds of measures will hurt not only Chinese companies but also European companies. Furthermore, it will hurt Europe’s effort for green transition. There are already reports in the Western media, urging the EU to be cautious and saying that they need to evaluate what kind of effect it may have on the EU’s ambition for green transition. There are already sayings that a major party in Europe is proposing to rescind 2035 as the target year for banning internal combustion vehicles. So I think if the EU restricts more cooperation with Chinese companies on renewable energy, that will certainly have a negative effect on the overall efforts of the EU in terms of green transition.

Let me also emphasize that we want to see this issue to be resolved amicably. In our view, trade remedies, high tariffs or sanctions could only be the last resort. We do hope that the two sides can really engage each other in an amicable manner so as to find solutions that are acceptable to both sides.

Bloomberg: You mentioned the EV probe, which has been obviously the big story. Do you think the EU is undertaking a good-faith, serious investigation? And if it does decide to impose tariffs, do you expect that China will take countermeasures? 

Fu Cong: First, there are people who are saying that this entire probe is politically motivated. It’s not me saying this. It’s being said by some representatives from the member states. We do hope that is not the case. And in terms of procedure, frankly speaking, I can’t say that the procedure the EU has taken is flawless. To start with, usually, for such a probe to be launched, you need to have an application from the industry, but this time, it’s the European Commission that is taking the initiative to launch this investigation.

Secondly, in terms of pre-initiation consultation, they gave the Chinese side very limited time to prepare.

When it comes to the exporters sampling, they chose three Chinese exporters. They deliberately excluded the biggest exporter of EV to the EU, which is an American-invested company. We don’t think that is fair to the Chinese companies. And when it comes to the sampling of European companies back here, they also deliberately excluded some of the biggest EV producers and sellers. This definitely will distort the result of this investigation. So we don’t think this is fair. And we believe that needs to be addressed.

Bloomberg: But so far, China is cooperating with the EU.

Fu Cong: That’s true. As I said, we are actually consulting with the EU side despite these defects in the procedure, because we do want to avoid the situation where the two sides will have to resort to trade measures against each other.

Bloomberg: You expect that if tariffs are put on the EVs, there would be a reaction from China?

Fu Cong: We hope that will not happen. 

Bloomberg: We have seen the recent probe announced on the brandy industry, which obviously has been very widely interpreted as a reaction and a bit of warning. When it comes to EU goods, do you expect that there are other areas that may be at risk of similar kinds of investigation? I’m thinking of cosmetics or luxury goods or some others. 

Fu Cong: The investigation into the brandy is because the Chinese government received complaints or applications from the Chinese producers. We have seen that the amount of exports to China has increased dramatically, and also, the price has dropped quite fast. That’s why we have initiated this investigation. But the European side has always accused China of providing subsidies of one kind or another. Actually, if you look at the EU, according to our statistics, from 2020 to 2022, there are altogether 3.8 trillion euros of subsidies to various industries in Europe. If we took the same approach as the EU has done, there are many things that could be the subject of investigation.

Bloomberg: So are you saying in a way that the EU is also subsidizing just like China does. So, the EU says that trade with China needs to be restricted because of subsidies, it’s kind of double standard? 

Fu Cong: What I’m trying to say is that some sort of subsidy is quite common nowadays, right? When you look at the US, you have the IRA. And in Europe, some countries are also providing subsidies, either to the industry or to the consumers. But the purpose is to give more impetus to their own industries. This is a common practice. So accusing Chinese subsidies is a bit unfair. Another aspect of your question is whether the Chinese government is providing subsidies to certain industries. Again, take the EV industry for example. The Chinese government only provided subsidies at the research stage of the industry, which is fully in line with the WTO rules. But when it comes to manufacturing, there is absolutely no subsidy from the government. So it is unfair to accuse Chinese companies of receiving subsidies or imply that Chinese companies are developing and prospering because of the government subsidies. The Chinese car makers, in this case, the EV companies are standing out because of the ingenuity of Chinese scientists and engineers and the hard work and efficiency of Chinese workers. It is not because of the government subsidies. That’s one point.

