European Union

By Laia Comerma (Centre for Security, Diplomacy and Strategy of the Brussels School of Governance)

When the European Union (EU) published its 2021 Trade Policy Review, a new buzz phrase took over policy and academia on EU trade policy: ‘open strategic autonomy’ (OSA). This was followed in 2023 by the Economic Security strategy, furthering a shift that brought Europe in line with the global trends towards the ‘geopoliticisation’ and ‘securitisation’ of trade and investment. This global trend has materialised with the spread of multiple trade defence instruments around the world, famously foreign direct investment (FDI) screening mechanisms. Since the Trade Policy Review, the EU has aimed to catch up and has enacted itself an array of new trade defence instruments to complement the traditional ones of anti-subsidies, anti-dumping and safeguards, that now take a key role to implement its economic security goals, as discussed in my newly published JCMS article.

The dragon in the room

These instruments – particularly the FDI screening regulation, the anti-coercion instrument, the international procurement instrument, the foreign subsidies regulation, and the 5G cybersecurity toolbox, amongst others like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism or the Trade Enforcement Regulation – have the aim of ensuring the EU’s economic security and resilience going forward, as well as its strategic autonomy, aiming to strike a new balance between security and competitiveness.

Several factors have been associated with the need for their enactment, among them the supply chain disruptions triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war, and the protectionist policies adopted by the Trump and Biden administrations in the United States. Yet, in my article, I demonstrate that an analysis of the EU’s communicative strategy around those instruments, both at the political level (i.e. by EU institutions) and at the media level, indicates that these reforms are mainly associated with concerns about an assertive China. These findings are based on an software-powered text analysis of a dataset of 810 documents published between 2010 and April 2024 by the three main EU institutions – Council, Commission and Parliament –, and the five most influential outlets in Europe at least since 2020: Politico, The Economist, Financial Times, Reuters and Euractiv. The aim was to identify the main narratives used to justify the instruments and how they were linked to China.

This is not incompatible with their application being country-agnostic or horizontal. Yet, both EU institutions and the main pan-EU media outlets have employed a heterogeneous set of China-related narratives to legitimise these instruments, to shape a specific perception of China amongst the European public.

Indeed, China has been instrumentalised in both media and policy discourse, albeit in different ways by both these actors, as a means to justify the necessity and existence of these instruments. This instrumentalization of China has been more comprehensive, strategic and targeted than references to the United States or Russia, who are only mentioned in the context of great-power competition.

Overall, Chinese investment in Europe, especially in strategic sectors like 5G networks, has been framed by the three main EU institutions as a security threat, whilst trade with China in the areas of procurement and subsidies has been depicted as unfair, thereby justifying the introduction of instruments aimed at addressing these imbalances.

Interestingly, my JCMS article illustrates that the framing of China with respect to each of the instruments is targeted to adapt to the heterogeneity of the instruments and their purpose. Media, in particular, have promoted two distinct narratives regarding China: one portraying it as a threat in the context of investment, and another framing it as a source of unfairness in trade. This dual portrayal reinforces the perception of China as a competitor and political rival rather than an economic partner, fostering a vision of China as a ‘threatening other.’ This aligns with the broader trend towards the ‘securitisation’ of Chinese investment in Europe.

Moreover, since 2023, the analysis of the communicative discourse around these instruments by EU institutions shows that the TDIs have become increasingly integrated into broader strategic frameworks, moving beyond their original focus on ‘strategic autonomy’, and towards achieving broader geopolitical and economic security aims. This is coherent with the integration of those strategies with the EU’s trade policy across the board.

What might this mean going forward?

Is the Commission actually targeting China with those instruments? The short answer is that we don’t know yet. While these instruments have arguably been designed to be country-agnostic and thus apply to any country equally who violates the trade rules and standards that each of the instrument deals with, the truth is that China has been overly targeted and framed in the communicative discourse around the justification for the legitimacy and necessity of these instruments. We will need to pay attention, as the first investigations and screenings unfold, to the impact that this has on inward Chinese investment to the EU, even though much of this data is often confidential and the instruments will probably have a deterrence effect that can hardly be quantified.

Additionally, these findings raise the question of how these instruments, and the broader ‘Open Strategic Autonomy’ and Economic Security strategies will impact the EU’s identity as ‘Normative Power Europe’. This means how far the EU can continue employing selectively protectionist measures before its normative identity as a liberal, normative power is fundamentally challenged. While several scholars have argued that the EU continues to advocate for economic openness and positions itself as a defender of multilateralism, the use of unilateral trade instruments signals a significant shift towards a more assertive and less open trade policy.

