Q: Recently, some media reported that China's announcement of launching an anti-dumping investigation against EU-produced pork is a countermeasure to the preliminary disclosure of the EU's countervailing investigation on China's electric vehicles. All walks of life in the European side are worried about the escalation of trade frictions or triggering a "trade war". what is the spokesman's comment on this?

A: China has noted relevant reports. What I want to emphasize is that China does not want to see the current trade friction between China and Europe. China has always adhered to the spirit of the consensus reached by the leaders of both sides. In bilateral meetings, the 13th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC13) and other multilateral and bilateral occasions, through meetings, talks, phone calls, letters and other means, China has continuously clarified its position to EU institutions and member states, demonstrated an open and cooperative attitude, and clearly demanded that problems be properly resolved through dialogue and consultation. China has always followed WTO rules and prudently refrained from using trade remedies.

It is regrettable that the European side continues to provoke trade disputes. Since 2024 alone, the European side has intensively introduced 31 trade and investment restrictions with China, including 25 trade remedy measures. It has also launched a foreign subsidy regulation (FSR) investigation and an international procurement tool (IPI) investigation against China, seriously interfering with China-EU economic and trade cooperation. The European side continues to escalate trade frictions and may trigger a "trade war". The responsibility lies entirely with the European side. At least the European side has "three noes" to do it.

First, the consensus of leaders has not been implemented. The leaders of China and the EU have always had broad consensus on deepening cooperation and properly handling differences. President Xi Jinping has repeatedly stressed that China and the EU should strengthen strategic communication, enhance understanding and properly handle differences through constructive dialogue. European leaders have repeatedly expressed their high agreement and hope to strengthen exchanges and dialogue with China and carry out more mutually beneficial cooperation. In this European countervailing investigation, the European side ignored the important consensus reached by the leaders of the two sides, ignored objective facts, ignored China's repeated solemn representations, preset the investigation results, set improper tax rates, harmed the interests of enterprises of both sides, undermined the overall situation of China EU economic and trade cooperation, and affected global cooperation on climate change.

Second, WTO rules have not been followed. Judging from the current feedback from all parties, the European Commission independently initiated an anti-subsidy investigation against China's electric vehicles on the grounds of protecting local industries without industry applications. The evidence is sufficient and the investigation legitimacy is insufficient; in the investigation process, the investigation results are preset, the anti-subsidy investigation tools are improperly used, and the samples are not drawn according to the rules and past practices; the pre-disclosure before the release of the investigation results shows that, the European Commission completely ignored the information provided by Chinese enterprises to cooperate with the investigation, artificially fabricated and exaggerated the so-called "subsidy" projects, and illegally ruled high tax rates. The above-mentioned practices seriously violate the WTO's principles of openness, fairness, non-discrimination and the spirit of multilateral cooperation.

Third, the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises are not protected. In this European countervailing investigation, Chinese companies were intimidated, coerced and pressured to identify punitive high tax rates, and demanded overly broad information, many involving commercially sensitive information and core corporate secrets, and spying on Chinese companies' trade secrets. And intellectual property rights. The European side operates in the dark, conceals the information of EU production enterprises, fails to disclose the damage assessment of industries in the EU in a timely and incomplete manner, squeezes the time for Chinese enterprises to fill in the questionnaire, and erodes the right of Chinese enterprises to know and defend. The European side unjustly presupposes the results, selects a sample of enterprises in a goal-oriented manner, excludes the enterprises with the largest export volume, distorts the results of the investigation, ignores the defense opinions and evidentiary materials submitted by the enterprises, and undermines the legitimate management rights and fair competition rights of Chinese enterprises.

The EU's approach is typical protectionism, and China's determination to safeguard its legitimate and legitimate interests is unwavering. China hopes that the European side can match its words and deeds, meet each other in the opposite direction, implement the consensus reached by the leaders of both sides, take care of the reasonable concerns of both sides, properly handle differences through dialogue and consultation in accordance with WTO rules, return to the correct way of getting along with China and the EU, avoid the escalation of trade friction and get out of control, and jointly promote the steady and long-term economic and trade cooperation between China and the EU.