And secondly, there are some accusations about Chinese companies’ overproduction or overcapacity, in the words of certain political figures here. They say that because of the overcapacity and the subsidy of the Chinese government, cheap Chinese EVs are flooding the European market. I don’t think that is a fair assessment. First, the Chinese EV cars are not cheap. The Chinese EV producers are targeting the middle and upper end of the EU market. And the prices of these cars are comparable to similar cars that are produced in Europe and in other parts of the world. In terms of flooding, according to the EU’s own statistics, the Chinese export of EVs to Europe accounts for 8% of the EV market in Europe. You can hardly call it flooding, right? If that is called flooding, how do you explain the European cars sold in the Chinese market? The figure is 20% of the entire Chinese automobile market.

Bloomberg: But those are made in China, no?

Fu Cong: Of course, nowadays, you can hardly tell which car is produced where because certain parts and components may come from different parts of the world. However, according to the statistics, 20% of the Chinese market is taken over by European producers. These two figures are different. Let me emphasize that this 8% is only of the EV market, but that 20% is of the entire car market in China.

Talking about overcapacity, it is even more shaky. For the big companies, when they design their capacity, they don’t only see the domestic market. They see the global market as a whole. Again, take the German car industry for example. Last year, German car makers produced 3.6 million cars, and 2.8 million were sold outside Germany. But nobody is saying that the German car industry is having an overcapacity. I don’t think all these groundless accusations launched against the Chinese car industry are fair.

Bloomberg: Does it feel like trade relations between China and the EU are getting, in some way, more and more conflicted since you’ve been here? And is there a feeling that we’re heading towards a situation like what China and the US have had? What some people call a trade war at risk. 

Fu Cong: What they said is not what we want. In my reaching out to the EU officials and to the national ambassadors here, they told me that Europe is different from the US, so they will not take the same approach. But we are quite concerned about some of the policies and measures that are put on the table. Even today, we have this proposal from the European Commission on economic security, which is mostly targeting China. So, indeed, there are a lot of challenges.

But having said that, since my arrival, the bilateral relationship between China and the EU has been on an upward trajectory. That’s my feeling. I’m sure that you have noticed that there are quite a number of exchanges of senior-level delegations, both EU delegations to China and Chinese delegations to EU. The climax was President Michel and President von der Leyen’s visit to Beijing at the end of last year. Even since the start of this year, Chinese President Xi Jinping has met several European leaders, either physically or virtually, and our Premier has visited Europe just a couple of days ago, in Switzerland and Ireland. This momentum is very good, and we hope it will continue. It will definitely provide political guidance and momentum to the bilateral relationship. 

But indeed, there are some challenges. In my view, economy is only what is on the surface. The biggest challenge that this relationship faces is mutual perception. I would say that there are still a lot of misperceptions on the part of the EU or Europe vis-a-vis China. And there is lots of talk about the geopolitical conflicts and so on and so forth. When it is related to China, it basically flows from this misperception. Since I came here, I’ve been trying to reiterate that there is a lot of unfounded criticism of Chinese policies. For instance, they say that China is planning to upend the existing international order. This can not be further from the truth. In our view, we are the beneficiary of the existing international order. We benefit from this international order, and naturally, we want to protect it. Actually, we are one of the most robust or strongest guardians of the international order. Why should we disrupt the existing order when we are benefiting from it? Let me give you some examples. China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council and one of the five recognized nuclear-weapon states. Since joining the WTO, China has benefited from its rules, and Chinese economy has prospered. So why should China try to be the one to disrupt it? That is something that people need to realize despite the unsubstantiated accusations to the contrary. 

Bloomberg: The EU has talked, obviously, a lot about de-risking. It becomes a new word. I want to ask you what that means to you and how worried you are when you hear EU officials and then European leaders, now American leaders, a lot of them having adopted that language？

Fu Cong: Frankly speaking, this de-risking strategy is having what I call a dampening effect on our bilateral relations. We fully understand and appreciate the desire of European countries to enhance their economic security. There is no problem with that. But the question is where do you draw the line? Where do the boundaries lie? How do you strike a proper balance between economy and security? I think that is something people need to give more thought to. In our case, we do believe that for Europe to play a bigger role, it needs to have a strong economy. You can have a strong economy only if you remain open to the outside world. Europe has been a strong advocate of globalization and free economy in the past, but frankly speaking, we see a lot of inward-looking and a lot of protectionism these days. I don’t think that is going to benefit the EU. That’s how I see de-risking.

