By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The European Commission’s proposed “Clean Industrial Deal,” prioritizing EU firms in public contracts, has drawn sharp criticism from Chinese and American industry groups. These groups argue the proposal violates WTO rules by discriminating against foreign companies, hindering decarbonization efforts and escalating trade tensions. While the EU’s legal justification may be stronger against China, which isn’t a signatory to the Agreement on Government Procurement, concerns remain that such protectionism will increase costs and slow the clean energy transition. Further, the upcoming Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act will reinforce this “made-in-Europe” preference, potentially exacerbating existing trade imbalances.
Read the original article here
Chinese and American firms are loudly protesting the European Union’s recent moves to prioritize EU companies in public procurement. This isn’t just a matter of disgruntled businesses; it reflects a deeper shift in the global economic landscape and reveals a profound hypocrisy at the heart of the complaints. These reactions highlight the blatant double standard at play, as both the US and China have long employed similar “national first” policies.
The outrage expressed by these firms seems remarkably misplaced considering the long-standing “America First” and “China First” policies that have consistently prioritized domestic interests. The cries of foul play ring hollow when viewed against the backdrop of years of similar practices in the US and China. It’s as if these companies are shocked that another government is employing a strategy they’ve been advocating for – and benefiting from – for years.
The hypocrisy is particularly pungent. The argument for self-sufficiency, frequently used by both the US and Chinese governments, suddenly becomes unacceptable when applied by the EU. This selective outrage underscores a sense of entitlement that has characterized much of the global economic order in recent decades. The reaction suggests a belief that the established economic powerhouses should be immune to the very practices they’ve themselves promoted for so long.
The EU’s shift toward a more protectionist stance, even if belated, is a natural response to years of being treated as a secondary player in its own economic sphere. Europe’s prolonged naiveté in the face of these aggressive nationalistic policies is finally giving way to a more assertive approach, a necessary adjustment in a world where the rules of fair play are selectively applied.
It’s worth examining the specific concerns raised by the affected businesses. Arguments about inhibiting the clean energy transition or increased costs due to reduced access to “trusted partners” are being used to cloak a fundamental resistance to change and challenge the perceived economic advantages that globalization offered. Who are these so-called “trusted partners”, given the recent actions of some of those involved? The disruption caused by the EU’s new strategy is undeniable but it stems from a justified recalibration of international relations.
The response of the US is particularly telling, revealing not just economic anxieties but also political vulnerabilities. This is more than mere economic fallout; it reflects a cracking of the transatlantic alliance and a growing distrust in the US’s intentions. The US’s own actions in trade and international relations have significantly eroded the trust it once enjoyed. Now, the consequences of these actions are becoming painfully clear, particularly among former allies.
This situation also highlights the changing dynamics of global power. The US’s decline in soft power and its increasingly isolated position on the world stage are becoming evident. The emergence of a more self-reliant Europe could leave a power vacuum that the US might struggle to fill, a significant shift in the balance of global influence.
This move by the EU is not merely a response to American and Chinese policies; it’s a reflection of a broader shift in the global economic order. Globalization, as it was once understood, appears to be in decline, replaced by a more nationalistic and protectionist approach. The EU’s recent actions are a symptom of this shift, not its sole cause.
The reactions from the US and Chinese firms highlight the inherent hypocrisy of their positions. Their complaints are not about fair play; they’re about losing their privileged position in the European market. The EU’s decision is a long-overdue assertion of its economic sovereignty, a necessary step in a world where unilateralism and national interests are increasingly prioritized. It is a clear indication that the era of unchallenged dominance by a few key players is fading into the past, and this shift is likely to continue to produce similar reactions from other players in the global marketplace.