EU’s Derisking From China: A Daunting Task
With economic security as a major concern, the EU has recently turned to “derisking” from China. The EU strategy entails reducing critical dependencies and vulnerabilities, including in EU supply chains, and diversifying where necessary, while recognizing the importance and need to maintain open channels of communication.
An analysis of the bilateral trade relations over the past decade suggests that derisking still remains elusive. In contrast to the USA, the EU has not reduced the share of Chinese products in its imports. Overall, there has been little or no diversification in some unsophisticated, labor-intensive, low-value-added sectors where it was not expected. At the same time, the EU’s exports to China have remained relatively constant, although direct export exposure to China differs significantly across member states. The picture emerging from the observation of direct investment flows to China is more mixed, with EU greenfield investments on the rise, while European M&As have slowed sharply. Moreover, there is a growing concentration of EU FDI in China among a small number of firms, countries, and sectors. While the jury is still out on the success of the EU’s derisking attempts, many factors do not bode well for the future of the strategy. For derisking to materialize, several conditions need to be met, including better and tighter coordination between EU member states, and this is no easy task. However, with problems and possible solutions now clearly identified, what remains to be done is to walk the talk.
Nicolas, F. (2025, October). EU’s Derisking From China: A Daunting Task. Asia Europe Journal, 23 (2-3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-025-00750-3
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
Pakistan and the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Transformation in Pakistan’s Approach After the War in Gaza
Pakistan has long combined vocal support for the Palestinian cause with covert engagement with Israel. Since the war in Gaza, this balance has become untenable: public opinion is united against Israel, joining Trump’s Board of Peace has drawn rare cross-party criticism, and new regional alignments put normalization out of reach.
The Oceania Factor in France’s Evolving Indo-Pacific Strategy
This paper examines the two-way relationship between France’s Indo-Pacific strategy and developments in Oceania. Oceania was not a priority in the initial years of France’s Indo-Pacific strategy, as the region was largely treated as secondary to major strategic hotspots and key partnerships, while overseas territories were primarily handled as domestic issues and recipients of a top-down strategy.
France’s View: From Diplomacy to Public-Private Action
France has emerged as the EU’s IMEC forerunner, combining port infrastructure, diplomatic alliances and public-private cooperation. With Marseille Fos at its core, the country brings a strategic hub for logistics, energy and digital connectivity to the corridor.
Trump II, the Crisis of the Rules-Based Order and Europe’s Indo-Pacific Strategy
This article examines the implications of Trump II for Europe’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific. The piece contends that Trump II is accelerating the erosion of the rules-based order and undermining the relevance of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) concept, while forcing Europe to refocus on its own continental security amid US retrenchment. Paradoxically, these very constraints create conditions for a more autonomous, pragmatic, and explicitly interest-driven European engagement in the Indo-Pacific, rather than outright withdrawal.