Bloomberg: So you see it more as a different kind of political strategy rather than something grounded in legitimate need to protect supply chains and other aspects of economy?

Fu Cong: As I said, we understand the desire to maintain economic security, but there has to be very clearly delineated boundaries. If you go too far, it will only hurt your own economy. That’s how we see it. People talk about the Chinese success since the opening up to the outside world in the past 40 years, one of the most important lessons we have drawn from our own experience is that if you want to develop your own economy, you need to open up. Closing down can only hurt your economy. You can only harm yourself if you try to keep others from your economy, thinking that you are protecting your companies and economy. I don’t think you can achieve that. That’s something that EU needs to realize. But actually, if you look at the measures the EU is adopting and considering, for instance, the investment screening, everything seems to be harming the EU security. If you exclude all the investment from the outside world or in particular, from countries like China, I don’t think you can really prosper economically. 

There is also talk about export control of high tech. In terms of technological cooperation, I have met quite a number of scientists and professors in the universities. The message they have given us is that the scientific cooperation nowadays between China and the EU is two-way traffic. If you block all scientific cooperation with Chinese scientists, it’s not going to be good to China, but you are also going to lose. 

Another important aspect is the outbound investment screening. I think this actually goes far beyond de-risking. How can you maintain your own economic security or de-risk by prohibiting the investment in other countries? For all those high tech companies, if they give up the super-sized Chinese market, I really doubt whether they can really prosper for too long. I don’t think that would be a wise decision on the part of the EU. I’m glad to see that the member states are resisting this effort from some of the European Commission officials. I do hope that reason and common sense can prevail on this issue, because we want to have win-win cooperation with Europe. By restricting mutual investment and high tech export, it will result in a lose-lose situation, which I don’t think is something that any of us wants to see.

I also want to take this opportunity to emphasize that China attaches great importance to its relationship with the EU, because as we all say that the world is entering a very turbulent period. We see all these geopolitical tensions. We see Europe as a big power on the global stage, both politically and economically.

Bloomberg: China has its own policy of self-sufficiency. So it’s quite common for Xi Jinping to talk about “zi li geng sheng”. It seems that this is the same thing that China and the EU are doing. And it should be part of sovereignty that countries and regions can do. 

Fu Cong: Each country needs to take care of its own security. There is no problem with that. The question is where you draw the line? Where do the boundaries lie? For us, we say that we need to have more self-reliance. Indeed, in certain areas, the US, supported by some European countries, is cutting off their supply. The biggest example is the lithography machines. What do you expect China to do if you cut off your supply? We just sit there and do nothing? Of course we need to emphasize our self-reliance. But that does not mean that we will not cooperate with the outside world. 

People have some misgivings about the “dual circulation strategy”. When we say dual circulation, first we emphasize that China is a super-sized market. The Chinese economy, first and foremost, should rely on its own market to develop. But at the same time, as President Xi Jinping said on many occasions that we are ready to cooperate with anybody who wants to cooperate with us. Also, when it comes to the practical measures, you can see that we are doing our best to attract more foreign investment into China.

The latest example is the visa-free visits for seven European countries. We want to attract more tourists and business people. We want to facilitate all these. And there are quite a number of measures that have been taken since the latter part of last year to improve the business environment for foreign investors. These are things that China has done.

Another example is that China is the only country that holds the Import Expo. We hope that by hosting an expo for potential foreign investors and exporters, we will give them the space to exhibit their products and technologies. It’s an annual event. More and more companies are attending it. American companies are going there in great numbers. We are not cutting off from the outside world. Those days of relying only on ourselves are gone and gone forever. 

Bloomberg: You mentioned the lithography machines. Obviously the Netherlands was responding to pressure from the US. Are you a little worried that the EU’s going to essentially adopt that kind of opinion more broadly?

Fu Cong: Indeed, that’s what I said. The European Commission is tabling proposals on export control. They want to do it at the EU level. We don’t think that is a good sign. Again, it will hinder the scientific and economic cooperation between the two sides. It will also hinder the progress or the expansion of the European companies. I’m sure you know that the executive of ASML has been complaining. Without the Chinese market, I don’t know how long they will maintain their dominant place. Don’t ever underestimate the ingenuity of the Chinese scientists and engineers.

