Core Points - The European Commission is exploring various measures to force member states to remove Chinese companies' equipment from their telecom networks, potentially pressuring non-EU countries by halting funding for projects using Chinese equipment [1][2] - The European Commission's Executive Vice President, Margrethe Vestager, plans to upgrade the 2020 proposal to ban high-risk suppliers' equipment in mobile networks into legally binding regulations, which could lead to infringement lawsuits and financial penalties for non-compliant member states [1] - EU member states have been reluctant to delegate the decision-making authority regarding the use of Chinese products to the European Commission, despite the cost-effectiveness of Chinese products compared to Western alternatives [1] Industry Impact - The forced removal of Chinese telecom equipment is expected to hinder technological progress and result in significant economic losses for countries implementing such measures, as highlighted by the Chinese Foreign Ministry [2]

Core Viewpoint - The Chinese government criticizes the EU's potential move to remove Huawei and ZTE from its telecom networks, arguing that such actions violate market principles and fair competition rules [2] Group 1: Economic Impact - Chinese companies have been operating in Europe in compliance with laws, providing quality products and services, and contributing positively to local economic development and employment [2] - The forced removal of Chinese telecom equipment has led to significant economic losses and has hindered technological progress in the countries involved [2] Group 2: Call for Fair Treatment - The Chinese government urges the EU to create a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese enterprises to maintain investment confidence [2]

Core Viewpoint - The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticizes the forced removal of Chinese telecom companies' equipment by certain countries, arguing that it harms both the countries involved and their own technological progress [1] Summary by Relevant Sections Economic Impact - The removal of high-quality and secure equipment from Chinese telecom companies has led to significant economic losses for the countries enforcing these measures [1] - The Ministry emphasizes that such actions hinder technological advancement and economic development [1] Market Principles - The Ministry asserts that the forced removal of Chinese companies from the market violates market principles and fair competition rules, as there is no legal basis or factual evidence for these actions [1] - It calls for the European Union to provide a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese enterprises [1] Contribution to Local Economies - Chinese companies have been operating in Europe in compliance with local laws, providing quality products and services, and contributing positively to local economic and social development [1]

Group 1 - The recent unilateral tariff measures introduced by the U.S. have severely disrupted global trade activities and harmed the growth prospects of the world economy [1] - The U.S. claims that the trade imbalance with China is the main reason for imposing tariffs, but the real issue lies in the U.S. framing economic problems in terms of security, which could hinder cooperation [1] - The trade deficit of the U.S. is a result of its own policies, including export controls on high-tech products, leading to long-term restrictions on exports [1] Group 2 - China's foreign trade dependence has decreased from over 60% at the beginning of the century to slightly above 30% in 2024, indicating a shift towards domestic consumption as the main driver of economic growth [2] - The notion of an "imbalance" in U.S.-China trade is a false narrative; both countries have extensive common interests and cooperation opportunities, with mutual benefits being the essence of their economic relationship [2] - Historical evidence shows that politicizing economic issues and forcing companies to choose sides is against market rules and does not align with the fundamental interests of both nations [2]