Amid rising EU-China trade frictions, the Global Times—a Chinese state-linked outlet—published an article on October 15, 2025, titled “Reported EU forced tech transfers from Chinese companies protectionist, discriminatory: Chinese FM.” The piece criticizes alleged EU plans to mandate technology handovers from Chinese firms, labeling them unfair and WTO-violating. But is this portrayal accurate, or laced with spin?
Overview of the Global Times Piece
The article cites Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian‘s October 15, 2025, press briefing response to a Bloomberg report. It frames the EU’s purported measures—requiring non-EU (mainly Chinese) firms to transfer tech, use local goods/labor, and add value in Europe—as protectionist and discriminatory. Expert Jian Junbo from Fudan University echoes this, warning of negative impacts on bilateral ties. Global Times often advances Beijing’s narratives, prompting scrutiny for bias. We cross-checked with EU documents, and the official FM transcript.
Separating Fact from Interpretation
The article’s assertions draw from real events, but interpretations lean heavily toward China’s viewpoint. Here’s the breakdown:
1. EU’s Reported Plan for Forced Tech Transfers
- Claim: The EU plans to force Chinese firms to hand over technology to operate locally, applying to non-EU companies in sectors like cars and batteries; requires using EU goods/labor and adding value on EU soil.
- Verification: Accurate, based on Media’s October 14, 2025, report. The EU is “considering” these measures to boost competitiveness, targeting Chinese investments in key markets. Reuters confirmed similar “pre-conditions” for Chinese investments, including tech transfers. This aligns with the EU’s broader Economic Security Strategy, aiming for a “new doctrine” by end-2025 to mitigate risks from foreign investments. However, it’s not finalized—proposals are expected in November 2025.
- Accuracy Rating: High, though the article omits that it’s preliminary and technically applies to all non-EU firms, not just China.
2. Chinese FM’s Response and Position
- Claim: China opposes “protectionist and discriminatory practices” under the pretext of competitiveness; supports win-win cooperation but rejects forced tech transfers against WTO rules.
- Verification: Directly matches Lin Jian’s official statement from the October 15, 2025, press conference: “We oppose forced technology transfer against WTO rules, interference in companies’ normal operations, and protectionist and discriminatory practices taken under the pretext of enhancing competitiveness.” This echoes China’s consistent stance on reciprocity in trade.
- Accuracy Rating: Fully accurate, verbatim from the transcript.
3. EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic’s Quotes
- Claim: Sefcovic said the EU welcomes FDI if it creates “real value added,” jobs, and transfers tech/IP, mirroring what European firms do in China.
- Verification: Partially accurate but dated. The quotes reference a South China Morning Post article from March 20, 2025, where Sefcovic, ahead of a Beijing visit, emphasized tech transfers for Chinese EV/battery investors to advance EU value chains. No recent Sefcovic quotes appear in the October 2025 Bloomberg report. This suggests the Global Times is linking older statements to frame current proposals as retaliatory.
- Accuracy Rating: Accurate in content, but contextually misleading due to timing.
4. Expert Jian Junbo’s Analysis
- Claim: The plan is “unfair and unreasonable,” violating WTO rules; past tech exchanges were voluntary; could dampen Chinese investment enthusiasm.
- Verification: Jian Junbo, a real Fudan University expert on China-EU relations, is quoted exclusively in the Global Times. His views align with prior comments on EU protectionism. No independent sources confirm these specific remarks, but they fit Beijing’s narrative. EU perspectives highlight reciprocity, noting China’s history of requiring tech transfers from foreign firms.
- Accuracy Rating: Subjective opinion, unverifiable as fact, but consistent with expert’s profile.
No blatant fake news—claims stem from credible reports. However, selective emphasis distorts the full picture.
Inaccuracies and Misrepresentations:
- Overstating Finality: The article treats the EU plan as imminent (“if implemented”), but it’s still under consideration, with no confirmed November proposal details.
- Hypocrisy Omission: Ignores EU arguments for reciprocity, as European firms have long complained of forced tech transfers in China—a point Sefcovic raised in March 2025. This one-sided view misrepresents the debate as EU aggression.
- WTO Violation Claim: Asserts breaches without evidence; experts note such measures could skirt WTO if framed as investment conditions, similar to China’s practices.
- Impact Exaggeration: Warns of negative effects on cooperation, but overlooks how Chinese investments in Europe (e.g., EVs) have grown despite tensions, creating jobs as Jian notes.
These aren’t fabrications but cherry-picked facts, amplifying China’s grievances.
Nationalist Rhetoric and Echo Chamber Quotes
As state media, Global Times deploys propaganda to defend China’s interests:
- Repetitive Slogans: Phrases like “win-win results,” “market principles,” and “protectionist and discriminatory” mirror CCP talking points, portraying China as a fair player.
- One-Sided Expertise: Relies solely on Chinese sources (Lin Jian, Jian Junbo) without EU counterviews, creating an echo chamber. This reinforces domestic patriotism amid trade wars.
- Victimization Theme: Frames the EU as coercive, inverting criticisms often leveled at China (e.g., forced tech transfers in joint ventures). This rallies support by depicting Western “market protectionism” as hypocritical.
- Subtle Nationalism: Highlights Chinese “innovation” and “efforts” in tech advancement, downplaying reliance on foreign know-how, to boost national pride.
The piece serves as soft propaganda, aligning with Beijing’s pushback against “de-risking” strategies.
Shaping a Defensive China vs. Aggressive West
- Adversarial Lens: The title and lead emphasize “forced” and “discriminatory,” framing the EU as the aggressor while China “opposes” peacefully. Photos of Lin Jian add official gravitas.
- Hypothetical Harm: Stresses potential “negative impact” on ties, urging the EU to be “more open,” positioning China as the cooperative victim.
- Historical Revision: Contrasts “voluntary” past exchanges with current “coercion,” ignoring EU complaints about unequal treatment in China.
- Broader Context Omission: Links to EU’s competitiveness drive but skips global backdrop, like US tariffs or China’s subsidies, which fuel these measures.
This framing advances a “wolf warrior” style, appealing to Chinese readers while influencing global discourse.
The Global Times article is grounded in real reports and statements but infused with bias to cast the EU as unfair. No major fake news, yet omissions and framing create a propagandistic narrative typical of state outlets.