Bloomberg: With regard to ASML, what will China do? The Netherlands has just introduced these restrictions in January, tighter restrictions…

Fu Cong: Yes, under the US pressure.

Bloomberg: Do you basically think because that was done under the US pressure, there’s no need to take countermeasures against the Netherlands? Or do you just think that because they were following the US so I need to do that?

Fu Cong: As I said, trade measures are the last resort. We don’t want to see China and Europe taking trade measures against each other. It’s going to be a lose-lose situation. That is not our policy.

Bloomberg: When you first arrived here as ambassador, you did talk about wanting to improve the political environment. Can you point some sort of tangible things that are assigned, something to build on here?

Fu Cong: There are some tangible results indeed. One is the GI, the Geographical Indication Agreement. This is a mutually beneficial agreement. It is going to be beneficial to the farmers first. And there is a possibility that we expand it into industry products as well. This is one thing. 

Secondly, the dialogues have been resumed. I think we should not underestimate the importance of dialogue. Just now, you talked about the supply chain. On the Chinese side, we have proposed that since the EU side has some concerns about their dependency on Chinese products, we are ready to set up a dialogue mechanism, which will make sure that neither side will weaponize the other’s dependency. China is even willing to take legally binding commitments. On our side, we are sincere in cooperating with the EU and we do hope that this sincerity could be reciprocated.

As a matter of fact, talking about dependency, I think people need to realize that we should not over-exaggerate this issue. First, the dependency between China and the EU is interdependency. It is not that Europe’s unilaterally dependent on China. China depends on Europe on many products and technologies as well. That is very natural in our view. It’s the result of globalization, right? There is nothing unnatural about this. 

Secondly, in terms of European dependency on China, there is a tendency to exaggerate it. If you read the EU’s own report, which was quoted by Bernd Lange, Chairman of INTA of the European Parliament. He said that we should not always exaggerate the dependency on China. There is only 0.2% of intermediate products, and 1.4% of end products on which there is a clear dependency by Europe on China.

Actually, according to our calculation, Chinese dependency on Europe is far beyond that figure. People need to put this into proper perspective. But nowadays, it seems that each time when we talk to politicians, they hype up this issue, as if there is such an unacceptable dependency by Europe on China. I don’t think that is true.

Bloomberg: But what you’re saying is that for some areas there are real dependencies. The EU Commission report that came out last year said 60 products that the EU is very dependent on China, are often very small things. You’re saying you’re in talks, or you want to have talks with the EU about some legally binding (commitments). Is it a promise not to weaponize these? 

Fu Cong: Well, as I said, we want to set up this. That’s why I said we should not underestimate the value of dialogue. We want to set up this dialogue. And the purpose is to discuss the stability of the supply chain. And if the EU is really concerned, they should not reject this proposal. As I said, we are even ready to undertake legally binding commitments, and we expect the same from the EU side.

Bloomberg: What kind of commitments? Would that be a commitment not to do something? And how would that be binding in any detail? 

Fu Cong: Actually, we’ll be happy to discuss the idea. But again, you need to have a dialogue, before you can really have some concrete content.

Bloomberg: It’s a bit early…

Fu Cong: It’s a bit early to ask what form this agreement would take. But that proposal is on the table for quite some time now. We hope that the EU side can pick it up, and we really want to engage with the EU to have this dialogue in order to alleviate any concern that each side may have on the other.

Bloomberg: Talking about dialogue, the EU has said sometimes that their diplomats in Beijing have trouble scheduling meetings and connecting. I believe that is said very recently in fact. I’m wondering what do you think?

Fu Cong: I don’t know where that assertion came from. Actually, if you look at the website of the EU Delegation to China, there were recent meetings with Mr. Li Zhong, Vice Minister of Human Resources and Social Security, and with a Chinese scholar from Fudan University. These are on the EU Delegation’s website. 