Moving towards this new paradigm of selective openness and increased assertiveness to protect Europe’s interests, in this new world increasingly marked by tit-for-tat strategies and divide-and-rule tactics, the EU has, in effect, adopted more protectionist measures to prevent coercion and exploitation. This raises important questions about the EU’s evolving identity: Is the emergence of a ‘Geopolitical’ or ‘Geoeconomic Power Europe’ replacing ‘Normative Power Europe’? Or can the two coexist and potentially reinforce one another, rather than being in conflict?

Last but not least, a concern that became ever more relevant since the last European elections in June 2024, where Europe saw a sharp increase in extremist and populist forces in the European Parliament, the EU needs to acknowledge that there are concerns that the OSA instruments could be co-opted for purely protectionist purposes, or at the very least, that they might dangerously shift the EU’s focus from trade openness towards trade defence. This could lead to an increasingly bifurcated trade regime, with continued openness towards allies but heightened assertiveness and greater reliance on autonomous tools against perceived rivals.

In short, even though the current focus of the OSA instruments is to defend multilateralism and the Liberal International Order, they have broader systemic and normative implications that the European Commission still needs to wrap its head around. When it comes to China, it is clear that those instruments were aimed to address the multifaceted concerns that the EU has related to China’s international role and domestic economic policy. But as we move towards their implementation, we will see what the actual impact on an EU-China trade and investment relationship will be, as the last High Level Summit that took place in Beijing on the 24th of July demonstrated, is already fraught with misunderstanding and tensions.

 

Laia Comerma is a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Security, Diplomacy and Strategy of the Brussels School of Governance (BSoG-VUB) under the ERC project ‘Europe in US-China rivalry’ (SINATRA). She completed her PhD at the Pompeu Fabra University (UPF) and the Barcelona Institute for International Studies (IBEI). Her doctoral dissertation, “The politics of EU-China economic relations: Normative and regulatory disputes in the reconfiguration of global economic governance”, analyses the norms, rules and institutions structuring the foreign policy relation between China and the EU, and how they are being reformed due to their interaction in the fields of investment, trade, and development infrastructure. Her research fields of interest are foreign policy analysis, Chinese and EU foreign policy, and EU–China relations. She holds a MSc in International relations from the London School of Economics (LSE) and a BA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from UPF-UAM-UC3M. 

 

The post China as a Catalyst of the European Union’s Trade Defence Instruments appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Next AFET committee meeting will be held on:

• Thursday 4 September, room SPAAK (1A2), Brussels

Meetings are webstreamed with the exception of agenda items held "in camera".

AFET - DROI calendar of meetings 2025
Meeting documents
Webstreaming
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

A delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), led by Chair David McAllister, travelled to Washington D.C. and Richmond, Virginia from 21 to 24 July 2025. This was the Committee's first official visit to the United States following last year’s elections on both sides of the Atlantic.
During the trip, Members discussed how to deepen transatlantic ties, enhance collective security, reinforce the shared commitment to supporting Ukraine, and tackle common challenges such as China's expanding global influence and the situation in the Middle East. Insights gathered from the visit will inform the Committee's ongoing work on the own initiative report on EU-US political relations.
Press Announcement
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Photo courtesy of the Centre for Future Generations: https://cfg.eu/building-cern-for-ai/

Anna-Lena Rüland

For several research fields, large-scale research infrastructures play a crucial role in advancing cutting-edge research, with the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) often being referred to as a particularly successful example. Accounts of how “big science” projects like CERN get off the ground abound in the history of science as well as in popular science. Typically, individual scientists are seen to be pivotal in initiating large-scale research infrastructures (just think of the role of Isidor I. Rabi in the early phase of CERN). However, the specific strategies and tactics that scientists use to put a large-scale research infrastructure on the agenda of policymakers are rarely examined through a theoretical lens, impeding a more systematic understanding of what strategies and tactics may or may not work in advocating for big science. In my recently published article, I address this issue by drawing on the interest group and agenda-setting scholarship to study the strategies and tactics that the Confederation of Laboratories for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Research in Europe (CAIRNE) has used to advocate for the so-called CERN for AI. In this blog post, I reflect on which strategies and tactics have proven successful and which have not.[i]

 

What is CERN for AI?

There are multiple, and in part clashing, visions of CERN for AI (this blog post provides a detailed overview). I will focus on the vision of CAIRNE, possibly one of the fiercest advocates for a CERN for AI. CAIRNE promotes a CERN for AI that:

• Consists of a central hub, supported by a network of (CAIRNE) research clusters;
• Is used to conduct research on all aspects of AI;
• Has close links to industry;
• Develops AI that aligns with European norms and values; and
• Is publicly funded.

