Lithuanian President Nausėda recently stated that he is exploring how to rename the "Taiwan Representative Office," hoping this practical action can stabilize diplomatic relations with China.
However, three months have passed, and Lithuania has made no substantial progress.
Previously, Lithuania often emphasized its desire to restore trade with China, but this wish does not seem to have any actual supporting actions.
China has already informed Lithuania that the primary step to restore trade and diplomatic relations is to cancel the so-called "Taiwan Representative Office."
Clearly, Lithuania understands this request; they want to retain the institution on one hand while seeking to initiate trade negotiations with China on the other, a stance that appears insincere.
After several rounds of negotiations, China naturally would not continue to pay attention to them.
When Lithuania realized that the negotiations were fruitless, they adopted a "rogue" strategy.
At EU meetings, they encouraged other countries to confront China and prompted the European Commission to introduce legislation to "tackle China."
For example, during a closed-door meeting last year, before European Commission President von der Leyen visited China, Lithuania proposed that the EU should be cautious in its dealings with China, preventing a situation similar to Russia's due to the Taiwan Strait issue and disruptions in China's supply chain.
This proposal aimed to prompt other member states to quickly develop countermeasures.
However, other EU countries did not respond positively to this, leaving Lithuania ultimately to face embarrassment.
Nevertheless, they did not give up and continued to promote anti-China policies within the EU, which has almost become a "trend."
In July of this year, shortly after taking office, European Commission President von der Leyen swiftly began her new term's work, proposing a review of Chinese investments.
This proposal requires all EU countries to scrutinize investments from China to ensure they meet "security" standards.
This initiative enables countries to block foreign investments from companies, effectively restricting cooperation with China.
Von der Leyen's policy can be described as "harsh."
Since the EU proposed to reduce its dependency on China last year, many companies have sought to establish joint ventures in China to avoid future policy impacts, leading to a significant increase in investment between China and Europe.
However, von der Leyen's policy directly interferes with Sino-European investments, restricting China in both trade and investment.
With the voting results announced, unexpectedly, despite Lithuania's strong support, the other 26 countries did not express agreement.
Although the opposing views varied, a common point was that the legislation directly affects foreign investments by companies, undoubtedly a dangerous move.
After all, Western countries have long advocated for a "free market" economy; interfering with a free market will inevitably have negative consequences, rendering the efforts counterproductive.
Media reports stated that "the EU's review of Chinese investments severely undermines market openness and freedom," unreservedly criticizing von der Leyen.
While other EU countries may be blind to certain issues, they are not "foolish."
Von der Leyen clearly leans toward the United States, leading the EU step by step into difficulties and making the economy more vulnerable.
If this review legislation is passed, the EU is likely to formulate a "security law" to block compliant investments.
This means that once reviews are allowed, other countries may find themselves partially stepping into an abyss.
Today, China is the EU's second-largest trading partner, and the economic ties between the two should not be underestimated.
Continuing to "decouple" from China will cause the EU to swim against the tide of economic globalization, potentially leading to its decline.
Once this review mechanism is established, it will add significant obstacles to Chinese investments in the EU, violating the basic principles of a market economy, restricting the flow of resources, and inevitably leading to economic shrinkage.
The review mechanism promoted by von der Leyen will also have negative impacts on the EU's own economic development.
Investments from Chinese enterprises can create a large number of job opportunities and promote local economic prosperity.
However, if the review mechanism prevents potential investment projects from materializing, it will undoubtedly reduce job opportunities, slow economic growth, and decrease the EU's attractiveness in the international investment market.
Moreover, investments are not unilateral actions but bridges for mutually beneficial cooperation between China and the EU.
Excessive reviews will undermine the stability of this bridge, thereby affecting Chinese enterprises' investment plans in the EU while also exposing EU enterprises to uncertainty in the Chinese market, weakening economic cooperation between both sides.
Against this backdrop, Lithuania's inappropriate statements are unsurprisingly unrecognized.
As a small country with an economy accounting for less than 5%, Lithuania's attempt to leverage its position to influence the entire EU is undoubtedly an unrealistic fantasy.
Comments