Actually, as I said, there are quite a number of visits coming to Brussels, including ministers, vice ministers, academies and business people as well. And you have this visa-free arrangement. So if we invite everybody to China, and at the same time, we don’t want to see them, where is the logic? I don’t know where that comment came from, frankly speaking. You can’t just say that I want to see somebody, and the next day it must be arranged, right? I don’t have that treatment either. I can also have complaint here. I wanted to see many people, which was not possible.

Bloomberg: That was my question. Are you having trouble with arranging meetings? Are they still open?

Fu Cong: For me, as an ambassador here, my responsibility is to promote and improve the relationship. Yes, I have some difficulties, but we need to approach them from a positive perspective. That’s how I do things. So I don’t complain often to the media or publicly. But you can’t say that I don’t have any complaint. Actually, I told my interlocutors in EU institutions, I don’t publicly complain, but do you really think that I don’t have complaints? 

That’s because I want to project the positive aspect of this relationship. And I also believe that fundamentally, the two sides have so many things in common. We all advocate multilateralism. The world is moving to a very turbulent place. You may be aware that at the end of last year, there was a very important meeting in Beijing related to the foreign affairs, where some basic diplomatic principles were laid out.

We will advocate a multipolar world, which is equal and orderly. By orderly, we mean that we need to abide by the international law, support the UN and UN Charter. And we don’t want to see turbulences. We know that it is an unstoppable trend that the world is moving from a unipolar world to a multipolar world. But that process has to be kept as orderly as possible. That is a basic principle in our foreign policy. 

And in terms of globalization, we do hope that we will maintain this globalization process, but this globalization needs to be universally beneficial and inclusive. We can’t deny that some imbalances have appeared because of this globalization process. But we do want to remedy that to make sure that everybody is profiting or benefiting from this. These are our basic approaches when it comes to the foreign policy. 

And actually, we have so much in common with the EU. That’s why I see this relationship as a very important one. It is my firm belief that so long as the EU or Europe sticks to its policy of strategic autonomy, the world will not fall back to the Cold War days, or fall into confrontational blocks. This is how I see our relationship with the EU. We want the EU and European countries and people to have a better understanding of China and Chinese policies. And concretely, we should do more to stabilize the relationship and also to enhance it.

As a matter of fact, since I came here, I’ve met many people, politicians, diplomats, think tanks and business people. I can feel the strong desire of the people here to develop a good relationship with China and the desire to join hands with China to stabilize the bilateral relationship and also to stabilize the world. China and the EU can jointly play a very good role in that respect.

Bloomberg: That brings me to the question of the ability to coordinate on major foreign policy like Ukraine in particular. Your government has talked about the need for peace, but I think China has been absent from some of the recent major peace conferences related to Ukraine. I’m just wondering why aren’t there more active meetings with Ukraine, more active participation in some of these efforts? That would have seemed like a natural place for cooperation. 

Fu Cong: Our approach vis-à-vis the Ukrainian crisis has been clear and consistent. And that position boils down to one word. That is peace. We are ready to facilitate peace. We do believe that whatever differences there are between the two sides, they should be resolved through negotiation in a peaceful manner.

When it comes to our position, there are basically four things I want to emphasize. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries need to be respected. The UN Charter and international law need to be respected and abided by. The legitimate security interests of all countries need to be addressed. And all peace initiatives that can be beneficial to a peaceful solution should be supported. 

These four points provide the framework for China’s position on this issue. We have been in constant contact with all sides, including Russia and Ukraine. Our President has talked to President Zelenskyy, and the two Foreign Ministers have met on several occasions. The ambassadors in both capitals have been very active. And also, in the case of Russia, China and Russia have had summit meetings. In all these meetings, one constant message that China sent out is that we urge for a negotiated solution. We are doing our part in our own way. You can rest assured that China will not be absent from any peace efforts.

Bloomberg: There has been obviously a lot of discussion about sanctions, and there was a time when the EU nearly listed some Chinese companies for what they said circumvention activities. Then those companies never made it on the final list. Have Chinese companies stopped selling those items to Russia? Are there active conversations going on about how to satisfy the (EU)? 

Fu Cong: Actually, we have resolved these issues with our EU counterpart. When it comes to the Chinese exports, we are very clear that we do not supply lethal assistance including weapons to Russia. And when it comes to dual-use items, we exercise very stringent control over them. Just not long ago, we have strengthened our export control on drones.

