Editor's note: Song Xin, a special commentator for CGTN, is the CEO of Sinnvoll Consulting and a former policy advisor at the European Parliament. The article reflects the author's views and not necessarily those of CGTN.

The European Commission's decision to launch an anti-dumping investigation into imports of duck meat from China may appear modest compared with previous disputes over electric vehicles (EVs), but its symbolic significance is much greater. For the first time since the EV case, Brussels has extended its trade defense measures into agricultural products, reinforcing a broader trend: Tariffs are increasingly becoming a routine instrument in the EU's approach to China.

Trade frictions between China and Europe are, by themselves, nothing unusual. In fact, they are almost inevitable.

China and the European Union remain two of each other's most important trading partners. Every day, goods and services worth billions of dollars flow between the two economies. When trade reaches such an enormous scale, disagreements over market access, subsidies, standards or competition are bound to emerge. Both sides have accumulated decades of experience managing these disputes through negotiations, World Trade Organization (WTO) procedures and bilateral dialogue.

The concern today is not that trade disputes exist, but that tariffs are increasingly being treated as the default policy response.

There seems to be a growing belief in Brussels that raising tariffs strengthens Europe's bargaining position by creating leverage over China. This logic may appear attractive, particularly after years of observing the strategic competition between China and the United States. However, applying the same framework to China-Europe relations risks oversimplifying a fundamentally different relationship.

Unlike the US-China rivalry, China and Europe are not strategic competitors across every dimension. Their economic relationship remains deeply complementary in many industries, and reducing that relationship to a negotiation over tariffs ignores the broader mutual interests that have underpinned decades of prosperity.

Even more importantly, tariffs do little to address Europe's own structural challenges.

Europe today faces two defining economic pressures. The first is declining industrial competitiveness. The second is the enormous cost of achieving its ambitious green transition.

Neither challenge was created by China.

For many years, European policymakers have expanded regulatory requirements and compliance obligations with the intention of creating a more sustainable and responsible economy. While these goals are understandable, the cumulative effect has also increased operating costs, slowed investment and weakened the international competitiveness of many European industries. Increasingly, voices from within Europe's own business community acknowledge that these structural issues require internal reform rather than external blame.

Chinese exports did not create Europe's productivity slowdown, nor are they responsible for the continent's investment challenges.

The green transition presents an even clearer example.

Europe's climate ambitions require massive deployment of renewable energy infrastructure, batteries, electric mobility, power electronics and advanced manufacturing equipment. China currently possesses one of the world's most complete industrial ecosystems across many of these sectors.

Attempting to rebuild every segment of these supply chains entirely within Europe would require enormous capital investment, significantly higher labor and compliance costs, years of industrial learning, and considerable uncertainty regarding commercial viability. Time is also a scarce resource. Climate targets are measured in years rather than decades.

In this context, cooperation with Chinese industry is not a weakness – it is an economic necessity if Europe hopes to achieve both affordability and speed in its green transformation.

More importantly, both China and Europe should begin asking a different question altogether.

Instead of debating who sells more products to whom, they should explore where new forms of economic complementarity can be created.

Artificial intelligence offers precisely such an opportunity.

Europe possesses world-class scientific research, engineering talent and highly innovative entrepreneurs. China, meanwhile, offers an exceptionally competitive AI ecosystem, increasingly capable large language and multimodal models, one of the world's most comprehensive hardware supply chains, and perhaps most importantly, a vast and highly dynamic consumer market that allows new technologies to be tested and iterated at remarkable speed.

Rather than viewing each other primarily as exporters and importers, European startups and technology companies could leverage China's manufacturing capabilities, AI infrastructure and market scale to accelerate product development. Products could be designed jointly, refined through rapid commercialization in China, and then expanded into global markets – including Europe itself, North America, Australia, the Middle East and Latin America.

This kind of collaboration creates value rather than redistributing it.

Ultimately, trade policy should not become trapped in a zero-sum mindset. Tariffs may provide temporary negotiating leverage, but they rarely create lasting competitiveness or sustainable growth. Long-term prosperity comes from innovation, investment and the willingness to build complementary strengths rather than defensive barriers.

China and Europe have spent decades constructing one of the world's most important economic relationships. Preserving it does not require the absence of disagreement. It requires the wisdom to recognize that disagreement should not define the relationship itself.

If both sides can move beyond the narrow logic of tariffs and rediscover new areas of complementarity, they will not only strengthen their own economies but also contribute to greater stability and resilience across the global economy. That, rather than another cycle of escalating trade barriers, is the path worthy of pursuing.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)