CAIRNE started to advocate for CERN for AI in 2017, based on two central arguments. First, the organization considers it vital to bring Europe’s top AI researchers together in a central place to coordinate their research efforts and to agree on a few top research priorities for the field. According to CAIRNE, this is needed to help the European AI community overcome its fragmentation. Second, CAIRNE argues that more hardware is needed to enable cutting-edge AI research in Europe and to catch up with AI frontrunners like the US and China. When CAIRNE was founded in 2018, CERN for AI became one of the central issues that the organization advocated for. However, despite CAIRNE’s continuous advocacy, CERN for AI has not (yet) materialized. This may soon change, as the initiative has made it to the highest political level: Ursula von der Leyen recently proposed to set up a “European AI Research Council where we can pool all of our resources, similar to the approach taken with CERN.”

 

Invest in a variety of strategies

Between 2017 and 2025, CAIRNE used different means to draw policymakers’ and the broader public’s attention to CERN for AI, three of which proved particularly useful. First, CAIRNE engaged with different members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to convince them of CERN for AI’s merit. This parliamentary strategy has paid off, as several MEPs have begun to back CERN for AI during the deliberations for the AI Act. Second, CAIRNE’s founding members invested a great deal of time and effort into promoting CERN for AI by writing countless opinion pieces and giving interviews for prominent media outlets across the EU. For example, their proposal featured in “der Tagesspiegel,” and “Science Business.” This media strategy drew attention to CERN for AI beyond a specialist audience. Finally, and in line with a mobilization strategy, CAIRNE drew attention to CERN for AI among the AI community, think tanks and the broader public by organizing CERN for AI-dedicated events and publishing open letters. Across all these strategies, CAIRNE credibly presented CERN for AI as an issue that needs to be addressed at the EU-level: Firstly, because the funding needed for CERN for AI would likely exceed the capacities of any one EU Member State and, secondly, because the entire European AI research community should benefit from and participate in CERN for AI.

 

Find the right label

A CAIRNE strategy that created controversy, especially within the European AI community, was the framing of the proposed AI research infrastructure as a CERN for AI. Several people that I interviewed for my article argued that, in principle, it is beneficial to use the renowned CERN “brand” to promote a large-scale, European (AI) research infrastructure. Yet, in the case of the CERN for AI initiative, this strategy backfired. There are two reasons for this. First, at about the same time as CAIRNE started to promote CERN for AI, a group of prominent AI researchers that is now known as “ELLIS” advocated for a networked AI research infrastructure modeled on the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL). Given the EU’s limited funding for AI and the enormous price tag of any AI research infrastructure, ELLIS had no interest in supporting CAIRNE’s proposal. Second, critics of CERN for AI, among them ELLIS members, argued that the CERN label did not make sense in the context of AI because, unlike to the massive colliders at CERN, the computing power necessary for AI research does not need to be centralized. (Somewhat ironically, while criticizing CAIRNE’s framing, ELLIS failed to acknowledge that back in the day, the EMBL was promoted as a Conseil Européen de la Recherche Biologique). Critics of CERN for AI have further argued that using the CERN label for a large-scale AI research infrastructure is “misleading” because the current political circumstances are not comparable to those that eventually facilitated the establishment of CERN.

 

Balance centralization with decentralization

In the future, scientists and scientific organizations like CAIRNE may therefore want to frame their proposals for large-scale science infrastructures more strategically. Historical research has shown that promoting a “big science” project as a CERN of [insert relevant scientific discipline] does not necessarily have to backfire. What seems to play an important role is that those advocating for a large-scale science project in a research field that does not strictly require big instruments choose a framing that manages to balance the best of both worlds: the unifying moment of centralization and the efficiency of decentralization. Such a framing is also likely to more strongly appeal to policymakers and thus find political backing because a central research facility supported by a network of research clusters would maximize the number of constituencies that see a return on investment from big science.

 

Dr. Anna-Lena Rüland is a research fellow with the European Research Council-funded project “Addressing Global Challenges through International Scientific Consortia” at the University College London Global Business School for Health. She graduated with a PhD in science policy from Leiden University in July 2024 and currently conducts research on science diplomacy, research security, as well as science, technology and innovation policy.

 

This blog post is based on her article that won the 2024 Award for Excellent Paper from an Emerging Scholar from the ECPR Standing Group ‘Knowledge Politics and Policies’. This was the eighth time this prize was awarded. Previous winners are Cecilia Ivardi and Linda Wanklin, Anke Reinhardt, Adrienn Nyircsák, Alexander Mitterle, Justyna Bandola-Gill, Emma Sabzalieva, Olivier Provini and Que Anh Dang.

 

References

Cassata, Francesco. 2024. A ‘Heavy Hammer to Crack a Small Nut’? The Creation of the European Molecular Biology Conference (EMBC), 1963–1970. Annals of Science: 1-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2024.2351511.

Hoos, Holger. 2023. ‘AI made in Europe’ am Wendepunkt. Der Tagesspiegel, 7 July 2023.