These are the basic policies. Of course, China and Russia are friendly countries. We maintain our normal trade relationship. That relationship will go on, but we will not do what we call “adding fuel to the fire” when it comes to the crisis.

Bloomberg: I want to also ask about the Red Sea, much of the cargo passing through the Red Sea is obviously Chinese goods. How concerned are you about some of the security issues around the attacks that we’ve seen there recently? Is China considering doing more to try to protect some of its cargo that’s going through there?

Fu Cong: We have been very clear from the start that we are opposed to any attacks on the merchant or commercial vessels going through the Red Sea. We have been saying that publicly and made a lot of efforts behind the scenes. At the same time, we need to realize that this is basically a spillover effect of the Gaza crisis. I think that the international community, in particular the United States, should exercise more leverage or pressure on the Israeli authorities to stop the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, in particular the civilians. That is how we see this issue could be solved.

Bloomberg: At this point you are not considering security steps in the Red Sea to add, because the US is obviously…

Fu Cong: When we talk about this, we should also respect the sovereignty of Yemen. So we do not support the military actions that the US and the UK are taking. Because in our view, it can only escalate the tension. It will not guarantee or maintain the safe passage of the commercial vessels. It will, on the contrary, make the passage even more dangerous. I don’t know why the US and the UK are taking these measures. Common sense tells us that by escalating the tension, you will only aggravate the situation.

Bloomberg: You talked about strategic autonomy and China has advocated that for Europe. Do you see them improving on that score? Or has it been difficult with the US? I’m wondering if you think ahead a possible Trump presidency and what that might do for Europe’s strategic autonomy?

Fu Cong: I don’t want to prejudge the result of the US election. Maybe we can talk about that after the event.

If Europe wants to play a bigger role in the world, first they need to exercise more strategic autonomy, in their own words, and be true to that strategy. But again, whoever is in power in the United States, the Europeans need to realize he or she will always put American interests first, right? The IRA shows very clearly that either Biden or Trump, they always put American interests first. You can only rely on yourself. 

Bloomberg: There were two issues that the European businesses in China are always talking about a lot and there have been working groups set up. One is the government procurement. European companies often feel somewhat excluded from government procurement. The second issue is data. European companies are having real difficulties of getting data out of China in accordance with the new law. And that’s really a difficulty for them that China has recognized. 

Fu Cong: Indeed. Actually, a lot of progresses have been made on both fronts. In terms of the data, I don’t know whether you are aware that maybe one or two months ago, China put forward a proposal, a revised draft of the law. 

Bloomberg: We reported on that. At the moment, it’s still just a proposal.

Fu Cong: After it is put forward, there was a period of public comment. And that period has been closed. The next step will be to turn it into legislation, or administrative regulation. The essence is that it has clarified many things and the European companies are quite satisfied.

Actually, not long ago, I met with the delegation from the EU Chamber of Commerce in China. They told me very clearly that in their report, they put 1,000 proposals, and one section was about the data transfer. And they told me in very clear terms that all their suggestions and proposals concerning data transfer are outdated or overtaken by event. So they are very satisfied with that draft.

Bloomberg: But can this be made a law soon? I think that’s what companies are looking at. When will this actually come?

Fu Cong: It will be implemented whether it’s in the form of law or in the form of administrative regulation. But if you look forward to a law to pass, it will take longer. Maybe the quickest way is just to adopt it as an administrative regulation so that it could be implemented very quickly. 

(On the government procurement,) not long ago, we had the Central Conference on Economic Affairs. In the press release of that important conference, it was specifically spelt out that more efforts need to be made in the public procurement aspect. I’m sure there will be further opening of the Chinese market.

Bloomberg: That part of the work conference statement is sort of a response to the concerns from foreign businesses?

Fu Cong: Yes, that’s true. And the data issue was also mentioned.

So that’s another message I’ve been sending out to the business community here. Your complaints are being heard and are being taken on board. If you have other concerns, just let us know. We are ready to study them. And if we think that is feasible, we’ll put them into practice. That is actually another sign that the Chinese government wants to improve as much as we can the business environment of China. We are committed to this.

And again, as I said, we also hope that this could be reciprocated by the EU. Frankly speaking, the Chinese companies in Europe also have a lot of complaints in terms of investment. You see these in all kinds of reports about restricting Chinese investment, and talks about these investigations, which could only limit Chinese exports to Europe. So our companies also have a lot of concerns as well. We also have a chamber here.

Bloomberg: Visas are a big complaint they had. 

Fu Cong: Indeed.

Bloomberg: Do you think that the situation is getting (better)? Do you have a take on the visa? 

Fu Cong: It is still a big problem for Chinese companies. Now that we have taken a unilateral measure on our side to lift all visa requirements, I hope that the EU side can do the same.

Bloomberg: Could you extend the visa-free policy to the whole EU at some point?

Fu Cong: I know that is a request from the EU side, and I don’t want to exclude that. It seems that the number of countries that are having this treatment is increasing. So I’m quite optimistic. Why not?

Bloomberg: About the sanctions. Some of the MEPs got the sanctions from China. Some of them are stepping down like Mr. Bütikofer. So the sanctions are to get lifted, once people stop being MEPs, or are they for life? Are the other sanctions going to be lifted? 

Fu Cong: Actually, we have been very clear on this issue for quite some time. We see that these sanctions are impeding our relationship. We hope that these sanctions could be lifted simultaneously by the two sides. But let me emphasize one thing that China’s sanctions on the European side was a response to the European sanctions on Chinese officials. That is the basic fact that people need to bear in mind.

Our proposal is that we can move beyond that chapter. One way to do that is that both sides lift their sanctions altogether simultaneously. And again, we do hope that that good gesture could be taken up by the European side.

Bloomberg: Thank you for your time here. I did want to just ask you separately. We would love to have you sometime do a television interview, if you’d be willing to do that at some point. We have a global audience. We have a studio in our office here in Brussels. We also could bring a crew to the Mission if you want to do it. I just wanted to put that out there and to ask at some point if you’d be willing to consider that.

Fu Cong: I’ll be happy to consider that when the time is right.

I’d like to emphasize one point. As you said, you have a global audience. So I want to emphasize the issue of Taiwan. I’m sure that people know that the one-China principle is the reddest of the red lines for Chinese foreign policy. It is a political basis for our relations with all foreign countries. And people need to realize that whatever happens on the island does not change the basic fact that Taiwan is part of China and there is only one China in the world, which has been universally recognized. With respect to the EU, when the EU established diplomatic relations with China, at that time it was called the European Economic Community, they made a very specific commitment in that they promised not to have any official dealings or agreement between the European side and the Taiwan authorities. We do hope that commitment can be carefully and faithfully implemented. And we see that there were some unwarranted comments and actions on the Taiwan question.

I also want to highlight one issue, which is that we hear there are some ideas by the European Parliament and also by some officials from the Taiwan authorities about the EU signing a framework with the Taiwan authorities. I want to make sure that we are firmly opposed to that. And it will be against this one-China principle and it will be against the one-China policy as well.

Bloomberg: Is that a free trade agreement or something like this?

Fu Cong: In the past, the Taiwan authorities used to advocate an investment agreement between the two sides. That was, in my understanding, rejected by the EU side. But now there is an idea that instead of an agreement, they sign a framework. In our mind, that would be the same thing. So we are firmly opposed to that and it will seriously harm our relations with the EU if it happens. I know this is only an idea, but I want to make our position clear upfront. There should be no misunderstanding concerning China’s position.

Bloomberg: We’ve seen MEPs also going to Taiwan.

Fu Cong: Of course, each time, we have expressed our protest and dissatisfaction, because that constitutes official dealings with the Taiwan authorities. They always say that they are going there in their personal capacity, but if you are an MEP, and you go there as an MEP, how can that be personal! 

Bloomberg: It seems like a rising trend. Do you think that this kind of exchanges are getting more common?

Fu Cong: That shows the severity of the problem. As I said, it is not in line with the EU’s commitment. You can’t erode the one-China principle like this. There are people who are actually through these step-by-step and piecemeal actions hollowing out the one-China principle. Each time they did this, they say at the same time that they still abide by the one-China policy. This piecemeal approach is not acceptable to us.

Bloomberg: Again, thank you very much. We really appreciate your time.

Fu Cong: Thank you.