Kelly, Éanna. 2021. Call for a ‘CERN for AI’ as Parliament Hears Warnings on Risk of Killing the Sector with Over-Regulation. Science Business, 25 March 2021.

Kohler, Kevin. 2024. CERN for AI: An Overview. https://machinocene.substack.com/p/cern-for-ai-an-overview. Accessed 13 February 2025.

Matthews, David. 2024. Call for the EU to Build Publicly Funded Cutting-Edge Artificial Intelligence. Science Business, 4 January 2024.

Rüland, Anna-Lena. 2025. “We Need a CERN for AI”: Organized Scientific Interests and Agenda-Setting in European Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy. Minerva Online first. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-024-09568-6

Wulff Wold, Jacob. 2024. Von der Leyen Gives Nod to €100 Billion CERN for AI Proposal. Euroactiv, 25 July 2024.

 

[i] A slightly different version of this blog post has previously been published for the European Union Science Diplomacy Alliance Newsletter: https://www.science-diplomacy.eu/news/.

The post How (not) to lobby for large-scale research infrastructure: Lessons learned from the CERN for AI appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Voyage à reculons dans les Balkans occidentaux, Carnet de voyage, d'Ombeline Duprat, éditions Spinelle, 2025, 170 pages, 18 euros.

- Lettres de l'Est et des Balkans • Le blog de Pierre Glachant / Kosovo, Grand Bazar - Diaporama, Serbie, Bosnie-Herzégovine

Royal Football Club Seraing
Football: the Court affirms the right, for clubs and players in particular, to obtain effective judicial review of arbitral awards made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Alace
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
International protection: the designation of a third country as a ‘safe country of origin’ must be amenable to effective judicial review

The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth
Principles of Community law
Right to asylum: A Member State may not plead an unforeseeable influx of applicants for international protection in order to evade its obligation to cover asylum seekers’ basic needs

BAJI Trans
The principle of lex posterior mitius extends to a penalty classified as administrative under national law where it is of a criminal nature for the purposes of EU law

Volkswagen
Approximation of laws
A vehicle manufacturer cannot be exempted from its liability for an unlawful defeat device on the grounds that an EC type-approval has been granted

France v CWS Powder Coatings and Others
Approximation of laws
The Court of Justice upholds the annulment of the classification of titanium dioxide in certain powder forms as a carcinogenic substance

Banca Mediolanum
Taxation
Taxation: national legislation providing for tax being levied on more than 5% of the amount of the dividends that financial intermediaries receive, as parent companies, from their subsidiaries resident in other Member States is contrary to EU law

Veracash
Free movement of capital
Payment services: the payment card user is deprived of the right to obtain a refund of an unauthorised payment transaction of which he or she has become aware if he or she delayed in notifying it to his or her provider with intent or gross negligence

Daka
Independence of judges: the double appointment of judges to the Polish Supreme Court is compatible with EU law

Adrar
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
Advocate General Spielmann: the court reviewing the lawfulness of the detention of an illegally staying third-country national must verify that the principle of non-refoulement does not preclude his or her removal

A delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), led by Chair David McAllister, travelled to Washington D.C. and Richmond, Virginia from 21 to 24 July 2025. This was the Committee's first official visit to the United States following last year's elections on both sides of the Atlantic.
During the trip, Members discussed how to deepen transatlantic ties, enhance collective security, reinforce the shared commitment to supporting Ukraine, and tackle common challenges such as China's expanding global influence and the situation in the Middle East. Insights gathered from the visit will inform the Committee's ongoing work on the own initiative report on EU-US political relations.
Location : USA
Press Announcement
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Au cœur du parc national de la Sutjeska, en Bosnie-Herzégovine, le festival Jelen OK Fest a réuni des milliers de festivaliers venus des Balkans, entre nature spectaculaire, musique éclectique et engagement. Trois jours de fête et de réflexion dans un lieu marqué par la geste des partisans de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

- Articles / Courrier des Balkans, Tourisme balkans, Bosnie-Herzégovine, Culture et éducation

OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2006/43/EC, 2013/34/EU, (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as regards certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Barry Andrews

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

The next meeting of the Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE) is scheduled to take place on Monday, 1 September 2025 from 15.00-18.30 in Brussels (room ANTALL 4Q1).

Further information about the SEDE meeting can be found here.

_______________________

SEDE missions 2025:

• Norway - 27-30 May 2025
• Moldova and Ukraine - 14-17 April 2025
  
• Bosnia and Herzegovina - 24-27 February 2025
• Israel and Palestine - 5-8 February 2025

SEDE missions 2024:

• United Kingdom - 28-30 October 2024
• Ukraine - 25-26 October 2024

SEDE Committee meetings' calendar 2025
EP calendar 2025
SEDE meetings' calendar 2nd half of 2024 - 10th legislature
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP